[asdff]

The other comenter was probably referring to how in some states, you essentially have something even better than rent control for your property taxes. With rent control, your rent may only rise maybe 5% next year, its not a price set in stone. In places like CA, your property tax rate is set in stone when you buy. So if you bought a house in the 1970s for like $30,000 and its worth $2,000,000 today, you are only paying taxes on property worth $30k. How that's less good for everyone else is now local government has to find other ways to fund things as the buying power of the taxable revenue per property that doesn't change hands each year gets smaller and smaller.

[jjav]

> So if you bought a house in the 1970s for like $30,000 and its worth $2,000,000 today, you are only paying taxes on property worth $30k.

That is not at all how California Prop 13 works, although it is an often repeated myth.

Under prop13, the property tax goes up 2% every year (technically up to 2%, but unless you're in an economically depressed area it's always 2%).

So it is a damping function, essentially equivalent to rent control, to smooth out the swings in market price and replace it with a fixed yearly increase you can predict.

In practice, however, the property tax goes up more than 2% per year because counties and cities are allowed to attach all kinds of fees under the umbrella of property taxes and those don't count towards the 2% increase limit.