SPECULATION: B1G Considering 20-Team Models (warning: long post)

Pacific:

Washington

Oregon

Stanford

Berkley

UCLA

USC

Plains:

Nebraska

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Northwestern

Illinois

Great Lakes:

Indiana

Purdue

Michigan

Michigan State

Ohio State

Georgia Tech

Atlantic:

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

Duke

It's a complex issue, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, so I will offer another POV while respecting your position.

Another perspective is Prop 13 has contributed to the outrageously high housing prices. If property taxes were higher, it's likely sales prices would be lower (I'm talking about the cumulative impact over time).

For people who "got in" and own a house, it's great. For people on the outside looking in, it's not so great. It's also not great for California's public schools, which, again, have fallen from among the best in the country to among the worst by many measures.

Personally, I find it hard to support a policy that allows some lucky people to pay far lower property tax than others - even their neighbors living in identical houses - dependent only on how long someone owns their house (or if they're old enough to transfer their low tax to another home). 

That said, I understand the POV that if taxes were assessed based on rapidly increasing property values, some folks would not be able to afford to stay in their house.

I do find it kind of ironic that many/most of the people who support Prop 13 don't support rent control - basically saying homeowners should be protected from market forces, but renters should not.

Of course, rent control causes problems too, but it makes no sense to me that homeowners have an all-but-fixed housing cost (or can even lower over time through re-finance), while (non-rent control) renters who are often less affluent can have their rent jacked up at the whim of their landlord.

Let's be honest, most of the homeless people you mentioned weren't California homeowners, they often were renters who got priced out.

Again, it's a complex issue. The only aspect that's clear to me is that Prop13 has adversely affected California's public schools.

Blue Vet, you're 100% correct about this. I checked, and 30 years ago the state funded 50% of Cal Berkeley's budget, today it's just 13%. Yikes.

Again, I'll point to Prop 13 - it's not an accident or coincidence that funding for public schools has dropped dramatically as a result of lower property taxes. Ezekiel, to me that answers the question "harmful to who" - it's everyone who cares about or is impacted by public education. I don't have kids, but I'm a firm, deep believer in financial support for public schools, and IMO property tax makes the most sense as the source of that tax (as do most states/jurisdictions).

Here's a pretty deep dive into the impact of Prop 13 on a sample homeowner. I think my numbers are reasonably accurate. I'm not sure "blood from a turnip" is an honest assessment.

I've lived in SF since 2000. Anyone who bought a house here then and kept it is sitting on a gold mine. If you paid $700k for a place in 2000, it's probably worth ~$2m+ today. If you put 20% down, your initial investment of $140k is now worth $2m (less whatever mortgage you still have). That's no turnip, that's filet mignon.

Over that same time, that homeowner's property tax under Prop 13 initiated at a relatively low rate and has increased by probably around 50% - in the ballpark of $5k in 2000 (through Prop 13 annual increase ranges from <0%-2%), now maybe $7500.  $7500 property tax on a $2m house is...really low - .38%. My estimates may be a bit off, but they're close.

Sure, they had to pay a mortgage - but most everyone has to pay for housing. If they have half a brain, they took advantage of lower interest rates and re-fi'd, so over the time they lived in that house their monthly cost - including property tax - actually went down. They actually pay less per month today than they did in 2000, while becoming millionaires in home equity.

Plus, much of that property tax is offset by mortgage interest deduction. If their mortgage is $500k and their rate is 3%, they'll deduct ~$6,100. So, now their "effective" property tax is $1,400. A hundred bucks a month on a 2 million dollar house.

Meanwhile, while that homeowner's property tax is $7,500, his next door neighbor just bought an identical house for $2m. She pays almost $13k in property tax on the same house. And the renter down the street has seen his rent almost triple since 2000. How is that fair?

There's probably a reasonable middle ground, where property could be taxed on current value, but the annual tax increase is capped or the tax rate is reduced. Prop 13 just doesn't seem fair to me.

I'm certainly willing to listen to a counter-argument, and hope I didn't leave out anything. I'm fairly confident in my estimates - tried to check for accuracy but might have goofed somewhere.

As to your point about supply and demand, I totally agree - it's frustrating California hasn't been more proactive in creating a housing policy/strategy that focuses on greatly increasing housing - especially higher density housing built around transit/access. 

Again it's more complex than meets the eye. For example, SF has a chronic housing demand issue, but it's also a city built on a tiny peninsula, with little available space to build. The only real solution is to build more densely. People push back against having high-density housing in their neighborhood, developers prefer high-end housing to affordable, there are environmental concerns, etc, etc. However, the only viable solution is more units.

Gosh,I sure think so. I LOVE walking around campus, with the winding roads, redwoods, interesting buildings, almost no cars. And the views from up by the Greek Theatre - magical.

Again, to each his own. As a midwestern transplant, I'll never tire of the scenic beauty out here. I love the ocean, bay and mountains. Michigan is beautiful, but the Cali coast is amazing.