It's eating itself. The thing that makes Bay Area property so valuable (many prominent companies co-located) is going to end without more housing.
Perhaps something to gradually adjust property taxes such that people with multi-million dollar houses aren’t paying taxes as though it’s a multi- thousand dollar house?
This is the problem with the proposition system - it often encourages residents to enact policies in their personal best interests that screw over a huge number of people down the road.
At what point do the needs of society overrule the housing needs of the individual?
The elderly person will end up a serious multi-millionaire by the end of this in most cases.
[1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/housing-statistics-...
[2] https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-rate-of-homeowne...
I don’t think so. Your stats [1] are just for percent of all dwellings, many of those homes are owned by large corporations that then lease them out. If you limited it owning a single home, I think it would be significantly less, more like a 25% exemption by volume(probably less by value) this is backed up by [2] which says home ownership is around 56%. I’m fairly sure more individuals/families than you’d think own more than one home in the state.
That said, most areas have overly draconian zoning and regulatory costs (driven in no small part by existing homeowners wanting to protect/inflate their own investment); it's a complex issue, and Ricardian rent-seeking is only one factor.