Because banks know that investors/tenants don’t maintain properties as well, and fight needed reserves and assessments — don’t even think of arguing against the fact).

I would argue that the development prior to that when as far back as 2014 for new construction.

So, it would be futile to argue this back and forth.

Assembly Bill 1771, also known as the California Housing Speculation Act, aims to change real estate tax policy to discourage investors from quickly reselling properties like single-family homes.Under the proposed bill, an additional 25% tax would be imposed on the gain from the sale of a qualified asset (including homes) within three years of the previous sale.The tax reduction is dependent on the number of years passed since the initial purchase of the qualified asset, ranging from a 20% reduction for sales occurring between 3.01 to 4 years to a 100% reduction for sales occurring more than seven years after the initial purchase.The revenues generated by this tax increase would be deposited into the Speculation Recapture Community Reinvestment Fund, which aims to support affordable housing, local governments, schools, and infrastructure projects.The bill is introduced by Assembly Member Ward, and the proposed tax changes would take effect from January 1, 2023.Assembly Member Ward argues that short-term investors in the market, including fix and flip investors, contribute to rising housing prices, limiting opportunities for Californians to purchase homes.While the bill may discourage short-term speculative transactions, it is worth noting that California's tax laws still provide certain advantages for investors, including unlimited tax write-offs and depreciation benefits.The bill is subject to legislative approval, and Assembly Member Ward will speak publicly about the bill at the San Diego County Administration Center on a specified date.Please note that this is a simplified summary of the bill and its potential impact on fix and flip investors.

If want to argue the opposite, let us know where your cap-x account stands in reserve capital?     

Four months of arguing with different people and I finally got my $450 back.  

I would flip the script and argue under those circumstances the client is serving as the bank for the contractor and not the way you presented it.

Hard to argue around that. 

They argue that tenants wouldn't want to lose their government-supported housing, so they'll be good tenants.

I would argue that the premium is valid due to the value I added to the property by getting the legal structure and agreements in place, then finding like-minded buyers.I'm looking for people to poke holes in my logic.