Eliminating Prop 13 is DOA, because too many homeowners would end up homeless. Also, looked at objectively, it doesn't interfere with "value capture" where new development occurs - unless it's commercial property, the full value of the new development is taxed. Cities have long figured out, also, how to add assessment and other special districts to an area to reap funding for enhancement activities - if there are enough large properties in the area it's easy to get such things passed since they only requires a majority of the land value to pass. The main thing they're crying in their beer about is loss of redevelopment agencies, which might have been well-intentioned but worked as money-laundering schemes from Day One.

The most realistic gripe about Prop 13 is that businesses (especially corporate landownders) have several loopholes that allow transfers without upgrading the value. Homeowners don't have that, so residential property pays the majority of property tax now while commercial did before Prop 13. I suspect a split roll *would* pass if sold correctly.

Otherwise, the interview seemed to me like planning word salad, with a few nods toward the various causes. I'm encouraged that Dumbarton made it into the salad.