[local_issues]

Remember that this is a policy choice: we chose to enrich Boomers who own houses, at the expense of these people.

We could build more homes on golf courses, we could build affordable housing, we could build up, we could get rid of parking mandates. All of that would cost The Boomer, and so is forbidden.

[yardie]

California passed Prop 13 way back in the 70s that locked property taxes at 1% increase when nationally inflation has been 1.5-2%. It doesn't require a math degree to see that after a few years if you already own the discounts compound in just a few years. So newer, younger buyers have to shoulder the burden of paying for and providing civil services. Even when the shortcomings are pointed out it remains popular. The people that benefit from it vote to keep it in place and the ones that don't realize they'll have to move to Arizona or Nevada.

We could build homes no golf courses and it still wouldn't matter because only the rich could afford to live in them anyway.

[russellbeattie]

I've heard the other side of this argument - basically the original argument focused on fixed income retirees. And I can see the logic and sympathize.

The law simply needs to be updated - though it's basically political suicide to attempt it - to only include primary residences of a certain relative value. If you have three houses and a mansion, you should be paying way more tax.

[yardie]

If they wanted it to apply to fixed income retirees they could have applied it to just fixed income retirees. This law applies to all land and property owners and the more you own the better you benefit. They may have used retirees to sell this scheme but it's not what was sold.

BTW many other states have Homestead Exemption that only applies to homeowners, retirees, widows, or veterans. Unlike Prop 13 they were designed to specifically help those groups while making sure the state was still able to collect tax revenue from those not in that group.