We have the dueling tragedies of people with 6 figure salaries but can’t afford a home to raise kids in versus people bought homes when prices were cheap but can’t afford to take the profit on selling them. Policy decisions are hard, but they shouldn’t be based on sentimentality.
If someone can’t keep their home because the value went up too much and the taxes are high, then they should sell and take the windfall profit. I don’t have nearly as much sympathy for them as for people who cannot afford to buy a home to begin with.
On the other hand, society needs people to have kids to survive. In order to have kids, you have to have the space for those kids to grow. When two people living responsibly and making what should be an extraordinary income can’t afford the space to raise kids we got a major problem as a society.
California’s law is broken, and it is warping the real estate market there by locking up millions of properties. It may have been introduced to protect poor people, but it has ultimately benefited the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Real estate prices would arguably be much lower if not for the tax shelter it provides to long term property owners.
“””” Policy decisions are hard, but they shouldn’t be based on sentimentality.””””
Drive people from their homes for the state to apportion them better.
If someone claims they can’t find a cheap enough house for themselves somewhere else in the United States then what good does it do to drive the owners out of their 10 million dollar beach homes, that they originally built for $50,000?