[tptacek]

One obvious difference is that property taxes are applied uniformly and predictably --- a whole industry exists to plan around them --- and eminent domain is not, so widespread application of ED would create uncertainty that would discourage positive activity.

[scarface74]

What’s “predictable” about having to pay taxes on a property that you don’t know how much will appreciate? Someone who bought a house 30 years ago while they were working, paid it off and had enough in savings to pay their bills but not pay taxes on a house that went up 10x the rate of inflation couldn’t predict their tax bill.

What happens when they can’t pay their taxes? The government takes it.

[tptacek]

This is an unserious argument. ED and property taxes aren't comparably unpredictable. An obvious illustration of this would be the fact that most places in the US don't have California's cap, and people manage tax planning just fine. If your real argument is, essentially, "taxation is theft", that's a coherent position, but since most people don't agree with the premise, you're not left with much to contribute to this particular discussion.

[scarface74]

No, I’m not saying that “taxation” is theft, but the undercurrent of raising property taxes on people who have been living in their houses for years is that the land could be better use by “more productive” tech bro’s than old people and if you raise the taxes enough, they would be forced to move.

Those same tech bro’s would hate it if they were taxed on unrealized, illiquid wealth.

But, yes there are plenty of jurisdictions that give property tax breaks to senior citizens.

[tptacek]

This is how property taxes work pretty much everywhere else, dense and sparse, tight housing market and loose. It doesn't seem to be causing a crisis anywhere, unlike California's policy, which is implicated in an actual housing shortage.

[scarface74]

And since we do have 49 other states, if prices get to high - companies and people will move.

Problem solved.