California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer speaks to supporters after a news conference on Thursday in San Francisco. He is proposing a ballot measure that would exempt commercial property from tax limitations in Proposition 13.

California’s gubernatorial race is growing increasingly absurd. 

Progressives are accusing San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who recently jumped into the electoral fray, of being a pawn of the tech billionaires donating heavily to his campaign. Yet some of these same critics of extreme wealth, seemingly oblivious to the irony, are endorsing actual billionaire Tom Steyer, who appears to be solidifying his position as a progressive favorite as he courts the favor of labor unions. 

These contradictions will define the California Democratic Party convention, which began Friday in San Francisco. Ironically, so many Democrats are running for governor that none are expected to achieve enough support to secure the nomination — sharpening concerns that two Republicans could end up advancing to the November general election. 

Article continues below this ad

There was even more irony on Thursday when Steyer held a news conference with labor supporters to call for a future ballot measure to increase property taxes on wealthy corporations. 

The location? The ritzy One Hotel San Francisco on the Embarcadero, where even basic rooms can go for as much as $1,000 a night. 

See more S.F. Chronicle on Google

It was too juicy for me not to check out the scene. But as I headed to the event after hopping off Muni, I was suddenly confronted by a woman ahead of me on the sidewalk, who appeared to be homeless. Out of nowhere, she turned to scream at me — and flung the liquid contents of the container she was carrying across my face. 

I stood there for a moment, too stunned even to speak — briefly stewing in both rage and the uniquely California irony of being assaulted by a homeless person as I made my way to a five-star hotel to watch a billionaire endorse economic populism.

Article continues below this ad

But I didn’t have time to dwell on it. I used my jacket to wipe what I sincerely hoped was water off my face and stepped around the sleek black SUVs purring outside the hotel. 

I made my way across the smooth wood floor of the plush lobby and was ushered into the small, dimly lit room where Steyer was speaking, my hair still wet from the woman’s attack. 

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer speaks during a news conference on Thursday with members of the California School Employees Association, which endorsed him 

Steyer — wearing Nike Air Force Ones with a red swoosh — stood at a podium bearing a sign that read “Close the Trump Tax Loophole.” He was surrounded by a crowd of union members from the California School Employees Association, which recently endorsed him.   

I’ve covered California politics for years, and this was the first I’ve heard of a “Trump tax loophole.”

But Steyer began his remarks by explaining that 555 California St., one of San Francisco’s best-performing office towers, is partially owned by Trump. 

“Even though it’s worth almost $2 billion, it’s been taxed like it’s worth a fraction of that,” Steyer thundered. “Trump and his partners have underpaid Californians by over $200 million … using an old law from 1978.”

That law, of course, is Proposition 13, the voter-approved initiative that capped the state’s property taxes. 

Prop 13 has allowed businesses to avoid paying more than $240 billion in taxes to California since 2012 alone, Steyer argued, which “drains money from our schools and public services and leaves regular Californians to pick up the tab.” 

“It’s time,” he said, “to get the money back for the people of California!”

That’s a message that most voters can get behind, but the details remain conveniently blurry. 

Steyer said that if elected governor, he would push a 2027 ballot measure to exempt commercial property from Prop 13. But when I asked how exactly he plans to structure the measure — and how he would ensure its success after voters rejected a similar measure in 2020 — Steyer’s response was essentially: TBD. 

To me, this vagueness highlights a fundamental contradiction at the core of California politics: This state cannot decide what it thinks about wealth.   

The richest 1% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the income tax collected by the state. That’s some of the most progressive taxation in the country. Yet it also gives the wealthy leverage. If these individuals decide to move, California’s schools and social safety net programs will be blown to shambles. 

In our tortured attempts to wrestle with this uncertainty, we do the most Californian thing possible: Write ballot measures. 

It isn’t just Steyer’s potential 2027 measure. Voters may weigh in this year on a dizzying array of potential tax measures, including a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. This proposal — which has yet to qualify for the ballot — is making everyone bananas. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders rallied in support of it at a crowded rally on Wednesday in Los Angeles, while Gov. Gavin Newsom is rallying his own troops to defeat it. Desperate to avoid the tax, billionaires are shifting their assets to other states and, hilariously, are even considering downgrading themselves to millionaires on paper. They may also fund their own ballot measures to counteract the proposed tax.

Education unions, meanwhile, are focusing their efforts on a ballot measure to make permanent the 2016 initiative known as Prop 55, which increased income taxes on Californians earning more than $250,000 annually to pay for public education and health care. It is set to expire in 2030.

Meanwhile, state legislators are considering their own bevy of bills to tax wealthy companies.

When I asked Steyer about this legislative raft of soak-the-rich proposals, he said he supported them in concept but wanted to wait until details were fully hammered out. (He’s been similarly cagey about whether he supports the wealth-tax ballot measure.)

At a basic level, though, he’s dismissive about alienating members of his own billionaire cohort by asking them to pay more.

“Are people gonna leave? Why would they leave? Give me a break. This is not radical stuff,” Steyer told me.

Steyer’s paradox, of course, is that he’s an interesting contender in the governor’s race precisely because he’s a billionaire. If he weren’t, he would just be another progressive. His wealth creates tension and intrigue.

Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.

Read more about our transparency and ethics policies

But it’s an open question how stable — and sustainable — a state built on a financial and moral paradox can be. 

It certainly didn’t feel stable to me on Thursday, when I was literally and figuratively hit in the face by California’s two extremes in the space of a few minutes. 

Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.

© San Francisco Chronicle