[epistasis]

People are forced out of their home all the time, without the gigantic windfall of money that a property sale entails.

Evictions happen all the time, and these poor folks do not get the windfall of a $1M investment paying out. They get the trouble of trying to find a place to rent with an eviction on their record, which means they will be paying higher rents with less ability to pay.

Nobody should be forced from their home, homeowner or renter. But in California we only privilege the already privileged with that sympathy.

Prop 13 has forced far more people out of their home than property taxes have forced people in NY State out of their home. And NY has high property taxes and lots of people. So does NJ.

The idea that Prop 13 protects people from being taxed out of their hugely inflating financial asset is somewhat preposterous on its face. It mostly protects large landholders, and gives a tiny tiny benefit to the people that we are concerned about.

Focusing on the ineffective application of protection to a tiny number of millionaire homeowners, while ignoring the wealth inequality that funnels money to the people with tens and hundreds of millions of property, is extremely short sighted. It's time to stop pretending that Prop 13 is about the minor side effect of protecting a homestead, and pay attention to its primary effects, which is to encourage financial speculation with land and to give away tons of tax subsidies to those with the most land wealth that are hoarding it the most from better uses.

[et-al]

> The idea that Prop 13 protects people from being taxed out of their hugely inflating financial asset is somewhat preposterous on its face. It mostly protects large landholders, and gives a tiny tiny benefit to the people that we are concerned about.

When you say "large landholders", are you talking about REITs and commercial property holders? If so, wouldn't Prop 15 have addressed these issues?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15

[epistasis]

Anybody who owns more than a home, including "small" landlords.

If you look at land distribution in cities, you'll find lots of super wealthy families, hidden behind LLCs, and a few REITs, the smaller scale landlords, and then finally individual homeowners.

Those wealthy land hoarding families are often worse than REITs for cities, in that maintaining their own political power is more important than profits, and that can be worse for people on the lower end not the economic scale than even REITs' horrifying landlord behaviors.

[et-al]

Thanks. I had briefly thought "what if we just tax second homes at market rate?" But quickly realized the loophole of creating a company/trust per property.

Have you come across any good articles showing the breakdown of land ownership in SF?

[watwut]

"You should be thankful for having to move despite really not wanting to, because some other people have been completely screwed" is an abusive logic tho.

[epistasis]

It is abusive logic, but it's nothing like anything I said or what I read from other people.

[fortran77]

Nobody's getting forced out of "their" home -- unless they can no longer afford to pay the taxes.