Not one of you supports the elimination of SOH. It's bad law, because it benefits an entitled class. All of this back and forth on voting no or yes is window dressing hiding your own greed.
Although I believe it is bad law because of the vast inequities, not so much because it creates an "entitled" class. Landlords, small businesses, snowbirds and second homeowners and especially first time buyers get screwed.
My neighbor across the street, who has lived in his home for 16 years and is the director of pediatrics for a major hospital ($$$) pays a fraction of what we pay in property taxes on our house, which is slightly larger, on the same sized lot and purchased five years ago. Right now they are gutting the entire house and adding on some square footage -- we're talking a complete gut job; the only things left are the structural components and the exterior siding. They didn't move because they are "trapped" (read: spoiled) :roll: by SOH. They didn't tear down because of SOH. They will have a totally new house and their tax base will remain the same except for the added value from the square footage. It just does not make any sense at all.
The cap, obviously, is not saving their home. It is just saving them a heckuva lot of money. They are nice people and I am not being critical. They have wisely waited years to update their home. But the system is allowing them to work it to their advantage.
Portability is NOT going to make things better. It will make them worse.
I do believe seniors (and you can exclude the highest earners if need be) are worthy of some sort of cap. Beyond that, the only "cap" in place should be an overall spending yearly increase of 3 percent. Distribute that fairly among the masses and you will have a much better system.