2 ms·

> giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Als

> giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Also even with readjusted taxes they’d still be in a significantly better position because instead being “kicked to the curb” (which is nonsense) they be able to buy a house somewhere else with the significant payout they’d get after selling to those gazzilionaries. At the end of the day in situations you’re describing you’d want more/higher density housing which prop 13 (amongst other things) directly discourages. If real estate values in a given area increase significantly while it wouldn’t be fair from the perspective of the individual for the society as the whole it would be optimal for the inhabitants to sell their low-density homes and later rebuy apartments/etc. built on top of the same land.

jjav 3y ago
> they be able to buy a house somewhere else Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there. That's the debate right there. Should we as a society favor the rich newcomer and push out the long-term resident who now has to move somewhere else? Maybe they didn't want to move. Or should we favor the long-term resident to stay even that means the rich newcomer maybe can't find a place? Who is more important? It is disingenuous to simply rant against Prop 13 without acknowledging that there will be winners and losers both with and without Prop 13. It's just different people who get favored.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there I’d focus on the high vs low density part of the argument which you entirely ignored. > rant I’m not