>the old timers were forced to pay market rate taxes on their houses (and hence forced to sell out)
So, force people to move out of the neighborhoods where they've lived all their lives. I'm by no means a general gentrification opponent but arguing that people should be forced to move out of their homes so that wealthy techies can move in?
Or stated differently, make everyone pay their fair share. The current system is "I got mine, screw you" for those fortunate enough to have bought property years ago.
It's surprising to me that people can look at the millionaire SF property owners as being deserving of public subsidy in perpetuity.
Where I live tax assessments are done regularly, tempered by a maximum 10% annual increase to prevent excessive shocks to the market. It seems like a reasonable compromise that puts all people on equal terms.
Yes, exactly. That's how it works everywhere else in the country. The entire valley should not be preserved as a 1950's time capsule.
In the rest of the country, when somebody like Google or Facebook comes to town property values shoot up. Property tax assessments follow 1-5 years later. The higher assessments combined with lucrative offers from developers convince the existing owners who cannot afford to live there to move. They take their windfall and move someplace more affordable. Meanwhile, developers build higher density housing, which keeps prices, while high, from reaching insane levels. Everybody wins.
So, force people to move out of the neighborhoods where they've lived all their lives. I'm by no means a general gentrification opponent but arguing that people should be forced to move out of their homes so that wealthy techies can move in?