3 ms·

You have #1 and #2 inverted. Prop 13 happened first. After rents failed to stabilize [0], Rent Stabilization ordinances were enacted. [0] One of the several a

You have #1 and #2 inverted. Prop 13 happened first. After rents failed to stabilize [0], Rent Stabilization ordinances were enacted. [0] One of the several arguments for Prop 13 was "Prop 13's enactment would keep rents in check, because increases in property valuations (and -thus- property taxes) are a significant contributor to spiralling rents.". Turns out that that argument was fabricated. :P

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Oh wow. You're totally right. I feel quite silly now!
- simoncion 11y ago
  No worries. If you're still within the edit window, it might be nice if you'd reorder the list in your second 'graph.
ghshephard 11y ago
The fascinating thing about Prop 13 [1] is that the Property Taxes can only increase by 2%/year unless the property is sold, or there is a change of ownership of the entity that owns the property. But, if the property is purchased by a group, and no member of that group owns more than 50%, then members of the group can change, and the property tax is never reset to market rates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
- simoncion 11y ago
  Yep. There needs to be some careful, real, honest thought put into it, but I'm strongly of the opinion that Prop 13 needs to be repealed, yesterday, with an allowance for a -say- ten-year gradual ramp-up in assessed property values for landowners who own a property for their use and/or the use of their family. Real estate investors and non-human owners can go take a hike. ;)
  - faster 11y ago
    What about retired people? A friend's single mom paid off her house 35 years ago in a relatively poor neighborhood in southern California. She worked as many jobs as she could to do that, all would be considered menial today; laundry, sewing, cleaning houses. That area is now expensive enough that even with Prop 13 her children have to pay her property taxes for her. Her family, friends, church, etc. are all there, so it's not a trivial thing for her to move someplace cheaper (which would be at least 50 miles away, not a reasonable bus ride in that area).
    - slyall 11y ago
      1. After a hard life she is now a millionaire 2. Assuming she is living almost alone she probably doesn't want a [big] house and could move into a smaller unit nearby (and have some money left over) 3. But, there probably are not any smaller units since zoning effectively blocked them being built.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        I'm never in favor of a solution that kicks homeowners who use their property as a home out of their homes. However, as you say, this mom is a millionaire. If she can deal with a change in location, she stands to make a metric shitload of money.
    - _delirium 11y ago
      I prefer Texas's solution to that problem, which given my leftish politics, doesn't happen that often. :) In Texas, people over 65 can stop paying property taxes entirely, but the taxes are not waived, instead they're just deferred and accrue as a lien on the home. When the home is eventually sold (either by them, or their heirs), the taxes are paid out of the proceeds (the state eats the remainder if the proceeds are less than the back taxes). This way a retired person never has to move because of an increase in the value of their property making the taxes unaffordable. But if and when it's sold, and they actually realize that gain from the property's value, at that point they do have to pay the taxes. Proposition 13 instead lets them have their cake and eat it too: they pay property taxes as if there were no value increase, but then can sell the property and get a big windfall.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Oh wow. You're totally right. I feel quite silly now!

simoncion 11y ago
No worries. If you're still within the edit window, it might be nice if you'd reorder the list in your second 'graph.

ghshephard 11y ago

The fascinating thing about Prop 13 [1] is that the Property Taxes can only increase by 2%/year unless the property is sold, or there is a change of ownership of the entity that owns the property. But, if the property is purchased by a group, and no member of that group owns more than 50%, then members of the group can change, and the property tax is never reset to market rates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

simoncion 11y ago
Yep. There needs to be some careful, real, honest thought put into it, but I'm strongly of the opinion that Prop 13 needs to be repealed, yesterday, with an allowance for a -say- ten-year gradual ramp-up in assessed property values for landowners who own a property for their use and/or the use of their family. Real estate investors and non-human owners can go take a hike. ;)
- faster 11y ago
  What about retired people? A friend's single mom paid off her house 35 years ago in a relatively poor neighborhood in southern California. She worked as many jobs as she could to do that, all would be considered menial today; laundry, sewing, cleaning houses. That area is now expensive enough that even with Prop 13 her children have to pay her property taxes for her. Her family, friends, church, etc. are all there, so it's not a trivial thing for her to move someplace cheaper (which would be at least 50 miles away, not a reasonable bus ride in that area).
  - slyall 11y ago
    1. After a hard life she is now a millionaire 2. Assuming she is living almost alone she probably doesn't want a [big] house and could move into a smaller unit nearby (and have some money left over) 3. But, there probably are not any smaller units since zoning effectively blocked them being built.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I'm never in favor of a solution that kicks homeowners who use their property as a home out of their homes. However, as you say, this mom is a millionaire. If she can deal with a change in location, she stands to make a metric shitload of money.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    I prefer Texas's solution to that problem, which given my leftish politics, doesn't happen that often. :) In Texas, people over 65 can stop paying property taxes entirely, but the taxes are not waived, instead they're just deferred and accrue as a lien on the home. When the home is eventually sold (either by them, or their heirs), the taxes are paid out of the proceeds (the state eats the remainder if the proceeds are less than the back taxes). This way a retired person never has to move because of an increase in the value of their property making the taxes unaffordable. But if and when it's sold, and they actually realize that gain from the property's value, at that point they do have to pay the taxes. Proposition 13 instead lets them have their cake and eat it too: they pay property taxes as if there were no value increase, but then can sell the property and get a big windfall.