California needs to fix Prop 13, but Tom Steyer’s plan has a fatal flaw
Tom Steyer is spending heavily to shape the gubernatorial contest while pitching a high-profile fix to Prop 13 that he says would make corporations pay their fair share. The campaign’s recent cash infusion and the policy’s potential economic trade-offs make this a pivotal moment for voters weighing reform against practical impacts.
Tom Steyer’s spending surge and polling bump
Steyer has injected large sums into his bid, with recent campaign filings showing another $28. 5 million brought his personal total to $66. 7 million. Earlier contributions to the effort included $9. 3 million this January and $28 million last year to kick off an aggressive ad campaign. That pace of spending has prompted comparisons to a longstanding state spending record of $144 million for a gubernatorial campaign, a mark his team is on track to challenge if he advances out of the primary.
The cash has coincided with measurable movement in voter support since the campaign launch in November. A recent poll placed Steyer at roughly 10% in the field, behind other prominent Democrats who registered in the low teens. By contrast, some rivals have raised far less: one cited fundraising total was $6 million for a second-place Democratic fundraiser, while another leading Democrat had reported about $3. 1 million.
Even with the uptick, observers warn the candidacy remains outside clear frontrunner status and that the crowded field could produce unintended consequences under the state’s nonpartisan top-two primary format. Several non-Democratic candidates are polling at or near the top of the field, heightening concern that multiple lower-polling Democratic contenders could split the vote.
Prop 13 proposal: what Tom Steyer is proposing and why critics say it falters
Central to Steyer’s message is a proposal to modify Prop 13 so commercial property could be assessed at market value rather than the historic system’s capped increases. He has framed the change as distinguishing between large and small businesses and described a roughly 1% property tax as a modest adjustment that would close what he calls a tax loophole for commercial real estate.
Critics raise a two-part objection rooted in predictable economic mechanics and practical governance. First, increasing the cost of doing business typically filters through to higher prices and slower economic growth, even if government revenues rise. Second, proposals tied to rent control and other short-term measures invite questions about execution: if rental caps are intended as temporary relief, the historical difficulty of delivering the promised surge in housing construction means those temporary measures risk becoming permanent, with long-term negative consequences for supply and investment.
Those critiques frame the argument that, while the intent of reform may be righteous, the implementation risks are substantial without a detailed plan to prevent price increases and ensure a reliable expansion of housing supply. Observers note that rhetoric around fairness and wealthy payback must be matched by concrete mitigation for businesses and renters that could face new costs.
What's next and what to watch
The contest now hinges on whether heavy personal spending can translate into sustained voter support and whether the proposition-fix pitch can survive scrutiny over economic impacts. Watch for continued fundraising disclosures, shifting polling numbers as the field evolves, and more detailed policy rollouts that either shore up or deepen concerns about the Prop 13 proposal.
For voters and stakeholders, the key questions are practical: will proposed commercial tax changes be narrowly tailored to avoid broad price effects, and can promises to pair short-term rent relief with a credible plan to build housing actually be fulfilled? Those answers will determine whether the reform idea moves from campaign rhetoric to a viable path for state policy.
