3 ms·
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 peo
by 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.