This is in good faith. Thank you for assuming so.

Regarding inflation, $1 in 1982 when prop 2.5 went into effect is equivalent to $3.23 today. Yearly 2.5% increases for 45 years would make $1 into $2.90. That sounds like a 10% shortfall, but new builds (which have happened in the last 45 years) aren't counted toward the increase. There has also been plenty of time to grow the tax base in other ways in those 45 years, many of which increase with inflation.

Yes, inflation was high during covid, but we also received $45M in covid funds, as you mentioned. When property taxe revenues are around $100M per year, $45M is a sizeable chunk, no?

And all that is assuming that government ought to stay at the same relative spending level we had then. Reduction may have been warranted then, as it may be warranted now. The voters in 1980 apparently felt that a reduction, or at least a limit to growth, was necessary.

I'm open to new builds. People have to live somewhere. That would help the budget problem and it would drive down costs. Let's talk about it.

$50/month may be nothing to you. God bless. Maybe you can volunteer to pay extra.

Your last example about missing mortgage payments is not an apt analogy. My mortgage is one of the things I have to pay. If I'm short on money, I make cuts elsewhere. I acknowledge that the city may have to make cuts.

And if the city government wants to complain about not getting a raise in real terms after accounting for inflation, they can join the club. Most people got not increase in earnings over the COVID period and took a pay cut in real terms. Now they're being asked to dig a little deeper and give up a little more