Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (4732)	9/22/1998 5:00:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<OT> Mr. K, the issue is that my group never had a chance to get in to California real estate cheaply as you did. Never. And we didnt vote on the law that imposed this upon us either. But, we dont even need to go there to illustrate the unfairness of this law. Simply take a geographic area, such as San Jose, and add up all the property taxes paid by the 45+ homeowners vs. the property taxes paid by the under 35s. Its about a 1-10 ratio. I know this, because I looked into the numerous studies on this issue while a mgr in one of the high tech companies around here. You are correct, sure once in a while a 50 year old has to move (usually they dont sell their sweet deal property though they simply rent it as is the case with my landlord) and then they have to overpay like the rest of us. But, as you know, real estate purchases are skewed to the young - everybody wants to buy a house when they are in their 20s. Very few 50 year olds buy a new house (although some do). I dont care why the law was enacted etc since that was 20 years ago and irrelevant now. I believe that if there was a rational debate on this topic on channel 9 with regards to fairness and legality of this law, my point of view would be victorious. It is only politics that keeps this law on the books. MH