Rent control is using the power of the state to coerce individuals.
Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals.
The two have nothing in common.
Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals.
The two have nothing in common.
What is the primary effect of rent control? Everyone renting before the enactment pays proportionally less in rent than those after enactment.
What is the primary effect of Prop 13? Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978.
These are huge, (in my view) obvious parallels between the two. Both policies encourage the market to become sticky: renters won't leave, for fear of giving up their cheap rent as time goes own; for landowners, they are discouraged to sell, knowing an identical property would raise their annual property tax expenses. As property values go up, it further encourages landowners to hold, becoming a negative feedback loop on the housing supply.
It's even worse than that, since prop 13 isn't a one time thing. Just like rent control, you lock in whenever you purchase.
My neighbor pays double what I do for effectively the same house. It's totally unfair to them.
Those taxes should be orders of magnitude higher. If you didn't make the land, you're renting it.
Also, land in and of itself isn't desirable if the economy of the area isn't right (lots of rural places around the world are depopulating as cities attract their countrysides).
[1]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792e...