It's essentially the same sentiment as "Don't like the laws and don't want to pay more than natives? Leave the Bay Area then, you have the whole rest of the country to move to."
Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through.
There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too?
>Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through.
This is just a false equivalence. Prop 13 is the extreme here. There's nothing even remotely comparable anywhere else in the country. Asking people to pay their fair share of taxes is not "extreme". If we need to subsidize older homeowners who can't afford their homes, that's another discussion to be had and another funding source should be found. Doing it through property taxes has made this place unlivable.
So there's 49 other states __you__ can move to and not deal with Prop 13?
That's reality right now and if you're going to be headstrong that's how the community will respond to your reasoning.
Ah yes, and there's the classic "I got mine, so screw you" mentality of California. What a nightmare.
He would not “lose” his house immediately. He would be forced to sell it for an outrageous profit and move somewhere he can afford to pay the taxes. Subsidies are subsidies, and I have zero sympathy for those who don’t feel like they’re getting enough when people are literally being forced into homelessness from the knock-on effect of this policy to low-net worth renters.