&gt; And you are oversimplifying in a way which is misleading in this discussion: new construction triggers full cash value assessment not limited to the annual 2% increase.<p>1) That&#x27;s why I listed <i>two</i> points, rather than just one. :)<p>2) According to the Alameda County Assessor&#x27;s office, the situation is not as grim as you seem to paint it (for every situation <i>except</i> the &quot;building flattening&quot; situation):<p>&quot;Only the portion of the property which was newly constructed is subject to reassessment at market value. For example, if a family room is added to an existing home, only that portion is reassessed and the existing home will retain its previously established Proposition 13 base year value.&quot; [0]<p>This might <i>partially</i> explain all the damned San Francisco apartments with funky vintage 1970&#x27;s-era single-paned windows. :P<p>&gt; To the extent that they could, where would the sense be in that?<p>To encourage the build-out of housing in an area that has roughly between three and ten new people move in for each new housing unit constructed annually?<p>1) It&#x27;s not like SF is currently <i>starving</i> for cash.<p>2) In the -very, <i>very</i> unlikely- scenario that only the ultra-wealthy, pensioners, and property &quot;investors&quot; occupy San Francisco, what happens to the tax base? What happens to the character of the city?<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acgov.org&#x2F;assessor&#x2F;about_property_assessment&#x2F;new-construction.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acgov.org&#x2F;assessor&#x2F;about_property_assessment&#x2F;new...</a>