For Sale: Mansions in Los Angeles at Bargain Prices

nytimes.com

3 points·karaokeyoga··6 comments

The supposed purpose of this tax on expensive properties—funding homeless programs—is dubious at best considering the insane amounts of money that Californian cities funnel towards them with no real improvement in the crisis. The reality is we need to treat the visibly homeless (i.e., drug addicted, mentally ill) which would require bringing back mental institutions. But that seems politically unviable.

Regardless, I’m always happy to tax the truly wealthy more.

The real problem is accountability, and there is none if the same party holds power and has no competition. They have no incentive to avoid failure, no real consequences, so they play political games with these issues just to virtue signal instead of actually looking for an effective solution. The optics are more important than the results. The sad part is people seem to go along with it because they can't fathom voting differently.

Yeah, for some reason one party can’t fathom a return to forced institutionalization and the glorious War on Drugs.

But lots of HN “libertarians” can, so there is hope.

Ok, well let's hope they find a solution after 10 years and billions of dollars (and the problem getting worse). Surely they'll get it this time.

Because leaving the mentally ill on the streets is such a compassionate alternative to institutionalization and getting them the help they need.

Surely they can just "sell" their mansion to a holding company, currently owned by them, and at a later date just sell the corp. to the next homeowner?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com