Well, no, California has Prop 13, because wealthy investors in property used constructed images of that scenario to build support for a law to transfer more wealth to the already wealthy, not because its was a real problem (and, even if it was, Prop 13 doesn’t focus on dealing with that problem.)
> not because its was a real problem (and, even if it was, Prop 13 doesn’t focus on dealing with that problem.)
California politicians were working on solutions to the property tax problem for years. The same year prop 13 was on ballot, something else was on ballot to fix the problem, which would have done a much better, targeted job - but unfortunately big money poured into prop 13 and that got passed.
My parents bought a new house in 73, and by the time prop 13 passed it was worth around 3x the purchase price. They both worked in tech and were close to having to sell their house (they had 4 kids).
It was a real problem, prop 13 was just a bad solution.
There are problems with prop 13, but it does prevent people from being kicked out of their owned homes for temporary market conditions that are out of their control.
Imho the problem was that the politics of the day got it passed to cover commercial properties too, when it really should just cover primary residences. And not secondary homes or rental properties.
These programs often have terrible red tape and even awareness problems. They also ignore people who aren’t seniors but may be going through temporary rough spots. I prefer to have the prop 13 rules fundamentally built in an applied to all primary residences as a measure to provide a more universal stability of a home.
