As a resident, what do you think was the catalyst for these changes?
Zoning is the most obvious regulation that makes things hard: most land is zoned exclusively for single family homes on large lots. There's been a bit of movement on this from the state level to allow ADU's or duplexes, but not enough, there's usually various legal hurdles that make it harder. Missing middle housing is mostly still illegal.
The other thing is all the various processes involved. CEQA makes things take a long time (not that I'm opposed to protecting the environment, but surely there's a way to do it that doesn't take years for an apartment complex). Community meetings and planning commissions can often block new developments for random, arbitrary reasons, like "tall building would cast too many shadows" or "demand on street parking would increase"; these are things that are so obviously inherent to any significant development permitted in areas where you can build taller apartment buildings, and yet they're still used to block more housing.
* Remove its application to commercial property
* Remove its application to second/vacation homes
* Remove its application to inherited property
* Only apply the restriction if the increase would be burdensome on the household's income
* Only apply the restriction once someone has lived in the house for a significant amount of time, e.g. 5+ years.
The way I look at it, if the purpose is to protect people from needing to move because they can't afford property taxes, restrictions should be narrowly tailored to only apply in that case.
The other groups are all doing business and making money off others and I find that to be more justified for being taxed at market.
The same entity creating the regulations, I imagine. Who else would?
Set it at some threshold, if the property tax goes beyond some % of annual income then it gets capped.
> I do not believe in penalizing this group.
Letting people pay property taxes proportional to their property value is not "punishment", any more than people paying income taxes proportional to their income is "punishment".
Besides, you can simply transfer-tax it anyway. For a primary residence, this being the system:
1. You pay Prop 13 tax
2. You accrue true prop tax
3. You may sell the home and buy a new home and net-cap-gains you get the accrued tax taken out of profit
So then you don't get "pushed out", you pay when you sell, and it only applies to your home not to your rental properties. But that's not what people want - they ultimately would prefer the "housing crisis" but that's politically unpopular so they'll say other things, though occasionally the truth will leak out.
"Forced out" meaning sell their multimillion dollar property for a massive mostly tax-free profit. Alternatively, they can spend their windfall by using their property as collateral.
These people are in the top 5-10% of Americans by wealth, not some underprivileged underclass.