> you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems?

Of course I don't think that, which is why I didn't say it. That would be a silly thing to write. What is the advantage for you in mischaracterizing what someone wrote and then expending effort to "correct the record" for a statement no one made?

You created a strawman and then knocked it down.

What I actually said: "New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states."

Both of these statements are demonstrably true. Let's look at the data.

   * NJ price to income ratio for housing: 5.5
   * mortgage cost burden: 31% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
   * renter cost burden: 52% of renters spend more than 30% on rent

   * CA price to income ratio for housing: 8.0
   * mortgage cost burden: 38% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% on housing
   * renter cost burden: 58% of renters spend more than 30% on rent

So housing in NJ is more affordable than in CA.

Now, let's look specifically at seniors.

In California:

   * 68% of senior renters are cost burdened
   * 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened

In New Jersey:

   * 59% of senior renters are cost burdened
   * 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened

So we see that across the board, seniors in NJ are not cost burdened more than in California, and that in fact they are cost burdened a bit less.

Therefore if your solution is to look to Prop 13 style fixes to address cost burdens for either seniors or the general population, then you are not making a data based argument, and in fact the data goes against you, because there is no excess cost burden in states without these property tax freezes.