California's property tax is less than half of that of Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Combine that with the fact that CA has prop 13, and one of the highest GDP per capita, and... Does anyone really think it's the regulation that's making prices high??
Sure, they're not helping. But high incomes and low taxes are a recipe for high prices. The only other state with high incomes and this low of property tax is D.C.
And D.C. and California both have average home prices roughly double everywhere else in the country. I wonder why. Maybe because incomes are 33% higher and taxes are 50% lower.
I think you're missing the causal pathway. High property taxes curb NIMBY behavior by making people want to keep property values from rising, resulting in low housing construction and high functional regulation of housing.
In contrast, low property taxes (and especially Prop 13 which decouples taxes from property values) causes homeowners to focus on building wealth through the appreciation of home values, which encourages NIMBY behavior.
If you lived in California through Prop 13 and were honestly paying attention one thing that becomes fairly clear. Property tax revenue is lower than the cost of government services. So there is zero incentive for built up cities to encourage more housing.
Point I'll make. If 'regulation' is what's causing high prices by restricting supply why isn't commercial construction effected? Explain that?
I'm glad that you agree that CA taxes and regulates real estate. The consensus is pretty much its the regulation that's doing it. Given the regulatory environment in CA, I would certainly never attempt to build a house there. I personally know people that have and the regulatory costs and delays are just ridiculous.
The next step is obvious. The government must come to the rescue and subsidize housing.
> I'm glad that you agree that CA taxes and regulates real estate.
What kind of manipulative garbage is this? onlyrealcuzzo isn't agreeing with the point you made; you aren't agreeing with the point onlyrealcuzzo made; and the point that you're making is only very slightly and tangentially supported by the thing that you're pointing out that onlyrealcuzzo tangentially said. This looks much more like you're trying to play gotcha games with onlyrealcuzzo's post, rather than dealing with it in good faith.
Full quote by Ronald Reagan: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Yes, some guy who was governer 45 years ago is responsible for all of California's problems and not the 40+ years of bad left wing policies that followed it.
Left wing politics has had marginal effect on California relative to the huge destructive power of Prop 13. Its passage immediately led to the local governments needing to be subsidized by the state government and a massive transfer of wealth in the ensuing years from renters to landowners. That Prop 13 also tied the hands of the legislature in changing tax code led to most subsequent programs being funded by ballot initiatives that earmarked all funds for specific programs, even if those programs later became lower priority, and those ballot initiatives that were funded by bonds tied up the general fund to leave very little left over for your Boogeyman left wing politicians to affect.
I don't think that's fair. Reagan was simply following a national trend, a trend advocated by both civil rights activists and psychiatrists. The best succinct history I've found is this 1984 New York Times article, "How Release of Mental Patients Began", https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-me....
TL;DR: Reagan was trying to cut the budget and closing mental health hospitals was considered a win-win by everybody. That it happened under his governorship makes your statement literally true, but nonetheless very misleading.
It's important to recognize the history because when trying to address the problem now we hear the same retort--pills and freedom. But we got here precisely because we miscalculated the benefit of pills and the costs of an overly simplistic conception of freedom.
Looks like we're well along that curve for housing in CA.