Jeff Prang: When the Legislature failed fire victims, local government stepped in
The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Los Angeles and Ventura Counties did more than destroy homes. They upended lives, displaced families, and forced thousands of residents into a rebuilding process that is complex, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. In the aftermath of such loss, government has a simple obligation: do not make recovery harder than it already is.
That principle was at the heart of a legislative bill that I sponsored, Assembly Bill 1253, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, D-Burbank.
AB 1253 was a narrowly tailored, temporary proposal designed to align emergency rebuilding standards with long-standing property tax assessment rules. It would have allowed wildfire victims to rebuild homes up to 110-percent of their original size without triggering a reassessment and an unexpected property tax increase. This modest flexibility recognized a basic reality: modern building, fire, and environmental codes often require changes in design, layout, or square footage that go beyond a strict “like-for-like” replacement.
The bill did not weaken Proposition 13. It did not create a loophole. It did not reward overbuilding. It simply acknowledged that families rebuilding after a disaster should not be penalized for complying with updated safety standards that were established under the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation issued to help wildfire victims.
Yet AB 1253 never received a vote. It was placed on the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s suspense file and quietly died there, without debate, without public accountability, and without offering wildfire victims any clarity about what awaited them.
The fiscal rationale for shelving the bill was never persuasive. My office analyzed the potential revenue impact and found that even if every eligible homeowner rebuilt to the 110 percent threshold, the total statewide impact would be approximately $5 million, spread across a multitude of counties, cities, school districts, and special districts. Against the scale of the disaster, that figure is negligible. Against the burden placed on individual families, it is meaningless.
When the Legislature declined to act, the underlying problem did not disappear. Homeowners were still rebuilding. Confusion persisted. Misinformation circulated. And without guidance, some families faced the prospect of higher property taxes simply for restoring what they had lost.
That is why I issued an administrative directive clarifying how my office will apply existing law.
Under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 70(c), property owners who rebuild after a disaster may retain their original assessed value if the replacement structure is “substantially equivalent” to the one destroyed. The statute does not define that term. For decades, assessors across California have exercised reasonable and uniform judgment in applying it, guided by State Board of Equalization (BOE) advice, local building standards, and the factual circumstances of each rebuild.
My directive interprets “substantially equivalent” to include rebuilt homes up to 110-percent of the original square footage in wildfire-impacted areas. This is not arbitrary. It mirrors Los Angeles County’s own zoning and disaster recovery ordinances, which already permit rebuilds up to 110-percent to accommodate modern code requirements. It is also consistent with BOE guidance recognizing that modest increases may be justified by changes in building codes, safety standards, labor costs, or environmental regulations, so long as there is a rational basis.
I do not take lightly the fact that this approach departs from past practices and earlier guidance. Assessors statewide operate under the same laws and consistency matters. But fairness matters more. The law was never intended to punish disaster victims, and rigid interpretations that ignore real-world rebuilding requirements undermine both equity and public trust.
This policy does not open the door to abuse. Homes that substantially exceed their original footprint or value will still be reassessed. It simply ensures that families who rebuild responsibly, within clearly defined limits, are not hit with surprise tax bills at the very moment they are trying to recover.
Good government is not just about following precedent. It is about exercising judgment, especially when extraordinary circumstances demand it.
The Legislature had an opportunity to resolve this issue cleanly and uniformly through AB 1253. It chose not to. Faced with that inaction, I chose clarity over confusion, compassion over rigidity, and recovery over bureaucracy.
Fire victims deserve nothing less.
Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Prang has been in office since 2014.