4 ms·

> It's basically a lie, and there's no actual data to suggest that California house sales are drastically lower because of Prop 13. There is real research and

by rcpt 7y ago

> It's basically a lie, and there's no actual data to suggest that California house sales are drastically lower because of Prop 13. There is real research and data backing my statement. This kind of stuff has been published in serious economics journals for years now. There's no reason to rely on back-of-the-envelope estimates of housing turnover. Please take a look: https://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html https://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html

hellisothers 7y ago
“From 1970 to 2000, the average tenure of California homeowners and renters increased by 1.04 and .79 years relative to that of homeowners and renters in the control states. These figures represent increases in average tenure of 10 percent and 19 percent, respectively.” 10% for homeowners, hardly the smoking gun.
ping_pong 7y ago
Adding a year of house ownership equates to "lock in"? That's hogwash and you know it. It's obvious that the so-called Prop 13 effects are total BS. You would expect a much more pronounced effect but the per capita number of house sales are in line with other states without Prop 13. There is zero evidence that Prop 13 is the cause of home prices skyrocketing. Do some people have a massive advantage? Sure, just like everything else. But I prefer to have property tax stability because as I get older, if I get priced out of my house because I can't afford my property tax because Googlers and Facebook employees are raising the house prices, that would be completely unfair.
zamfi 7y ago
I appreciate the data here, but this is a pretty weak argument. It’s not clear how an extra year of ownership between sales would cause home prices to skyrocket, especially compared with the dramatic imbalance between new development and in-migration to California’s urban centers! SF, for example, built 24k new units since 2010, but added 83k new people. I’m willing to bet that more than 83k people would’ve moved in had SF built more housing!

by rcpt 7y ago

hellisothers 7y ago

“From 1970 to 2000, the average tenure of California homeowners and renters increased by 1.04 and .79 years relative to that of homeowners and renters in the control states. These figures represent increases in average tenure of 10 percent and 19 percent, respectively.” 10% for homeowners, hardly the smoking gun.

ping_pong 7y ago

Adding a year of house ownership equates to "lock in"? That's hogwash and you know it. It's obvious that the so-called Prop 13 effects are total BS. You would expect a much more pronounced effect but the per capita number of house sales are in line with other states without Prop 13. There is zero evidence that Prop 13 is the cause of home prices skyrocketing. Do some people have a massive advantage? Sure, just like everything else. But I prefer to have property tax stability because as I get older, if I get priced out of my house because I can't afford my property tax because Googlers and Facebook employees are raising the house prices, that would be completely unfair.

zamfi 7y ago

I appreciate the data here, but this is a pretty weak argument. It’s not clear how an extra year of ownership between sales would cause home prices to skyrocket, especially compared with the dramatic imbalance between new development and in-migration to California’s urban centers! SF, for example, built 24k new units since 2010, but added 83k new people. I’m willing to bet that more than 83k people would’ve moved in had SF built more housing!