3 ms·

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

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.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Political struggles for marijuana legalization, or same-sex marriage, are examples of deliberate strategies to make a proposal more acceptable over several decades. Most of the people involved expected it to take a long time -- and those who didn't were simply being unrealistic. What we are talking about here, specifically, is a short-term plan to deal with an immediate problem -- housing affordability. It's not the same kind of thing as the examples above. Short-term solutions have to be politically viable now, or in the very near future.
      - abecedarius 10y ago
        You're welcome to a short-term focus, as I said. But this thread started with a long comment about the bigger picture; you answered, briefly and emphatically, that that sort of thinking was just out of bounds. The word 'zero' appeared twice, and again in follow-up, just in case we're slow. Short-term focus is not in undersupply. Our discourse would be improved if people about to respond with that sort of putdown would ask themselves how likely they are to hear back "Hm, yeah, that's a problem that didn't occur to me." -- and if that seems absurd then question why they want to say it, or at least the way they're saying it. This goes especially when shutting down ideas that are probably new to many people in the discussion. Saner collective decision-making matters far more than housing cost, or even (IMO) the bigger struggles you mention. No, I don't expect healthier discourse right away either -- but we can try not adding to the problem.
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.

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.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Political struggles for marijuana legalization, or same-sex marriage, are examples of deliberate strategies to make a proposal more acceptable over several decades. Most of the people involved expected it to take a long time -- and those who didn't were simply being unrealistic. What we are talking about here, specifically, is a short-term plan to deal with an immediate problem -- housing affordability. It's not the same kind of thing as the examples above. Short-term solutions have to be politically viable now, or in the very near future.
    - abecedarius 10y ago
      You're welcome to a short-term focus, as I said. But this thread started with a long comment about the bigger picture; you answered, briefly and emphatically, that that sort of thinking was just out of bounds. The word 'zero' appeared twice, and again in follow-up, just in case we're slow. Short-term focus is not in undersupply. Our discourse would be improved if people about to respond with that sort of putdown would ask themselves how likely they are to hear back "Hm, yeah, that's a problem that didn't occur to me." -- and if that seems absurd then question why they want to say it, or at least the way they're saying it. This goes especially when shutting down ideas that are probably new to many people in the discussion. Saner collective decision-making matters far more than housing cost, or even (IMO) the bigger struggles you mention. No, I don't expect healthier discourse right away either -- but we can try not adding to the problem.

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.