I don't know what the answer is here; I see it as a tough policy challenge. There might very well not be a solution that's "fair" to everyone. If you think there's an easy "moral" solution and you can't think of decent arguments for both sides, I feel like you're only kidding yourself.
If you don't want to move then you can get a reverse mortgage and still profit, you just won't get to pass the house to your children. Still, you'll make way more from the property value increases than anything you would have paid in taxes and can pass those gains on to your children.
That is extremely presumptive. Your friends, family, and support infrastructure is all in the place you've been over the last 40 years.
Purchasing another home and moving to it have huge transactional costs.
It would have been completely reasonable to include plans for the reverse mortgage as part of your finical planning already: Americans often have a significant fraction of their net worth tied up in their homes. So that money may well be spoken for. It also may be just unavailable: The city's assessment of your home's value may not match with a lender's assessment.
Think of it this way, if I show up at your town council's office and offer to pay 2x the property taxes you currently pay, should I be able to bid you out of your home? If that wouldn't be ethical, why is it ethical to do it in a distributed way?
I think Prop13 is nuts, but the opposite idea of continually subjecting people's homes to volatile and unpredictable market price based taxes is also nuts.
"All because a bunch of people with more money than you are now willing to pay a bunch of money for your neighbors' places."
I think laws and policy should exactly be focused on protecting those who have less from the impact of those who have more. Not because they're morally superior or anything, but just to try to keep things balanced because the people with the money already enjoy so many other advantages.
Moving is hugely disruptive to people's life, so the ability to plan expenses - both for property tax and in terms of rent control - has a lot of non-financial appeal as a policy. "Make people move when folks with more cash want to come in" is at best a somewhat heartless position, and at worse a major driver of homelessness.
You're missing the part where city policy creates the housing shortage. It's the city that approves zoning for a huge number of offices and then refuses to allow more homes. The homeowners reaping these massive rewards are who vote in favor of the housing shortage.
There's easy ways to deal with the down sides of increasing property values. Delay the payment to sale or even tax the value from some number of years ago.
> Moving is hugely disruptive to people's life
The housing shortages in CA are doing this to renters and anyone else that's forced to move. Older couple that can't handle stairs, growing family, etc.
Prop 13 is a horrible way to address any of these problems.
However, if all you have is a house in an area with rapid price growth, this change won't save you.
There isn't a solution that is fair, the major activity in the debate over California housing seems to be people turning themselves in knots to find solutions where long time residents enjoy a high-demand city without paying for its upkeep. The goal is for long time residents to reap rewards without doing anything - there is no fair way to do that. It drives inequality too. Rich people tend to own lots of land for long periods of time.
> ...the rest of the city forces you to "enjoy" higher taxes you never demanded [...] or wanted...
I do not hesitate in pointing out this part of your post applies to most taxpayers. I personally disagree with most of what my tax money is spent on, and distrust the people who spend it. That is why it is taxed from me.
We should go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism - it is fairest over the long term. Moving homes is not so terrible that it has to be prevented at all costs.
Just because property values double doesn't mean the cost of pothole repair doubles?
Might be a struggle to get tax reductions past the voting public. But I think a bit of political elbow grease could get it done.
That's semantics at best.
The people with the greatest ability to pay are the ones getting the biggest tax break.
They don't necessarily have any ability to pay, which is the scenario that brought prop13 to life in the first place (low-income grandma kicked to the street by taxes).
Someone of modest income who bought a modest 100K house years ago isn't cash-flow rich today just because the paper value of their house went up. They are probably retired living on a small social security check and don't have much any ability to pay, let alone the "greatest ability".
It's fine to have different views on how society should handle this tricky scenario, but let's be intellectually honest with the core facts.
Also, I think low-income grandma was and always has been a useful narrative piece. Howard Jarvis, the author of prop13, was literally a lobbyist for apartments and businesses. Please watch The First Angry Man when you get a chance: https://www.kcet.org/shows/the-first-angry-man/episodes/the-...
Often the house isn't much to downsize from. If they bought a modest house for 100K back then, it's probably not big.
I bought my current house in my 20s. It is tiny because it was all I could afford back then. I always expected to move up, but it hasn't happened. So I've made my life on this street, these parks and forests. I could afford to move up now but it's a nice area and it has become home. I'm not ready to retire but when I do, there's no point in downsizing, it's already tiny.
Also don't underestimate the pain of moving for an older person. I often wish my >90yr mother would move closer to here but at that age she is terrified having to change any of her regular doctors and neighbors.
The grandma may be an "useful narrative piece" and it was, but it is also very real. These are the people who benefit the most from being able to stay in their home to the end. It is very cruel to force an older person to move from their comfort zone.
Of course, corporations taking advantage of prop13 is a travesty. It should be for individuals in their own home only.
Not to mention that it's kind of a lot to force, idk, 80-year-olds to take out reverse mortgages just so they can keep living in homes they've already paid for and own. Though I guess it's not surprising if people half their age don't care about their burden.
It’s an easy policy challenge. Let the person carry the tax until a sale. Or they can carry it until death. It should not pass to kids and the tax assessment is taken at the final sale.
