3 ms·

You know, it would be much more palatable, and much more likely to pass, if instead of phasing out prop 13 entirely, we carved out an exemption for people who o

You know, it would be much more palatable, and much more likely to pass, if instead of phasing out prop 13 entirely, we carved out an exemption for people who only owned one property which was a single-family dwelling. Prop 13 is an important protection for a lot of people on fixed incomes who are also very vulnerable to being displaced from their housing in this high growth state. Kicking seniors out of the homes they’ve spent most of their life in isn’t a very ethical thing to do.

t-writescode 7y ago
What's the percentage of people using it because they're poor, vs using it because it's cheap? At what point do the needs of society overrule the housing needs of the individual? The elderly person will end up a serious multi-millionaire by the end of this in most cases.
mdorazio 7y ago
You'd be carving out an exemption for ~55% of homes. See [1] and [2]. I don't think that really solves the problem, either, because you're still punishing people who want to move to California and disincentivizing new home construction. It would be better than what we have today, though. [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/housing-statistics-237 https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/housing-statistics-... [2] https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-rate-of-homeownership-2/30161/ https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-rate-of-homeowne...
- riversflow 7y ago
  >You’d be carving out an exception for ~55% of homes. I don’t think so. Your stats [1] are just for percent of all dwellings, many of those homes are owned by large corporations that then lease them out. If you limited it owning a single home, I think it would be significantly less, more like a 25% exemption by volume(probably less by value) this is backed up by [2] which says home ownership is around 56%. I’m fairly sure more individuals/families than you’d think own more than one home in the state.

t-writescode 7y ago

What's the percentage of people using it because they're poor, vs using it because it's cheap? At what point do the needs of society overrule the housing needs of the individual? The elderly person will end up a serious multi-millionaire by the end of this in most cases.

mdorazio 7y ago

You'd be carving out an exemption for ~55% of homes. See [1] and [2]. I don't think that really solves the problem, either, because you're still punishing people who want to move to California and disincentivizing new home construction. It would be better than what we have today, though. [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/housing-statistics-237 https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/housing-statistics-... [2] https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-rate-of-homeownership-2/30161/ https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-rate-of-homeowne...

riversflow 7y ago
>You’d be carving out an exception for ~55% of homes. I don’t think so. Your stats [1] are just for percent of all dwellings, many of those homes are owned by large corporations that then lease them out. If you limited it owning a single home, I think it would be significantly less, more like a 25% exemption by volume(probably less by value) this is backed up by [2] which says home ownership is around 56%. I’m fairly sure more individuals/families than you’d think own more than one home in the state.