Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.
Big reason I moved from Ljubljana, Slovenia to San Francisco. There’s just more stuff here and it’s amazing.
The economies of scale are insane. I have more good restaurants within walking distance now than I used to have in the whole city.
What I miss most is real nature. Trees that are properly green, the changing of seasons, the mountains in the distance. That’s what I miss most. And good european food. Super hard to find in SF
Hmm, here I am thinking I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. It's none of my business. But, I try and not judge people on immutable characteristics like color and age.
The important thing being conveyed is lack of diversity, not whiteness. In the United States, saying something is "mostly white people" conveys that other ethnic groups are not present for some reason (whether it be them self-selecting to not participate or because of exclusion). The purpose is almost always to note diversity or lack-thereof, and assume that the person is making a value judgement about the people because their skin is white is to completely miss the point.
For example, if you bought a pack of starbust candies, and they were almost all orange, you might note or complain that they were almost all orange. I would do so, and orange is my favorite flavor of those. The issue is, I desire the diversity of colors and flavors, and too much orange is not as good as what the added variation brings.
So, "mostly old white people" as a negative doesn't mean old people are bad, or white people are bad, or old white people are bad, but that mostly old white people are not as good as a group that has more variation in it. "Mostly" is the word you should be focusing on, not the other ones.
I would also argue that a lot of times people are called racist (or called out for saying racist things) these days are likely because people are also less likely to give others the benefit of a doubt for their actions or words. This is likely complicated in that it appears some people that do harbor racist views feel more emboldened to speak them, but I'm not sure how to pick apart how much is one and how much is the other.
edit: YES, it's a nice plan to just raise rent to cover the school taxes. However, unless you are in a popular market, your rent prices may not bear the increase. Example Northeastern PA has cheap rent because there are so many places available, and thus the $4000/yr in school tax portion of the property tax is not able to be passed on to renters.
If property taxes increased substantially, I’d have had to raise rent...
What happens when you increase property taxes is that property values go down to compensate; it's less valuable to own when you have to pay more to do it. So in the short term the property tax increase hits whoever owned the property when the rate change was announced. But then it becomes less profitable to own property in that area, so people invest less in building new housing there, or even in maintaining the existing housing. That tends to constrain supply and cause rents to increase until you're back at equilibrium. The long-term equilibrium is based on the relationship between rents and total costs. Property tax is a cost so in the long-term higher property taxes result in higher rents. (This isn't counting the pathological cases where higher property taxes reduce property values and investment and the government responds by further raising property taxes until the locality is in a death spiral. Naturally rents in dying localities tend to go down.)
In California long time landlords get Prop 13 tax cuts. New ones don't. They compete for the same tenants and charge the same rent.
Long time landlords have much bigger profit margins because of that law.
Other states have property tax restrictions but I don't know as much about them.
"Long time landlords" and "new landlords" are not inherently different people, they're the same people at different points in time. It's like saying a landlord which has paid off the mortgage on their building makes more money because they don't have to make mortgage payments. The value of the future reduction in property taxes gets priced into the purchase -- but then so does the cost of higher property taxes at the beginning, since the government still needs a given amount of revenue.
The thing Prop 13 really does is to discourage long-time landlords from selling the property at all, because the buyer will have to pay higher property tax than the seller which makes the property "worth more" to the seller, even if it's otherwise worth more to the buyer. For example, this can discourage development because the existing owner doesn't have the inclination or the capital for expansion but would demand enough for the property that it would make it unprofitable to a third party who would have to pay higher taxes.
With the way you can inherit property and keep its valuation, there may be a class of "long-time landlords"-- individuals and organizations-- emerging in major cities. Especially, as you note, since Prop 13 discourages transactions.
Well, crap, that's a fair point... But... You can't go backwards and you can't go forwards any faster than anyone else. You can't change it yourself no matter how hard you try (general relativity spaceships aside of course).
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF
When all your wealth is tied up in a single leveraged asset anything that might lead to a big change in it is more risk than most people will tolerate.
I suspect it will be hard to solving the housing problem without unwinding Prop 13 and some of the other issues that make it harder for people to sell homes.
It also increases the minimum price the seller is willing to accept for the property, because they won't sell unless the buyer offers enough to compensate them for the higher tax rate they'll have to pay on the new property. It increases the bid/ask spread on long-held properties, so that more often no transaction takes place at all until e.g. the owner dies and the property is sold in an estate sale for less than the owner would have been willing to accept if they were still alive.
Also to add to this discussion is the various props and "tax treaties" between counties that allow old homeowners the ability to transfer tax basis from their old property to the new one they're buying. But this is a once or twice in a lifetime deal.
Unfortunately the incentive problem here is real, and there isn't a super obvious solution to it. At least, not to me. Trying to shift the culture and convince people to vote against their own economic incentives is great and all, but I don't think it is destined for success at any significant scale.
I grew up in a single family detached home in Queens, NY in the 80s as the shift to bigger condos and rentals started. The newer buildings are almost always shoddy and ugly, and dealing with landlords for property issues suck as compared to the homeowner.
Remember, we don't have a lack of land. There is plenty of prime, commute friendly, land available in SF-Bayarea and most other CA cities.
Old SFH will get demo-ed and gets rebuilt as SFH - just because bulldozing a $200k+ building + spending $600k to rebuild - can only be justified by a crazy SFH owner who can justify it all in terms of getting his/her dream home.