You could call it a form of generational theft, from the 1978 population of California against all future generations to move there. Nordlinger v Hahn (1992)[0

You could call it a form of generational theft, from the 1978 population of California against all future generations to move there. Nordlinger v Hahn (1992)[0] challenged the Constitutionality of this under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They ruled 8-1 that it was (John Paul Stevens dissenting)[1]. Stevens' dissent is worth reading. To excerpt: > These property owners (hereinafter Squires) are guaranteed that, so long as they retain their property and do not improve it, their taxes will not increase more than 2% in any given year. As a direct result of this windfall for the Squires, later purchasers must pay far more than their fair share of property taxes. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1912 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1912 [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1/case.html