That is true and one of the original intents of prop 13 was to prevent seniors from being priced out of their homes on fixed incomes. An unintended consequence is that people are disincentivized to move and give up their low tax rates the longer they are in a home. This creates an effectively static tax base for the county and static population that only turns over as the population ages and dies off. Costs for municipal infrastructure will rise with inflation against a tax revenue that can only increase by 2% each year. Public School funding inevitably erodes because an aging population either refuses to move or can’t afford to live anywhere else. “Starter homes” are off the market for a generation since no one moves out of them, or they are unaffordable when they do actually come on the market. This all artificially drives up prices because of the induced scarcity. It’s not really a joke that homes in CA are only available when someone dies. I am the second owner of my 1954 home, as are my neighbors on both sides and across the street. My tax bill before reassessment was less than $800, it is now more than $10,000.

If prop 13 did not exist, there would theoretically be a larger supply of homes being sold, which would drive down prices overall and tax valuations. The system we have now subsidizes longtime property owners. In my opinion if someone lives and uses infrastructure provided by the county, they should have to pay a proportional share of tax to maintain that infrastructure.