[rsync]

"Taxes on equivalent office space and the business it generates are a better source of revenue over time for cities than the fixed taxes from housing. This disincentivizes balanced planning."

I am not sure either of your conjectures are true...

First, "over time" the tax returns from residential and commercial property, even under the prop 13 regime, should even out - since eventually everyone dies or moves out ... eventually all of the residential property changes hands (and resets to current taxation levels).

Second, brand new residential property gets immediately taxed at the current tax rate. So in the very short term that doesn't seem to be (relatively) disincentivized.

I'm oversimplifying, but it would seem that only in the medium term does prop 13 affected residential housing (relatively) underperform commercial property - in terms of (relative) tax receipts.

[kinofcain]

Sure but it's always "medium term": Taxes weren't fixed once, they are fixed at time of house purchase (and some other events).

It would only be revenue neutral if they had raised the absolute rates to make up for the fact that an increasing number of people are paying under the current rate.

[runamok]

Anecdotally I have heard that there are various machinations like shell/holding companies and partnerships which let you functionally prevent the commercial property tax from changing and is very common because the incentives are so large.