> On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” Disincentivizing (hopefully not an actual wor

> On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” Disincentivizing (hopefully not an actual word) is not compulsion. > the plaintiffs argue violates the Ellis Act which says that homeowners have the right not to be in the business of being a landlord This may be true; my legal knowledge is limited to being overzealously pre-law so I'm not an expert in CA law. That said, this sounds like a stupid law corrupted by landlords to duck housing rental regulations... OK checked Wikipedia and that's confirmed. Anyway I don't dispute this claim, just the Takings Clause argument, which again is very very bad.