5 ms·

> Who will deliver us from this meddlesome law? Only voters can. Directly. At the ballot box. So don’t hold your breath. Any other remedy wouldn’t really be l

by SllX 3y ago

> Who will deliver us from this meddlesome law? Only voters can. Directly. At the ballot box. So don’t hold your breath. Any other remedy wouldn’t really be legal nor legitimate because of the nature of ballot initiatives, particularly ones that amend the State constitution. Proposition 13 is sitting on top of a long pile of ballot-passed laws that have over time convinced me the entire ballot initiative process is actually a mistake and primarily enables bad but popular laws.

slg 3y ago
> the entire ballot initiative process is actually a mistake It is also arguably un-American. I thought the whole idea of having a representative government was so the common citizen didn't have to deal with the tedium of actually governing, so we elect people to govern in our stead. The fact the us Californians were expected to have opinions on props related to dialysis clinics in 2018[1], 2020[2], and 2022[3] should be a prime example of this. I have no idea what those props were supposed to do. All I know is the only reason I am being asked to weigh in on them is because someone with money was finding it too hard to pass whatever law they wanted through the legislature, so they tried to circumvent the normal legislative process by coming to us directly. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_Proposition_8 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_23 [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_Proposition_29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_Proposition_29
- mandevil 3y ago
  As a resident of a nearby state whose real estate market keeps rising because of the steady flow of people forced to leave California because they can't afford it, my favorite of the dumb propositions that is destroying California is Prop 103. Among other complicated things it specifically enumerates what tools homeowner (and auto) insurance companies can use to set rates (global climate catastrophe models? Not a thing when they voted in 1988, so now they can never be used). It also created the Consumer Intervenor process so it takes about two years for a rate hike to be approved, and companies have to prove that they are only using the approved methods and nothing else. This is the reason the California homeowner's insurance market is in grave danger: the company runs the "real" model which tells how much they will pay out in damages over the course the rate period, then they have to figure out a way to justify it to the (as a result of the prop, now elected) California Insurance Commissioner in the face of the Consumer Intervenors (who get their costs, expenses, and attorney fees covered out of the company pocket if they win and the rates aren't approved). If the company doesn't think the lines cross, then they don't offer insurance and start to withdraw from the market. This is why California's homeowners insurance market is so dysfunctional, because of a proposition that passed 35 years ago with 51% of the ballot but now effectively cannot be changed or amended.
CalRobert 3y ago
Of course, to vote on this, you have to live in the state, and doing that is tough because housing is expensive, because NIMBY homeowners made it illegal to build new homes, because they don't experience the pain of rising property prices in their taxes, because of prop 13.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  There are around 40 million people in California. What's hard is that a fair solution to Prop 13 is difficult. You can't just shut it off suddenly or even gradually over a decade because people will lose their homes en masse and property values and current mortgage rates combined make it very difficult to move, and just about impossible for the seniors who Prop 13 was supposed to help. You have to carve a solution very carefully not to screw over a large segment of voters. Or all the renters can get together and decide to screw over the owners; fuck 'em 'cause they're old anyway. That's certainly a possibility. However, expect your children to treat you the same way.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    > You can't just shut it off suddenly Everyone who says this is pushing a false dichotomy. The two solutions are not "create a landed gentry who pass preferential tax rates to their genetic offspring" and "kick grandma to the curb and throw sand in her face while twirling your mustache". Many other states have allowances/exemptions for a single owner-occupied "homestead" to prevent older people from losing their homes. Just copy their homework. Under those schemes you don't stop owing property taxes, but (with some variations) you can defer them until you sell the property or pass away. And it is beyond sick (and anti-American and probably unconstitutional) that the Prop 13 tax preference can be inherited by children and grandchildren. The only "problem" with those schemes (from the perspective of Prop 13 proponents) is that they do not allow the creation of a class of "petite nobility".
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      Inheriting the tax has been phased out, unless you make the house your primary residence (which of course many people might choose to do, but it still is stricter than it was until recently).
Wulfheart 3y ago
That’s why Germany hasn’t introduced it after WW II.

by SllX 3y ago

slg 3y ago

> the entire ballot initiative process is actually a mistake It is also arguably un-American. I thought the whole idea of having a representative government was so the common citizen didn't have to deal with the tedium of actually governing, so we elect people to govern in our stead. The fact the us Californians were expected to have opinions on props related to dialysis clinics in 2018[1], 2020[2], and 2022[3] should be a prime example of this. I have no idea what those props were supposed to do. All I know is the only reason I am being asked to weigh in on them is because someone with money was finding it too hard to pass whatever law they wanted through the legislature, so they tried to circumvent the normal legislative process by coming to us directly. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_Proposition_8 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_23 [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_Proposition_29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_Proposition_29

mandevil 3y ago
As a resident of a nearby state whose real estate market keeps rising because of the steady flow of people forced to leave California because they can't afford it, my favorite of the dumb propositions that is destroying California is Prop 103. Among other complicated things it specifically enumerates what tools homeowner (and auto) insurance companies can use to set rates (global climate catastrophe models? Not a thing when they voted in 1988, so now they can never be used). It also created the Consumer Intervenor process so it takes about two years for a rate hike to be approved, and companies have to prove that they are only using the approved methods and nothing else. This is the reason the California homeowner's insurance market is in grave danger: the company runs the "real" model which tells how much they will pay out in damages over the course the rate period, then they have to figure out a way to justify it to the (as a result of the prop, now elected) California Insurance Commissioner in the face of the Consumer Intervenors (who get their costs, expenses, and attorney fees covered out of the company pocket if they win and the rates aren't approved). If the company doesn't think the lines cross, then they don't offer insurance and start to withdraw from the market. This is why California's homeowners insurance market is so dysfunctional, because of a proposition that passed 35 years ago with 51% of the ballot but now effectively cannot be changed or amended.

CalRobert 3y ago

Of course, to vote on this, you have to live in the state, and doing that is tough because housing is expensive, because NIMBY homeowners made it illegal to build new homes, because they don't experience the pain of rising property prices in their taxes, because of prop 13.

KerrAvon 3y ago
There are around 40 million people in California. What's hard is that a fair solution to Prop 13 is difficult. You can't just shut it off suddenly or even gradually over a decade because people will lose their homes en masse and property values and current mortgage rates combined make it very difficult to move, and just about impossible for the seniors who Prop 13 was supposed to help. You have to carve a solution very carefully not to screw over a large segment of voters. Or all the renters can get together and decide to screw over the owners; fuck 'em 'cause they're old anyway. That's certainly a possibility. However, expect your children to treat you the same way.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  > You can't just shut it off suddenly Everyone who says this is pushing a false dichotomy. The two solutions are not "create a landed gentry who pass preferential tax rates to their genetic offspring" and "kick grandma to the curb and throw sand in her face while twirling your mustache". Many other states have allowances/exemptions for a single owner-occupied "homestead" to prevent older people from losing their homes. Just copy their homework. Under those schemes you don't stop owing property taxes, but (with some variations) you can defer them until you sell the property or pass away. And it is beyond sick (and anti-American and probably unconstitutional) that the Prop 13 tax preference can be inherited by children and grandchildren. The only "problem" with those schemes (from the perspective of Prop 13 proponents) is that they do not allow the creation of a class of "petite nobility".
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Inheriting the tax has been phased out, unless you make the house your primary residence (which of course many people might choose to do, but it still is stricter than it was until recently).

Wulfheart 3y ago

That’s why Germany hasn’t introduced it after WW II.