@bryankitch you can limit to primary residences.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler difficulty is that though current circumstances good for homeowners who bought in '70s/'80s, also unfair to punish them2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryankitch
@bryankitch it could operate as a slight transfer tax at time of sale, to maintain the virtue of stable housing.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler I guess I'd have to have a better understanding of implications to respond meaningfully to that idea2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryankitch
@bryankitch but it's bad law that has severely distorted financing of public services, the relationship of city and state governance.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler that seems more like an opinion ;)5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryankitch
@bryankitch cities today are far more dependent on fees, which are regressive.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler obviously, you have much more background knowledge in this area, but does this not have more to do with funding structure...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryankitch
@bryankitch the proposition changed the entire funding structure of the state.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler by transferring allocation of property tax to the state. But that is not the sole source of state funds...?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@bryankitch it isn't. But as a result, the state has had to switch toward more volatile, cyclical funding sources. http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/8 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.