Correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn’t this scenario also describe handing down family farms? If so, repealing this law could be a terrible double-edged sword. Lots of families could lose the farm when mom and pop die, unable to afford the tax bill.
I could be mistaken but I believe that’s the scenario this law is intended to protect.
A family farm that can't afford 1% of its assessed value doesn't sound like a very viable business.
Over taxation is one of the primary stated reasons some rural Californians are proposing to split the state.[1] So perhaps a solution is to allow farmers to govern themselves and tax land owners appropriately, and big city dwellers to govern themselves, taxing land owners appropriately.
(Note that I don't live in CA so I am neither for nor against. Simply stating facts.)
[1] https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/720c6a07-3594-44b7-8098-94f...
In the former case, are these people are at any competitive disadvantage relative to rural areas of other states?
As for the latter case....well how much sentimentality are you going to attach to land uses from the past? Sure, Silicon Valley is built on some of the highest quality farmland in the country but most of the farms are gone now. If you want to keep whatever few are left there are probably more targeted ways of doing that.