And then you're back to the original argument: the appreciation of your neighbor's property isn't some kind of god-given right, no more than that of yours is.
Look, I don't want to destroy the value of the largest "asset"[0] most people will own. But... what's the alternative here? The incumbents just get to grow fat off riches that they absolutely lucked into and played minimal part in creating, while lower-income residents get forced out of their homes? We just give up on the bay area as a worthwhile economy, have all the tech companies pull out, and then home prices crash?
[0] People really really love to believe their primary residence is an asset/investment, because it cost them so much money to acquire it, that it just has to be. If they'd consider it just a cost of living, a liability even, we'd have such fewer financial issues in housing markets.
Look, I don't want to destroy the value of the largest "asset"[0] most people will own. But... what's the alternative here? The incumbents just get to grow fat off riches that they absolutely lucked into and played minimal part in creating, while lower-income residents get forced out of their homes? We just give up on the bay area as a worthwhile economy, have all the tech companies pull out, and then home prices crash?
[0] People really really love to believe their primary residence is an asset/investment, because it cost them so much money to acquire it, that it just has to be. If they'd consider it just a cost of living, a liability even, we'd have such fewer financial issues in housing markets.