3 ms·

Prop 13 is across California, not just San Francisco. You're saying that home sales in CA have been suppressed because of Prop 13? You would be wrong. There

by steven2012 11y ago

Prop 13 is across California, not just San Francisco. You're saying that home sales in CA have been suppressed because of Prop 13? You would be wrong. There are about 6M housing units available in CA, and about 500k sales per year. That's an entire turnover of inventory in 12 years. Your anecdotal evidence is interesting but wrong.

skuhn 11y ago
I did not state that property sales have been suppressed, I said that property tax revenue has been suppressed. My particular anecdote was around property improvement, not sales. And once again, a property sale does not mean that reassessment definitely occurred. However it is hardly groundbreaking to state that prop 13 has created a "lock in" effect [1][2][3][4]. [1] http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-final.pdf http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-final.pdf [2] http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.pdf http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.p... [3] http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-housing-lottery-new-home-sales-no-2011-summer-bounce-real-estate/ http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-housin... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.html?ex=1182830400&en=3831f57bb981c487&ei=5070m http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.ht...
- steven2012 11y ago
  Yes, actually you did say that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which I said was wrong. Based on the level of home sales and the current median home prices, it's safe to say that there is more than enough turnover to reset property taxes, and the idea that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which was your initial statement, is utter nonsense. Linking articles that are 10 years old and from the middle of the housing bust is also nonsense. No one is talking about prop 13 now because there is more than enough housing turnover across CA, and more than enough hungry home buyers willing to pay whatever price, regardless of the property tax. And since I know you just skimmed the articles you posted and didn't read it, here's a finding that pretty much talks about today's environment, and it completely invalidates what you are saying about Prop 13: "Rapidly rising housing prices may also have contributed to reduced tenure by increasing home sales, including speculative home purchases. Low mortgage interest rates over that period may have also increased home sales, especially for first-time home buyers, which in turn, would decrease average tenure."
  - skuhn 11y ago
    Sorry that you're so fixated on prop 13 not contributing to any issues with local revenue collection or housing shortfalls. I continue to disagree. Either way though, neither of us are likely to get to express our opinions by voting in our life times. To your point that "no one is talking about prop 13": a constitutional amendment to modify it was proposed 3 months ago [1]. Obviously that will never go anywhere -- the state can't even pass a balanced budget with regularity. But then, that's the whole problem with propositions, isn't it? Otherwise, I think that you can rest easy, your point has been made. You prefer to make accusations (article skimming! anecdotes that are anecdotal!) rather than constructive dialogue. Welcome to the Internet, it's full of people you won't get along with. [1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article23689426.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...

skuhn 11y ago

I did not state that property sales have been suppressed, I said that property tax revenue has been suppressed. My particular anecdote was around property improvement, not sales. And once again, a property sale does not mean that reassessment definitely occurred. However it is hardly groundbreaking to state that prop 13 has created a "lock in" effect [1][2][3][4]. [1] http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-final.pdf http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-final.pdf [2] http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.pdf http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.p... [3] http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-housing-lottery-new-home-sales-no-2011-summer-bounce-real-estate/ http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-housin... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.html?ex=1182830400&en=3831f57bb981c487&ei=5070m http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.ht...

steven2012 11y ago
Yes, actually you did say that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which I said was wrong. Based on the level of home sales and the current median home prices, it's safe to say that there is more than enough turnover to reset property taxes, and the idea that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which was your initial statement, is utter nonsense. Linking articles that are 10 years old and from the middle of the housing bust is also nonsense. No one is talking about prop 13 now because there is more than enough housing turnover across CA, and more than enough hungry home buyers willing to pay whatever price, regardless of the property tax. And since I know you just skimmed the articles you posted and didn't read it, here's a finding that pretty much talks about today's environment, and it completely invalidates what you are saying about Prop 13: "Rapidly rising housing prices may also have contributed to reduced tenure by increasing home sales, including speculative home purchases. Low mortgage interest rates over that period may have also increased home sales, especially for first-time home buyers, which in turn, would decrease average tenure."
- skuhn 11y ago
  Sorry that you're so fixated on prop 13 not contributing to any issues with local revenue collection or housing shortfalls. I continue to disagree. Either way though, neither of us are likely to get to express our opinions by voting in our life times. To your point that "no one is talking about prop 13": a constitutional amendment to modify it was proposed 3 months ago [1]. Obviously that will never go anywhere -- the state can't even pass a balanced budget with regularity. But then, that's the whole problem with propositions, isn't it? Otherwise, I think that you can rest easy, your point has been made. You prefer to make accusations (article skimming! anecdotes that are anecdotal!) rather than constructive dialogue. Welcome to the Internet, it's full of people you won't get along with. [1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article23689426.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...