>>1445812Nobody who owns property in San Francisco is poor. They own an incredibly valuable asset and that asset is equivalent to their wealth plus whatever they hold in other savings. This also has nothing to do with developers, it has to do with increasing the stock of housing so areas can continue to develop and grow. Restricting housing stock through any means of rent control, NIMBYism, predatory rent seeking, or otherwise is not an efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
>>1445814Under a LVT no one would be taxed out of their homes. LVT would disproportionately impact absentee landlords and rent seekers who own a significantly larger amount of property in highly valuable areas. In essence it prevents landlords from sitting on property for speculation and NIMBYism. Grandma Jenkins isn't going to get priced out because her defacto rent control Prop 13 is phased out.
>>1445815>caps locking>>1445816Land rich cash poor mostly refers to farmers and other agrarians. Their land is inherently way less valuable than a property owner in SF, NY, or Boston.
>>1445818Couldn't you in theory alter Prop 13 to only impact primary residency then?
