I don't have strong feelings about prop 13, but what does it limit here? It's not like it's sane to arbitrarily raise property taxes during a recession (make housing even less affordable at the moment people have less money to spend). Seems like prop 13 or not, the solution is the one you identified in your last paragraph: maintain a buffer that can't be touched until a recession is declared (for some reasonable, objective definition of "recession").
Prop 13 makes it nearly impossible to raise any tax (state or local) including one to fund a buffer or rainy day fund. Prop 8 makes it possible to get a reduction in property tax as values go down. Prop 98 makes it impossible to claw back funds spent on K-12 stuff.
The comment I replied to claims Cali has an $80B surplus. Seems like there's plenty there for a rainy day fund. Anyway, whether or not you can raise taxes is pretty immaterial to a rainy day fund--it's just a matter of whether or not it's prioritized. If California can't prioritize said fund now, then it wouldn't be able to do so with prop13 (it would just find other uses for the revenue).
I think that buffer would be even less popular. I can imagine the attack ads already - "California has the highest tax rates and they're not even spending it! Your tax dollars are sitting idle in the hands of <evil bank name of the week>"
Property values are usually not affect by recessions, 2008 being the exception, and thus income from property taxes is not affected as much. Income is more affected by recession.
If prop13 is repealed California could raise larger percent of its budget from property taxes as opposed to income taxes, and it would help with variations of tax income.
So you're saying it's like medieval lords, extract the same tax regardless of economic circumstance. That can be done without the roundabout via real estate.
