Then they should go where the affordable homes are and not expect 70 year-old couples who've lived in the same house for 40+ years to have to uproot their lives so entitled millennials can have their home. At some point, Millenials and X'ers need to grow up and stop blaming Boomers for everything.

I totally understand the appeal of it. I don't owe my primary residence, and I am not in a rush to buy one in NYC. But I've thought about buying a cottage either upstate or in Pennsylvania, for the occasional weekend getaway.

The astronomical housing prices in California (and NY) is absolutely the fault of Baby Boomers. But taxing them out of their homes isn't the way to fix it.

They literally changed the fucking tax laws to their own benefit, and future generations aren't allowed to complain about it? The couple who is sitting on a 3 million dollar asset has the money to cash out and buy elsewhere- same state or another state. The young person/couple does not.

How do states outside of CA handle this, then? If a poor family bought a house in Midtown Detroit (for example, could put anywhere) when the neighborhood was crime ridden and undesirable, would their tax burden not increase when that neighborhood revives and becomes popular? Does Michigan have a Prop 13 equivalent? Or does that family get to sell their property at extreme profit and buy another house somewhere else? That's how it normally works.

Honestly I'm surprised to see such defense of Prop 13. It's pretty much universally regarded as bad policy for a host of reasons.

Easy to say if you're comfortably settled where you want to be. Not that I blame anyone for acting in their own self-interest and owning a home where they've lived for decades, but to say the options available today are the same as back then just isn't true. The fact is someone in the 70's and 80's had a multitude of affordable urban options available to them. Moving to LA, San Fran, Seattle, even New York was doable on an entry-level salary and those cities had diverse economies and the wide variety of jobs that come with them. You could say they were sketchier and rough around the edges, but I'd love to opportunity to live in grimier 90's Manhattan over unattainable 2020's Manhattan. Where do you seek price relief nowadays? Salt Lake City? Kansas City? Unless you're lucky enough that your field is prevalent in those cities you'd probably be doing significant harm to your future career prospects.

I bought my first condo a year ago. 1,000 SF and I paid over 3 times as much in nominal terms (probably just over twice as much in real terms) as my parents did for a 4,000 SF new detached home in 1994, with a salary that is not indexed anywhere close to that level of inflation. The reality is that the previous generation did not have to compete with a globalized real estate/job market anywhere close to what it is now. I'm not going to blame the boomers for taking advantage of beneficial times, I wish I could do the same, but the opportunity for the average person to live in a tier 1 city is something that seems to be fading. I'm not going to cry about it, if you really want to make it work you'll find a way and that's what I'm doing. To distill the discussion down to something as trivial as "Millennials are complainers, and should just move for affordability" is disingenuous though.

I commonly see this attitude among older users here of "well we figured it out, so I don't see what Millennials are complaining about" and it just reeks of an inability to objectively evaluate something outside of one's own experiences.

Michigan's/Detroit's tax system is sort of the opposite, which has its own set of problems. Detroit and the state has conspired to create temporary tax abatement zones in order to spur investment, but long time home owners in places like Detroit don't get those better tax rates, and pay at the full rate. All of the shiny new condos in Midtown and downtown have those artificially low tax rates, but they will reset to the full rate when the incentive expires and the property gets sold.

A huge issue in Detroit is that the state prevents the city from levying any other tax except property and income. In areas that are losing population, like Detroit, this prompts the locality to raise property taxes on remaining owners to prop up budgets. I don't think California has those same limitations/issues, which allows them to artificially lower property tax burdens and recoup that revenue through things like sales taxes.

In NJ anyone over 65 can get their taxes frozen at the current rate.

Prop 13 is absolute nonsense. Totally injustifiable. (I was speechless when I learned about the concept; it doesn't exist here.)

The only reason it exists is because politicians are cowards - the people who have been getting this crazy gift are a very reliable voting bloc, so...

i haven't read any of this but there’s no replacing a country house.

in my experience boomers can get the fuck out of the way i have a family to feed. the silent and ww2 generation rolled out the goddamned welcome mat for those assholes and retired. i’m almost 40 and show up on fucked up jobsites and start shutting shit down from neglecting boomers who don’t give a shit about anything anymore:P

You mean there's a state policy that enables true class mobility for regular people, allows generational wealth building and actually helps out millions of middle class homeowners? Shocking I know. That is NOT how taxes are supposed to work :uhh:

I don't know a single person living in the city of Chicago who also owns a second residence in the burbs.

Of the few people I know who do own a second home, it's a lake cottage up in Wisconsin or over in Michigan.

Owning a second home in the burbs seems like the worst of both worlds.

We are X'ers who bought in an inflated market as well and couldn't afford something in town of which someone with a fraction of our income could 30 years ago so we live the suburbs. We could complain but it is what it is.

this seems insane. theres no replacing a family country spread if you are buying a second property.

There are burbs that offer this, though. Lots of faux country burbs, with horse trails, dense woods and the like, and they tend to have lagging property values, so people are buying as weekend homes.

I know folks who have done this. Some don't want the hellish drive to the "real country" and can get a reasonable facsimile and work from their weekend home much of the summer. Instead of the Hamptons or Fisher Island, it's Cold Spring Harbor or Backcountry CT.

Exactly (on the last part of your post), a massive wealth transfer from the working classes (who are renting and/or recently bought their homes) to multimillionaire retirees is NOT how (well-conceived) taxation is supposed to work... at all.

Lots of wealthy city dwellers own cabins, country homes and other rural retreats away from the hustle of the city. Getting 40 acres is more than most but it's not an atypical thing. In fact, country homes have been at bing for as long as there have been cities. Around here lots of middle-income families have a weekend "camp," which usually simple cabins located a couple of hours away that is used for hunting or weekend relaxing and partying.

This article is talking about city dwellers getting second homes in suburban housing plans, which I'm guessing isn't actually a thing at all. I know lots of people with country houses and, empty nesters that have moved back to the city, and high-income suburbanites with a pied e terre, but have never met a city dweller with a weekend Ryan Home.

It's a thing, and suburbia isn't just "Ryan Homes".

This is suburbia, not too far from Manhattan, with frequent rail service and walkable town centers. Lots of people have second homes (and horses) here. No tract homes, anywhere:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1901...7i13312!8i6656

Agreed.

And housing would be more affordable if old people would just hurry up and shuffle off this mortal coil... recycle all of that capital.