← Back to context

Comment by khuey

8 hours ago

A major problem with decoupling property taxes on owner-occupied housing from market prices is that it removes the biggest incentive for a homeowner to vote for policies that keep the local real estate market in check. An owner occupied house in a desirable area where there is no disincentive to politically engineering a supply shortage becomes a financial investment. Any increase in housing value becomes profit for the owner (or their descendants). This leads to supply restrictions and escalating prices and an increasingly unhealthy society as the young and the poorer are pushed out of the city, county, or even state.

This is essentially what has happened in coastal California over the last 60 years.

7 comments

khuey

Reply
esikich  5 hours ago

Why shouldnt coastal property be crazy expensive? It's the most scarce land there is.

  • an_account  4 hours ago

    The land should be expensive, the housing doesn’t need to be.

    With different policy, there could be more housing built on the same land. The most scarce land there is shouldn’t be predominantly zoned for only low density single family homes.

  • daedrdev  4 hours ago

    We could easily build apartments on the coast in CA and then non multi millionaires might be able to live there. We have decided that only multimillionaires deserve to own a coastal house by restricting zoning in the coast so heavily

    • anon84873628  4 hours ago

      It's funny because it happens at all levels.

      The uber wealthy have their gated communities in the hills.

      The very wealthy have their lock on places like Carmel.

      The upper-middle class in Santa Cruz or Half Moon Bay try to prevent new condos (or student housing) from being built, because it "destroys the community character."

      Everyone wants to pull the ladder up behind them.

      1 reply →