3 ms·
In California, I would eliminate Prop 13 for landlords (which would increase teacher salaries 20%-30%). To me, that's a no-brainer. The other no-brainer is decr
by jra6 10y ago
In California, I would eliminate Prop 13 for landlords (which would increase teacher salaries 20%-30%). To me, that's a no-brainer. The other no-brainer is decreasing political barriers to additional density.
Everything else requires trade-offs.
- If you allow educator salaries to track property values instead of CPI, you create massive inequities between school districts. Maybe a regional inflation index that includes housing costs?
- If you raise salaries, you have to raise taxes.
- If you build teacher-specific housing, you're just passing the buck to the next profession.
Regardless of all the above, I think you'll need mechanisms for people to share the investment risks of expensive land ownership. I'm not sure mortgage insurance is the best mechanism -- hence Landed.
- milesrout 10y agoEven if salaries for teachers teaching at schools in rich and poor areas are the same, the best teachers will gravitate as much as possible towards richer schools, and who can really blame them? This is already a problem, everywhere in the world. Allowing teachers to make more money doing easier work in an easier environment because housing prices are higher is a terrible idea. At the same time, teachers have to be able to afford to live in areas they're teaching in. Combining the above two, teacher salaries really need to rise across the board.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago"If you raise salaries, you have to raise taxes" This is not necessarily true, as the assessed value of all land in the area is "increased", additional tax revenue is gained without "raising" taxes. As assessed values fall, the chances of a budget shortfall increase. To me, increase density as a solution to affordability, is as effective as adding additional highway lanes to reduce traffic congestion.