The problem with prop 13 is the it discourages mobility (over a very long time). So suppose that 50% of the people bought houses 10 years ago. Suppose 20% of them have some desire to go somewhere else or take the profit, but would rather not “lose” their property tax base. So this 20% of housing stock will stay somewhat permanently within the family, hence increases the price volatility for the rest of the market, mostly upward volatility. I believe that I saw families with savvy parents who’ve bought several houses early, and it seems that the whole family (adult kids) now live on rent income due to later inflation. This is NOT a productive way of life.
I agree that the scenario in Idaho is not desirable either. A better solution could be a hybrid — prop 13 like protection only for primary homes; not for rental and 2nd/vacation homes. A “cap” that’s inflation indexed rather than an arbitrary 2%.
Again, a policy like Prop 13’s impact is only felt decades later…If you think that overal inflation is always positive and likely higher than 2%, then a home, relatively speaking, is always a fairly good bet in California in a normal environment (and I don’t consider today as normal)..
