I think you'll find (in general) that the people most opposed to new housing (long time residents) are the ones paying the lowest property taxes, due to Prop 13.
Newer homebuyers who are paying taxes on the actual market-value of their homes tend to spend far less time at Supervisor meetings.
Actually I think you'll find that your guess is completely wrong. Long term residents don't face as much issue with new housing because they already have made the lion share of their gains. Newer homebuyers are the most at risk if higher supply causes their 1.5M house to drop to 1.2M because of higher number of houses in the area.
This is all true of course, but it's not what I said.
While it might be more economically rational for newer homebuyers to be the ones fighting development, it hasn't been my observation that they are. Obviously I could be wrong, I'd love to hear stories of rampant NIMBYism among the newly-landed.
My anecdote counters your anecdote. I find that the newest members of a neighborhood are the ones most likely to fight new development. The older people care but they don't have as much vested interest because they don't lose as much money.
On account of Proposition 13, existing property owners in fact do not form the main tax base. Personal income taxes are in total greater than property taxes in California. If you earn more wages your income taxes increase, but if your property appreciates your property taxes do not increase.
Property owners get to vote and they stand to realize 100% of their capital gains, but they aren't really subject to taxation.
Property owners do not get to vote in the USA, not even in the Bay Area. Citizens get to vote.
Citizens that own property are very motivated to vote against construction and so far have shown extreme solidarity against allowing dense construction even in small zones. Meanwhile renters, who appear to be a slim majority of citizens in the area, are not organized and do not vote reliably.
How much any one group may or may not contribute in taxes has very little to do with political outcomes since taxes don't vote. At most there is an indirect effect as city budgets drive strategies to collect more revenue by officials. Those officials still answer only to voting citizens.
>Meanwhile renters, who appear to be a slim majority of citizens in the area, are not organized and do not vote reliably.
Rent control / stabilization gives them an incentive to not allow construction as perhaps they, like all humans, oppose change but now don't have to face the negative consequences of opposing it.
50% of apartments in NYC are under some form of rent control / stabilization.
Even worse, renters groups and community organizations are divided. I never joined the San Francisco Renters Federation because of its devotion to rent control and its hostility to landlords. Similarly, the Council of Community Housing Organizations is focused on raising money to the detriment of making housing.
When the Bay Area Renters Federation and Grow San Francisco started, I felt some joy. Finally, after all these years, here is a housing movement that I can support.
This is due mainly to CA's very progressive tax rate, it makes the lions share of income based on capital gains and therefore the tax revenue much more variable than in other states.
This is unrelated to property taxes, which go to the city/town not the state.
What they call in Economics - Baptists (environmental objection to sprawl, objections to building higher rise etc) and Bootleggers (people who benefit from selling high priced houses, land tax receivers etc)
