Only voters can. Directly. At the ballot box.
So don’t hold your breath. Any other remedy wouldn’t really be legal nor legitimate because of the nature of ballot initiatives, particularly ones that amend the State constitution.
Proposition 13 is sitting on top of a long pile of ballot-passed laws that have over time convinced me the entire ballot initiative process is actually a mistake and primarily enables bad but popular laws.
It is also arguably un-American. I thought the whole idea of having a representative government was so the common citizen didn't have to deal with the tedium of actually governing, so we elect people to govern in our stead. The fact the us Californians were expected to have opinions on props related to dialysis clinics in 2018[1], 2020[2], and 2022[3] should be a prime example of this. I have no idea what those props were supposed to do. All I know is the only reason I am being asked to weigh in on them is because someone with money was finding it too hard to pass whatever law they wanted through the legislature, so they tried to circumvent the normal legislative process by coming to us directly.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_Proposition_8
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_23
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_Proposition_29
Or all the renters can get together and decide to screw over the owners; fuck 'em 'cause they're old anyway. That's certainly a possibility. However, expect your children to treat you the same way.
Everyone who says this is pushing a false dichotomy. The two solutions are not "create a landed gentry who pass preferential tax rates to their genetic offspring" and "kick grandma to the curb and throw sand in her face while twirling your mustache".
Many other states have allowances/exemptions for a single owner-occupied "homestead" to prevent older people from losing their homes. Just copy their homework. Under those schemes you don't stop owing property taxes, but (with some variations) you can defer them until you sell the property or pass away. And it is beyond sick (and anti-American and probably unconstitutional) that the Prop 13 tax preference can be inherited by children and grandchildren.
The only "problem" with those schemes (from the perspective of Prop 13 proponents) is that they do not allow the creation of a class of "petite nobility".
I feel for the grandmas who want to live in the same place forever and also did not get educations so were left behind. It was a complicated time. Everyone deserves a community, but maybe not the same community.
> "petite nobility"
The guilded professionals are the petite nobility. The parents of the students in these articles: like, they had a choice. They could fund their schools better and they chose not to. And given that same choice, those same students, they are now adults, and again, they choose not to. Which community do you want to be a part of?
It has 40 million residents (who cares if they're citizens or owners or not) - for $2075 per person.
Take another state (I won't even use New Jersey as the highest) - revenue in Texas: $73.5 billion. Population in 2021: 30 million - 2450. Slightly higher, but not much. Texas has no income tax.
Let's take Illinois: $33.8 billion - population in 2020: 13 million - 2600.
I don't think California's woes can be adequately explained by Prop 13.
However, you could fix most of the problem by making commercial property no longer subject to Prop 13.
[1] https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/Raw-Data/Property-Tax-Raw-Da...
[2] https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/docs/96-172...
I don't think its that hard.
> You can't just shut it off suddenly or even gradually over a decade because people will lose their homes en masse
Eliminate the 2% per annum assessment increase limit entirely for properties transferred after the date of the change. In
Phase it out gradually for other properties but, for owner-occupied primary residences (covered or not) apply the original 2% limit formula as a limit on nondeferrable property tax, allowing deferment of the excess with the state acquiring, in lieu of payment, an interest in the property in proportion to the ratio of the deferred amount to the assessed value (the full tax should decrease as the state acquires interest, but the limit on the non-deferrable amount should not), which the owner can repurchase on the same bases any time before or at transfer.
You could even add an additional limit so that the nondeferrable amount increases at the lowest of 2% or the rate of inflation or (and this is the new bit the owners average annual rate of increase in taxable income over the preceding three year period.)
Seniors don't get forced out of their homes (and not just during a transitional period), and taxes are assessed at full value, and commercial, industrial, and vacation real estate stops getting taxpayer subsidies “justified” by stories about fixed-income senior homowners being forced out of their home.
Some things in policy are hard, but lots of time “its too hard” is really “I don't want to do it, but can't argue against it directly.”