Subject change
On 7/22/2023 10:15 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
On 7/22/2023 7:15 AM, John Levine wrote:
While this may sound like a good idea, if you look at the results in
California, the results have been decidedly mixed. About 50 years ago
people realized that with sufficiently vigorous and disingenuous
advertising you can get voters to vote for all sorts of stuff.
The state has a crazy quilt of laws, some quite pernicious like the
one that says they can't raise the property tax on a house more than a
nominal amount except when it's sold, a huge subsidy to old house
owners at the expense of younger people and tenants.
Yes. I remember back in the 60s or 70s there was an initiative
restricting new cable TV installations, effectively protecting the
existing cable companies from competition. It passed, but the courts
ruled it unconstitutional for reasons I don't remember.
Prop 13 is almost as sacrosanct as Social Security. In fact, we keep expanding it. In 1986, Prop. 58 allowed homeowners to transfer their
property to their children without triggering a reassessment, and prop.
60 allowed homeowners to transfer their assessed value to a replacement
home if the new home has equal or lesser value and is in the same county.
And in 1988, Prop. 90 expanded Prop. 58 to people moving to another
county *if* the incoming county allows it. 1996 Prop. 193 allows people
to transfer property to their _grand_children, including both their
primary residence and up to $1million of other property.
And then there was Proposition 8, which amended the CA Constitution to
define marriage as only between a man and a woman. That was eventually overturned by Obergefell v. Hodges.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)