Chair Gaines and members of the State Board of Equalization heard repeated concerns on Oct. 22 from county assessors about aspects of Proposition 19, especially how its intergenerational transfer provisions affect heirs and county revenues.

San Francisco Assessor Joaquin Torres told the board that his office and others continue to receive questions and complaints about how base‑year value transfers and intergenerational transfers apply. "There is still angst and confusion around support generally for the base year value transfer," Torres said, adding that the intergenerational transfer rules have produced "fairness" concerns in high‑cost counties such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Why it matters: Proposition 19 changed who can transfer a lower tax base and when; assessors said the measure’s intergenerational component was central to the measure’s fiscal calculus and that reversing or changing it would create a major budget question at the state level. "That still is gonna be the rub," Torres said, referring to how to offset lost revenue if the intergenerational rule were amended.

Several assessors said a legislative fix would be difficult because the intergenerational provision was written to offset other revenue changes in Prop 19. "If the average person knew that that intergenerational transfer was in Prop 19, it never would have passed," said Jeff Prang, president of the California Assessors Association. He and others urged study of narrowly targeted changes rather than undoing the entire measure. "Maybe we need to come up with a new initiative that just talks about the transfer, intergenerational transfer," Prang said.

Assessors also noted technical implementation issues: questions about the statute of limitations for challenging market‑value determinations tied to Prop 19 and continuing taxpayer confusion about eligibility and timing. The board and assessors discussed possible pathways: a new legislative measure, a ballot initiative, or targeted statutory changes paired with an outreach campaign. As one assessor put it, the political and financial obstacles mean any change will require a substantial, coordinated effort.

The discussion did not produce a board action or vote. Members and assessors agreed to continue conversations in 2026, including working with the assessors association and legislative stakeholders to explore options and timing.