Most of what you say is true and became so AFTER the passage of Prop. 13. Which goes to prove that Prop. 13 limited neither overall taxes nor spending. It did shift a lot of stuff around.

It’s easier for things like pension abuse and HSR to occur when voters who could do something about it lack the motivation to do so; because, thanks to Prop. 13, they have no skin in the game and do not face any direct consequences from that abuse.

Year 2000-12.2 million jobs in the private sector
Year 2012-11.9 million jobs in the private sector
We are losing Jobs!

1/3rd of national welfare recipients live in the Golden State.

Over 10% unemployment. 2nd highest in the nation.

2011; On reading and Math tests California 8th graders outscored Mississippi and DC to take the 48th spot overall.

Over the past 10 years an average of 225,000 people per year left California to live in other states.

Dead last in S&P credit rating.

High Speed Rail, just signed a union only contract. Suprise!Excluding 80% of the bidders will raise the price.

Pension abuse so bad that it would make a mobster blush!

Lack of Revenue is not the problem. I would even venture to say that spending is not the problem. A Bad Corrupted Government that has catered to ideology and special interest is the true culprit. We have to stop feeding the beast, or one day we will all be consumed by its avaricious appetite.

Another unintended consequence is that it concentrated power of the purse strings, especially for school financing, in Sacramento. Even the Howard Jarvis folks acknowledge that was not a good thing.

If Prop. 13 were changed in a way that treated rental housing as “commercial,” they would need to make special allowances for people whose properties are subject to rent control.

Time has borne me out on this one. As homes change hands they are reassessed but large properties either don’t change hands that often and/or it’s done in a way to avoid reassessment.

Consequently, a greater proportion of the tax burden has shifted to the homeowner.

I’m against split roll if it means that “commercial” property would be treated differently from owner-occupied residential property and exposed to annual reassessment. However, commercial property is already treated differently from owner-occupied residential in the sense that property owned by corporations can change hands many times through stock transactions without ever being subject to reassessment. Also, we already have a “fragmented roll” system of sorts in that no two properties of comparable market value are taxed the same.

I don’t think Prop. 13 has done diddly-squat to control the overall tax burden in California, to control spending, to control indebtedness, or to benefit the economy. The trajectory on all those metrics since Prop. 13 was passed would suggest just the opposite is true. And I would argue that Prop. 13 has been harmful in all those categories.

@Bruce Peterson: Yes I, too, recall people getting taxed out their homes in the 1970′s. It’s a fact higher taxes accompany higher spending levels — the debt piles up even as spending accelerates.

Absent Prop 13, California’s fiscal situation would be far worse today.

Prop 13 is an obstacle to those who favor bigger government and higher taxes — it gets in the way of those pursuits.

The split roll would be a net negative for California’s economy and would result in higher government spending and more debt. Not a good outcome.

I voted no.