3 ms·
I guess that makes sense if your goal is to use land most efficiently. Not sure that what is most important though.
by eweise 6y ago
I guess that makes sense if your goal is to use land most efficiently. Not sure that what is most important though.
- gkop 6y agoAgreed, it's a balance. I think replacing prop 13 with taxes deferable until sale would be a good step in the right direction.
- rcpt 6y agoThe existing lock in effect of 13 would be orders of magnitude stronger. Nobody would ever sell and prices would skyrocket.
- gkop 6y agoHuh? Eventually the current owners will die
- rcpt 6y agoYes but there are places in the world where the house you buy when you're 30 isn't the one with your deathbed. Ideally living people will move out and make room for the next generation when they no longer have use for 4 bedrooms in a good school district close to jobs.
- gkop 6y agoAre you satisfied with the status quo in California, or do you think we can do better?
- rcpt 6y agoObviously we can do better. And the best way to go about it is to end Prop 13 in it's entirety immediately.
- gkop 6y agoGreat. So to get that rolling, split roll obviously was a great first step, that unfortunately failed. But we should try again. Beyond split roll, do you have ideas to 1) protect people that would be harmed by an immediate rollback of 13 and 2) build the political coalition to get it done?
- rcpt 6y ago1) these people hit a huge jackpot I don't care to "protect" them at all. We already have the CA tax postponment program for low income seniors anyway. 2) no. As long as California is a direct democracy the law will stay. Even Prop 15 failed so any chance of reform through the existing process is doomed. Justice Stevens echos this point here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html I suppose that maybe with billions of lobbying and ad spend we could Prop 22 a repeal through but even then I doubt it. The only way I see it happening is if the courts strike it down as unconstitutional. Equal protection is applied stronger on issues of race and Nordlinger v Hahn didn't address that. We now can see real data that Prop 13 systemically hurts minorities and I believe another challenge is warranted. Edit: actually should have talked about "disparate impact" instead in that last part.