For the victims of the devastating wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in January 2025, the road to recovery has been heartbreakingly complex. As we watched homes turn to ashes, one thought was ever-present: how do we support our neighbors as they rebuild their lives? Among several proposed solutions, Assembly Bill 1253 stood out as an opportunity to alleviate some of the financial burden associated with the reconstruction of homes burned to the ground. Yet, somehow, this bill failed to advance through the legislative process, leaving us to ponder the implications of that decision.
AB 1253 was not an attempt to alter existing tax laws recklessly or undermine the protective framework of Proposition 13. On the contrary, it sought to align the rebuilding process with property assessment standards, providing a much-needed lifeline for families who have suffered an unimaginable loss. Under current law, any reconstruction beyond “substantial equivalence” would trigger reassessment—meaning that even as homeowners endeavor to preserve their pre-fire tax base, they could unexpectedly face increasing property taxes due to seemingly minor expansions made during the rebuilding process.
The bill proposed a temporary allowance, recognizing the urgency and unique circumstances of wildfire recovery, which would have allowed homeowners to rebuild up to 110% of their original structure without triggering an unexpected tax increase. This was not just a common-sense solution; it was a compassionate response to the immediate needs of our communities.
As someone committed to assessing properties fairly and equitably, I watched with dismay as AB 1253 was laid to rest in the notorious suspense file of the Assembly Appropriations Committee—an all-too-frequent fate for meaningful legislation. The absence of discussion or a vote is troubling; bills should never languish in obscurity without accountability. An open dialogue is essential in matters that affect our communities, especially those still grappling with the aftermath of disaster.
Critics may argue that AB 1253’s financial implications were concerning. Yet, an in-depth analysis from my office indicated that the possible revenue loss—should every affected property opt to rebuild to the 110% standard—amounted to a mere $5 million, spread out among multiple government agencies, including cities, school, districts, county, government, and special districts. In contrast, the relief offered to homeowners would be incalculable in both financial and emotional terms, allowing them to rebuild without the specter of new tax burdens shadowing their efforts.
My staff and I have worked hard to identify other means of resolving this difference between building code and assessment standards to avoid reassessment of the additional square footage, but any fix will likely require me to apply standards that are inconsistent with well-established and documented policy and practices. This is more troubling because assessors throughout California all operate under the same law, and we strive to be fair, accurate, and equitable in how we assess property across the state. It would be total chaos if the 58 elected county assessors applied the law differently from county to county.
As we strive to support our constituents, let us not lose sight of the victims of such disasters. Assembly Bill 1253 represented an opportunity to ease a burden for families trying to reclaim their lives after loss.
To those in the legislature who advocate for transparency and equitable relief measures, I urge you to reconsider the fate of bills like AB 1253 in the future. Our communities—particularly those who have faced unimaginable trials—deserve better than to have their needs discarded in the shadows. Let us do right by our constituents. The road to recovery should not become an uphill battle mired in confusion and uncertainty.
Jeff Prang is assessor of Los Angeles County