4 ms·
Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think Michigan does this) might be okay. Low income seniors have https://www.sco.ca.gov
by rcpt 7y ago
Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think Michigan does this) might be okay.
Low income seniors have https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html so Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.
- refurb 7y agoJesus Christ. I didn’t know CA already had that law. As you said Prop 13 is absolutely not required. That law basically says if you can’t afford the increases, we’ll bank it. If you can, pay up.
- jnordwick 7y agoThat isn't nearly enough. It only applies to 65+ or with disability who make $35k or less. This is part of the problem is that people are unwilling to compromise. On one side you have those who view even the risk of a single person being displaced by gentrification and rising housing prices as unacceptable. On the other side you have those will accept nothing less than displacing everything. I make enough that I don't care, and I don't really want to live in CA long term (from NYC). But I think a primary residence carve-out that applies to everybody would be a good compromise, but that seems to be a dirty word in CA politics.
- rcpt 7y agoIs $35k not good income for retirement? They already own a house which has gone up in value and have had years to accumulate savings. I lived in Los Angeles for the better part of a decade making less than $35k and it was fine (and I didn't own a house).