Some thoughts from reading the article: 1) The newspaper quoted at the beginning doesn't seem to be talking specifically about a tax savings. It's not quite cl

Some thoughts from reading the article: 1) The newspaper quoted at the beginning doesn't seem to be talking specifically about a tax savings. It's not quite clear, but the snippet implies to me this is some single one time event thing. 2) Given that < 30 year holdings follow the assessments pretty closely, and > 30 year holdings don't, is it possible there are other perhaps larger concerns that affect rental prices of 30+ year old buildings? Roof replacements, HVAC replacements, plumbing fixes, bringing electrical up to code for those things. I would expect that sort of thing acts as a much stronger driver on the cost of rent than the taxes overall once you get to 30+ years old. Yes newly transferred properties might be older as well, but the article doesn't say whether they're comparing age of property too. 3) In the concrete example they give, how much does location make a difference? I don't know much about LA, but I've heard of Sunset Blvd, and the high rent example is a block away from Sunset, where as the other property isn't, but it is located pretty close to a highway with all the traffic noise that entails. 4) Related to location, what about amenities? The higher rent property also appears to have a useable yard, be in the middle of a residential area and appears to be a single unit, where as the one that is used as matching the tax assessments appears by the tax records to be split into 3 units (one multi bedroom and two studios?), and is thus actually 300 sqft smaller than the higher rent property, with no usable yard space and the property itself appears to be just off a commercial zone (the Home Depot across the street) 5) It would be nice to see this analysis done in any of the other HCOL locations in the country without Prop 13 to see how the rents compare.