[kqr2]

Unfortunately just increasing people's salary (even 3X) without an accompanying increase in housing supply won't help; that will just exacerbate the situation.

The best solution is to align people's incentives to create more regional housing. The two major classes of people are existing home owners and renters.

Although there is a hodgepodge of solutions, one way to do this would be to phase out Proposition 13 and rent control. Of course this would be really unpopular but should in theory lead to more market efficiency and create incentives for both groups to want more housing.

Existing home owners would want more housing to keep property taxes down. Renters which were previously protected by rent control would also be more vocal about creating new housing. People might actually work together to change zoning laws to increase density and improve transportation solutions.

In the current situation, there are some perverse incentives. For example in SF, if you are in a rent controlled apartment but can actually afford to buy a house, it makes sense to rent the house at market rate while you stay at your rent controlled apartment.

[ktRolster]

one way to do this would be to phase out Proposition 13 and rent control. Of course this would be really unpopular

Yeah, to the point that you should think of a different solution. Prop 13 is the 'electric rail' of California politics.

[ScottBurson]

The situation is getting crazy enough in the Bay Area that one can perhaps begin to have some hope of a countervailing political pressure building. See my longer post elsewhere on the page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576948

[ktRolster]

No, you are wrong. All you will have to see are pictures of old people being evicted from their homes, and the world will turn against you.

And frankly, I too think you are heartless for wanting to evict old people. Come up with a better plan.

It's particularly obvious that 'repeal prop 13' is a bad idea when you consider it still won't allow major housing increases in San Francisco where the height limit is the main problem: http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought... Focus on finding main problems.

[kqr2]

Phasing out Proposition 13 is not the same as immediately repealing it and going back to pre proposition 13 taxes.

If you read the OP's detailed comment, he proposes limiting the yearly tax payments. Consequently it would be no worse than now if someone wants to stay in their home. What would change, however, is that the person would pay more of the gains to the city when the house is sold. In your senior citizen example, the elderly will most likely stay in their home until they pass so this will affect only the inheritance.

This would also discourage property owners from just sitting on their property. There are empty lots in Palo Alto because the owner only needs to pay $1000 year in property taxes. This would encourage them to sell the land to people who could use it more productively.

[ScottBurson]

You didn't even read my plan.

[ktRolster]

"Focus on finding the main problems." Your plan definitely doesn't lol.