California lawmakers are advancing a sweeping package of property tax legislation that could bring major changes to how homes and businesses are taxed across the state. Pitched as solutions to housing shortages, infrastructure needs, and climate concerns, the proposals are raising alarm among taxpayer groups and property rights advocates — especially as many of the bills begin moving through key legislative checkpoints.
The push, led by Democratic lawmakers, includes constitutional amendments and statewide tax expansions. While some bills are stalled or still under committee review, others are gaining traction and could appear on local ballots or become law in the next legislative cycle.
Lower Voter Thresholds for Local Taxes
- ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) is one of the farthest along — it passed the Assembly and is currently in the State Senate. If enacted, it would reduce the required voter approval for local bonds and special taxes for infrastructure and affordable housing from two-thirds down to 55%. Supporters say this is necessary to get stalled projects moving. Critics argue it weakens Prop 13’s voter protections.
- ACA 13 (Ward) passed the Legislature in 2023 and was headed to the 2024 ballot before being pulled. The proposal would make it harder for future initiatives to tighten tax rules by requiring them to meet the same higher vote thresholds they seek to impose — effectively blocking future attempts to expand Prop 13 protections. While shelved for now, it could return.
Targeting Vacant and High-Value Properties
- AB 288 (Rivas), currently in Assembly committees, would authorize local governments to impose up to a 5% real estate transfer tax on home and property sales. The bill is facing pushback from real estate industry groups and fiscal conservatives warning of downstream effects on housing prices and small investors.
- SB 584 (Limón) has advanced from committee in the Senate. It would impose a new statewide property tax surcharge on second homes and vacant residences — similar to measures passed locally in San Francisco and Berkeley.
- SB 555 (Cortese), which would create new tax mechanisms for underutilized commercial properties based on land-use efficiency, has been held in committee. It’s not dead, but momentum stalled — likely due to business backlash and economic concerns.
Chipping Away at Prop 13’s Legacy
- SB 67 (Becker) is still active in Senate committees. It would increase the frequency of property tax assessments for commercial and industrial properties, potentially raising tax bills by updating valuations more often than currently allowed under Prop 13.
- AB 1003 (Ward) is in the early stages. It would establish a new state agency to study “equity” in property taxation and make recommendations — a step seen by some as laying the groundwork for broader reform or dismantling of Prop 13 protections over time.
- AB 1331 (Friedman) is also moving through Assembly committees. It would enable regional housing agencies to fund operations through local property tax increases — a shift that would give taxing authority to new quasi-governmental entities, raising questions about accountability.
Local Climate and Infrastructure Taxes
- SB 98 (Wiener) has passed initial votes and would give local governments more authority to levy parcel taxes for infrastructure and climate adaptation projects — potentially with fewer voter approval requirements than current law.
As the summer session heats up, so does the debate over whether these bills represent necessary modernization or a calculated tax grab. While each bill has its own path, together they paint a clear picture: California’s long-held protections for property owners — particularly under Prop 13 — are facing their most coordinated legislative challenge in decades.
Lawmakers have defended the proposals as essential tools to address crises in housing and climate resilience. Critics argue they would pile new costs onto working Californians, small businesses, and homeowners already stretched thin.
Whether these measures reach ballots or are enacted through legislative channels, they reflect a high-stakes shift in how California views — and taxes — property.
