It's still an attempt to let people live where they've settled and put down roots. No it's not absolute, but it's in that direction, and like they say, the only thing guaranteed in life are death and taxes.
Sure, but I distinguished between an absolute right ("no one is arguing for that") vs. a more limited right that various places already have.
When you wrote "that you should have that right", were you referring to the absolute right? Or the limited right that I said already exist in places?
I thought you referring to the former, as that's the part you quoted. However, you gave an example of a more limited right, so isn't actually a counter-example.
What I was thinking about was how various countries have "attempt to let people live where they've settled and put down roots" as a matter of national policy.
Take Norway, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-tenancy-act/id2... "Termination by the landlord of a tenancy agreement valid for an unspecified period" shows the small number of reasons a landlord can kick someone out. Otherwise you have the indefinite right to live there.
Speaking of death, it even lists succession rights on the death of a tenant "If the tenant of a dwelling dies, the following persons are entitled to succeed to the tenancy".
I personally think these leaseholder examples, which unlike CA Prop 13 run counter to the interests of the landowner, make them a clearer example of supporting the "right to live where you were born in perpetuity".
