> change in control of the LLC is considered a reassessment event so a single LLC would not be enough
Then don’t change control. For sake of argument, consider putting an entire town’s real estate into an LLC. Ownership is allotted with membership units which correspond to plots. You could have all the same local laws apply to the units instead of to the properties. The managing member could be a town-owned LLC or something; control would never change.
When the government runs out of money, the semantics aren’t going to matter. Either the rules will get changed, or the town goes bust.
The current situation in CA is tenable because the newcomers who are shouldering the disproportionate burden of taxes are high income, and can and are willing to afford it while the older homeowners continue to wield political power.
No one is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe a million+, on a house they don't actually get to own. You have a contract with the LLC, sure, but what happens when it goes bust?
That’s pretty much how a co-op works. Now I don’t think the CA government or market will allow that to happen, but a variant of that concept has existed for years.
Then don’t change control. For sake of argument, consider putting an entire town’s real estate into an LLC. Ownership is allotted with membership units which correspond to plots. You could have all the same local laws apply to the units instead of to the properties. The managing member could be a town-owned LLC or something; control would never change.