[sagarm]

By "forced out" you mean you could

1) sell, reaping a huge windfall. 2) use a HELOC or reverse mortgage to pay for the higher property taxes.

But of course you'd prefer both to keep the windfall and not move, a privilege afforded to you by prop 13. That is only natural.

Meanwhile, homelessness in the state continues to rise as high land values make housing production and anti-growth activists on planning committees exacerbate our housing shortage.

[watwut]

I find it acceptable that people want to stay at home where their social networks and memories are. You all act like it is OK to push people out from their homes, just because you have money and want that place.

[zapita]

I agree it would not be OK for people to be forced to leave their home because they cannot afford to pay their property tax.

But there are simple solutions to this problem which do not create even worse problems, unlike prop 13. For example, Texas allows taxpayers 65 years of age or older to defer their property tax payments. In other words, the tax is still due, but not until the property is sold.

Why did California voters not implement this much simpler approach to preventing displacement? Because the goal was never to prevent displacement - it was to lock in massive tax subsidies for established homeowners, at the expense of everyone else.

[sagarm]

California already has a means-tested tax deferral program.

https://sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html

[sagarm]

If they are truly unable to pay, California already has a means tested tax postponement program:

https://sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html

reply

[KptMarchewa]

It's acceptable to force them out if they don't want to pay for the privilege.