> Guy working at UPS who grew up here depends on these laws so he doesn’t get priced out of his neighborhood.

Leaving aside how these laws led to the dire situation for the UPS guy in the first place, what if he has children? The firstborn maybe gets the place for cheap but others are essentially forced to "pay the transplant tax".

I call it "early adopters". This proposition basically secures guaranteed profits over 5 years. Once I saw this I did whatever I could do to buy California property. It's like a pyramid scheme, as long as people keep hitting big on those startups :-).

I don't live in the bay area and never will. I only travel there for work sometimes.

I think it hurts non-homeowning residents because it eliminates a powerful incentive for densification. Where I live, homes are taxed as if they were developed to their maximum zoned potential. This motivates people to move out of single-family homes so they can be redeveloped into higher density and add much-needed supply to the market.

It's true that the homeowner is worse off, but society does not function unless we prioritize the needs of the many over the few. IMHO. Also, the homeowners usually make an incredible amount of money selling homes that they bought for nearly nothing, so they get some compensation for the trauma of having to move.