5 ms·

Well, I didn't propose either phasing it out or repealing it. I proposed modifying it. That said, I admit I'm not optimistic either, but the way to do it is t

Well, I didn't propose either phasing it out or repealing it. I proposed modifying it. That said, I admit I'm not optimistic either, but the way to do it is to point out how ordinary people in the Valley have been or are being forced out of their homes by rising rents and the generally rising cost of living -- as property values rise, everything becomes more expensive. There's a hardship story there at least as compelling as that of the fixed-income seniors that Prop. 13 was designed to help (at least, that's how it was sold). Bay Area teachers, plumbers, food service workers, etc. etc. etc. surely have as much interest in not being forced to leave as anyone else -- and what's more, the local economy needs them! We can't run a regional economy with only software developers! It's true that Prop. 13 is not the sole cause of the problem. Kim-Mai Cutler [link in my first post] does a great job of analyzing the whole situation (though I guess the Google bus thing has blown over since she wrote it in 2014). But it is one cause, and it may have to be addressed before the problem can be solved. I know that getting people to vote to increase their taxes is exceedingly difficult. But excessive property values behave just like a tax: you can't get out of paying if you live here, and the money is sucked out of the local economy -- it doesn't even go toward local services and infrastructure. The argument is that we'll all ultimately be better off if we build enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. The change I propose is one way to encourage that to happen.

twblalock 10y ago
There is zero chance of modification either, if such modification increases the tax burden for current homeowners. Even homeowners who might have voted in favor of changes in the past won't do so now, given the skyrocketing home prices. To vote for a change would be to do themselves great personal harm. It's obvious that Prop 13 contributes to the problem, but Prop 13 is untouchable. Realistic proposals to make housing affordable do not involve changes to Prop 13.
- ams6110 10y ago
  People vote to raise taxes on themselves all the time. It's all about how it's marketed.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  Dismissals of proposals for being currently politically unrealistic are ubiquitous, and they're usually obvious and boring. Mostly they just add friction against attaining common knowledge of the possibility of alternatives. Someday there will be a crisis, creating a demand for a new policy to replace a discredited status quo, and one will be pulled together in a hurry from the alternatives that are seriously-enough available. (The late 70s when Proposition 13 passed were just that kind of time.) Can't we mostly stick to the object level of judging ideas on their merits? Of course political strategy matters too, but it seems to dominate discussion. It's out of proportion. I'd be much more interested in it in a form like "well, of course that's out of our Overton window right now, but here are some ideas to push things in a better direction."
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    Thank you. I'd say we're pretty close to a crisis already.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    The realistic chances of any political proposal are an important component of its merit.
    - abecedarius 10y ago
      Here's an example of the dynamic I'm complaining about: getting marijuana legalization to where it is today. I read the arguments back in the 1980s, and most of what you can say now was said then. Yet it took decades to get to Colorado from "It's not ever going to happen. You must be some libertarian nerd to think it's worth even mentioning the theoretical possibility. Nerrrrrrd!" The latter part of this dismissal was not so often overt, but the former was inescapable. Do you think it was news to anyone? Did it help or hinder the conversation? Politics is full of emperors' clothes -- topics where some people have doubts, and also uncertainty about what others privately think, and so on recursively. When every conversation gets derailed into meta-talk about realism (i.e. the current public illusion, which everyone can see already), that slows us all down. If you're only interested in what's politically feasible right now, great, and it doesn't bug me when you frame it that way. But saying "I'm not interested in your conversation" doesn't seem like much of a contribution to the conversation, compared to silence, and it's less than that when it shades into "Hey, how out of it are you? Can't you even see that's not gonna happen?" That's public boundary-patrolling, it's not sharing your own perspective. This may be the wrong place to rant about this. You just pushed my button to finally write it out.
- nradov 10y ago
  A modification of Proposition 13 would stand a better chance of passing if it grandfathered in existing owners and only applied to new sales. Obviously that's not really fair, but would forestall some strong opposition.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    It would also reduce the number of people willing to sell their homes, which would be a restriction on supply at a time of unprecedented demand.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  100% agree. It won't change. I'd say the thing that causes greater soaring house prices is the mortgage tax deduction. All that does is cause home prices to inflate because you factor in the tax deduction into the affordability of the house. On the surface it sounds great, but it actually does more harm than good because it causes prices to go higher. But you can't get rid of that now, otherwise house prices across the board will plummet. And the Fed just spent trillions propping up the housing market with ZIRP, there's no way the government will let the housing market fall again.
prostoalex 10y ago
> Bay Area teachers, plumbers, food service workers, etc. etc. etc. surely have as much interest in not being forced to leave as anyone else That argument will work in the Bay Area. But since we're talking about California constitution, why should a voter from Coalinga or San Bernardino (a) vote "yes", (b) potentially see his/her own property bill skyrocket due to the fact that some coastal municipality can't manage its own building permits and/or transportation. A lot of the high-cost-of-living discussion is really low-availability-of-transportation discussion. Would high SF costs be a concern if one could commute in reasonable amount of time from Emeryville, Fairfield, Tracy, Livermore or Marin county?

twblalock 10y ago

There is zero chance of modification either, if such modification increases the tax burden for current homeowners. Even homeowners who might have voted in favor of changes in the past won't do so now, given the skyrocketing home prices. To vote for a change would be to do themselves great personal harm. It's obvious that Prop 13 contributes to the problem, but Prop 13 is untouchable. Realistic proposals to make housing affordable do not involve changes to Prop 13.

ams6110 10y ago
People vote to raise taxes on themselves all the time. It's all about how it's marketed.
abecedarius 10y ago
Dismissals of proposals for being currently politically unrealistic are ubiquitous, and they're usually obvious and boring. Mostly they just add friction against attaining common knowledge of the possibility of alternatives. Someday there will be a crisis, creating a demand for a new policy to replace a discredited status quo, and one will be pulled together in a hurry from the alternatives that are seriously-enough available. (The late 70s when Proposition 13 passed were just that kind of time.) Can't we mostly stick to the object level of judging ideas on their merits? Of course political strategy matters too, but it seems to dominate discussion. It's out of proportion. I'd be much more interested in it in a form like "well, of course that's out of our Overton window right now, but here are some ideas to push things in a better direction."
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Thank you. I'd say we're pretty close to a crisis already.
- twblalock 10y ago
  The realistic chances of any political proposal are an important component of its merit.
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    Here's an example of the dynamic I'm complaining about: getting marijuana legalization to where it is today. I read the arguments back in the 1980s, and most of what you can say now was said then. Yet it took decades to get to Colorado from "It's not ever going to happen. You must be some libertarian nerd to think it's worth even mentioning the theoretical possibility. Nerrrrrrd!" The latter part of this dismissal was not so often overt, but the former was inescapable. Do you think it was news to anyone? Did it help or hinder the conversation? Politics is full of emperors' clothes -- topics where some people have doubts, and also uncertainty about what others privately think, and so on recursively. When every conversation gets derailed into meta-talk about realism (i.e. the current public illusion, which everyone can see already), that slows us all down. If you're only interested in what's politically feasible right now, great, and it doesn't bug me when you frame it that way. But saying "I'm not interested in your conversation" doesn't seem like much of a contribution to the conversation, compared to silence, and it's less than that when it shades into "Hey, how out of it are you? Can't you even see that's not gonna happen?" That's public boundary-patrolling, it's not sharing your own perspective. This may be the wrong place to rant about this. You just pushed my button to finally write it out.
nradov 10y ago
A modification of Proposition 13 would stand a better chance of passing if it grandfathered in existing owners and only applied to new sales. Obviously that's not really fair, but would forestall some strong opposition.
- twblalock 10y ago
  It would also reduce the number of people willing to sell their homes, which would be a restriction on supply at a time of unprecedented demand.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
100% agree. It won't change. I'd say the thing that causes greater soaring house prices is the mortgage tax deduction. All that does is cause home prices to inflate because you factor in the tax deduction into the affordability of the house. On the surface it sounds great, but it actually does more harm than good because it causes prices to go higher. But you can't get rid of that now, otherwise house prices across the board will plummet. And the Fed just spent trillions propping up the housing market with ZIRP, there's no way the government will let the housing market fall again.

prostoalex 10y ago

> Bay Area teachers, plumbers, food service workers, etc. etc. etc. surely have as much interest in not being forced to leave as anyone else That argument will work in the Bay Area. But since we're talking about California constitution, why should a voter from Coalinga or San Bernardino (a) vote "yes", (b) potentially see his/her own property bill skyrocket due to the fact that some coastal municipality can't manage its own building permits and/or transportation. A lot of the high-cost-of-living discussion is really low-availability-of-transportation discussion. Would high SF costs be a concern if one could commute in reasonable amount of time from Emeryville, Fairfield, Tracy, Livermore or Marin county?