Democrats' new California gubernatorial frontrunner, Tom Steyer, puts out a crazed, nutty platform

Now that Eric Swalwell has crashed and burned as the Democrats' front-runner for governor of California, greenie billionaire and perennial presidential candidate Tom Steyer has been put forward as the new Favored One, according to the party's Mighty Integral.

Looks like the idea is that the bulk of Swalwell's voters go to Steyer, it lifts him past Bianco in the primary, and Steyer beats Hilton in the General.

This is why the Dems took out Swalwell. Every… https://t.co/iW2tNPdzP0 — Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) April 13, 2026

He's been eager enough for it, running millions of dollars of television ads, often featuring young people, who call Steyer 'my man' and other cozy terms. Steyer himself mouths platitudes about 'affordability' and other Democrat shibboleths since the election of Zohran Mamdani, who used the term, and then he sometimes lays out his promise to make electricity prices go 25 percent lower, and build a million houses, which should make ... someone ... rich. But nothing else really comes out of him, other than his craving for power.

He calls for a million new units of government housing to be built, in the name of making housing 'affordable' for that lucky million, ending Proposition 13 which protects little-guy homeowners as the prices of their homes go up, lowering electrical bills by breaking up monopolies as he puts it, providing state-education from age three through two years of community college, interfering with ICE agents doing their jobs, which he can't legally do, saddle businesses with oodles of new green regulations guaranteed to make prices go up, not down, and institute Canada-style single-payer health care, bound to create shortages and long waiting times

What is “rent control” - it sets a government fixed/authorized limit on rent increases on all units that come under the rent control law. Does rent control always cover all rental units in a jurisdiction? No. Rent control laws most often define some limited set of rental units in a jurisdiction.

So who actually benefits - the incumbents occupying the legally covered rental units at the time. They become “grandfathered” into the rent control scheme, and because of that have great incentive to not move, at all, for as long as possible.

Who loses? The folks who lose are newcomers coming into the market who encounter a supply for market-rated rental units has, by law, been shrunk, with the laws of supply and demand making the open market rents artificially higher.

Prop 13 did exactly the same thing. Incumbent homeowners were incentivized to not move, for as long as possible. And as inflation alone hit localities and counties, but Prop 13 limited the possible property tax increases for those already owning/buying their property, where did/do localities and counties go for additional revenue. The hit the new - just bought - homeowners, as the full affect of Prop 13 does not apply to the new homeowner. There is no “fairness” in Prop 13. It is neither fair nor equitable. If you bought a house today on a nice neighborhood street in California, and that house was near the same as some other houses on the street and had the near same market value, your property taxes will not be the same as for those other houses. Their houses have been grandfathered into the Prop 13 protection racket. You will likely pay thousands if not tens of thousands more in property taxes than your same street neighbors occupying houses near the same as yours.

Why does California have an “affordability” problem in housing? Prop 13 is part of it. The open market for houses is truncated by the “grandfathered” affects of Prop 13. Incumbents pay the lowest taxes and new buyers pay the most. Many California home owners don’t sell and move to somewhere else in California because as new homeowners they’ll get hit with the higher property taxes on their new place. Financially it is better off the not move, not sell.

Proposition 13 harms the California housing market by restricting supply and creating market inefficiencies. It triggers a “lock-in” effect where homeowners avoid moving to keep low taxes, lowers housing inventory, encourages holding vacant land, and causes high development impact fees that increase overall housing costs.

How Prop 13 Impacts the Housing Market

Lock-in Effect (Low Inventory): Because property taxes are pegged to the purchase price (limited to a 2% annual increase) rather than current market value, residents are discouraged from selling, as moving would trigger a higher tax rate based on new, higher home prices. This severely restricts supply, making it harder for prospective buyers to find homes.

Encourages Vacant/Underutilized Land: Prop 13 makes it relatively inexpensive for owners to hold onto vacant or underutilized land (such as commercial strip malls) even in hot markets, as taxes do not rise with the land’s development potential.

High Development Fees: Because property tax revenue is limited, municipalities often rely on high “impact fees” on developers to fund infrastructure for new housing. These costs are passed on to homebuyers and renters, further inflating housing prices.

Inequality in Homeownership: Long-term homeowners pay significantly lower taxes compared to new homeowners, creating an uneven playing field and making it harder for younger generations and new residents to afford homes.

While intended to protect homeowners from rapidly rising taxes, these constraints are widely considered to contribute to California’s chronic housing shortage and affordability crisis.

Prop 13 is not the only problem - fees on builders in general, zoning and myriad housing regulations also contribute to the problem. But admitting those problems cannot deny the market problem caused by Prop 13, which, in terms of markets, operates a lot like rent control does.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.