|
|
|
|
|
by vineyardmike
1359 days ago
|
|
I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I don’t think you’re being very fair to students, and i don’t think this issue is particularly about the students. (and I’m not convinced Prop13 needs to be repealed to solve problems). Students and loans are a different issue and it seems cruel to label them as wannabe UC students who aren’t good enough. All UCs are respectable. I think this issue can be generalized a lot… 1. Locate a city with geographic limits. 2. Institute anti-growth policies. 3. Invite anything that may attract more people into town. 4. Allow 3 to continue/repeat without an increase in market rate housing. 5. Wait. 6. Landlords profit Prop 13 has a good goal - prevent property tax increases from displacing long term residents. If you allow growth in housing supply then this can be a good thing, but the incentives ruin it. A balanced law or requirement that requires more housing to maintain prop13 would likely solve this mismatched incentive issue (if you vote against more housing, you could experience cost increases). Maybe tack a “breakpoint” in tax stability to rent-rates-beyond-inflation stability. |
|
Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary. It could be removed entirely overnight and grandma wouldn't need to pay a dime.