[antman]

   People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely

I am sure you feel it made sense when you wrote it, or the example explained it in any way. I absolutely failed to understand the common knowledge aspect about people's limits to their ownership rights or even understand the sequence of events or mathematical explanation of the example.

[derac]

Over time, the number of people that can lay claim to their right to live in LA forever will/could grow exponentially. The space is limited. Particularly so when you have prop 13. These two facts are incompatible. What you will get in reality is an ever-ballooning housing price, pushing everyone else out and single-family home owners locking in their "right" to the space through market-distorting laws like prop 13.

I ask you this, why do the people living in LA have more of a right to be there than the native Indians that were there 500 years ago?

[antman]

How is the potential problem of housing future people an argument for a policy that allows kicking out existing owners? They don't seem to me related. This is about the rights of ownership.

The problems you mention stem from various "kick out" policies that are essentially forced assets transfer and artificial scarcity policies to inflate prices (difficulty for new housing, one family houses, height of buildings, devaluation of residential areas by bad policing etc)

Housing prices are results of specific policies, and people's ownership rights are protected in western societies.