12 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281... Good thoughts. You failed to

by mdb333 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281... Good thoughts. You failed to mention Prop 13 which was put into place a long time ago and simply doesn't make sense anymore. It's at least part of the reason it is so affordable (in relative terms) for rich people to keep second homes here when they bought them years ago. We live in a building of 60 units where probably at least a third of those are absentee owners. They're rich enough and the cost to maintain is so low that they don't even need or want to rent those units out. We've seen our neighbors only 2-3 times in past 2 years... but if you look at the property tax bills of folks who bought 10-20+ years ago they are minuscule and are only adjusted upon sale of the property. In our case, we're paying easily 4x what the previous owners were. We moved from DC couple years back which is also very expensive but their tax valuations are re-assessed on a regular basis so you don't have this huge disparity in what the rich old people are paying in prop tax vs the young not quite rich people are. If values and property taxes were reassessed every 3 years or so this would put more pressure on these absentee owners to either sell or rent their units thus increasing existing inventory as well as adding to the city's coffers.

jjav 11y ago
> are only adjusted upon sale of the property While often repeated, that is incorrect. In reality property tax goes up 2% every year under prop 13.
- seattle_spring 11y ago
  Which is insignificant compared to yearly property appreciation in the same area.
  - rsync 11y ago
    Let's please test your intellectual honesty, shall we ? You are indeed correct that in our very modern era, the 2% ratchet under prop13 is less than what we see California real estate appreciating at. So would you indeed support rebates and/or clawbacks and/or negative property tax increases if California was to ever see sustained drops in valuation ? I own property in California as well as in other states and I can tell you that the property taxes sure go upwards very easily ... not so much the other way around ...
    - dv_dt 11y ago
      I don't think the people railing against prop 13 have ever lived in states where property tax rates are out of control to the point the people lose their homes... it's not pretty.
      - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
        Do they lose their house in the sense of selling it at a massive profit? Or are the taxes rising irrespective of property prices?
        dv_dt 11y ago
        I'm not sure what it used to look like in CA pre prop 13, but I get the sense that many people lose homes due to even fairly short periods of cashflow problems, leading to tax leins leading to forclosure (and possible loss of much more equity): http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/ Seniors in those kind of conditions, would be unlikely do better selling off their homes and subject themselves to a more volatile rent for their homes.. which would likely lead to even higher societal financial supports needed so seniors don't end up on the street.
- lovich 11y ago
  I see sources backing up percentage increases that are much larger than 2% http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ https://www.boe.ca.gov/ma/news/AV_Bay-Area_PC.htm https://www.boe.ca.gov/ma/news/AV_Bay-Area_PC.htm
  - iolothebard 11y ago
    Sales reset the property taxes on properties. It was one of a few reasons I didn't buy a home in the Bay Area a few years back. Probably should have, my buddy that bought his house for 500k in the city is sitting on probably 1.2-1.4m now. Not bad for 3-4 years appreciation.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  So over 20 years, your property taxes would increase by ~49%. The median sale price in 1996 for a home in SF was $275/sq. ft, today it's more like $1,250/sq ft. 450% appreciation in 20 years, or something like 7x faster than property tax increases.
  - gedy 11y ago
    And why exactly would that help housing availability and costs for people living in SF?
    - mjevans 11y ago
      Supply side market pressure. More housing, lots, and lost, and lots of housing. Also, corresponding infrastructure (including civic utilities like parks) to accommodate the additional residents.
zt 11y ago
(I'm the author) Prop 13 is a problem, no doubt. It would deserve a very long essay -- some of them exist as sub-essays within Kim-Mai Cutler's writings. I tried to focus on policy ideas that, more-or-less, San Francisco could implement themselves.
- muzz 11y ago
  The magnitude of Prop 13's distortions contribute much more to the problem than policies that a city could implement itself. Housing is often viewed as a San Francisco problem, but really it's an area-wide problem acutely and a state-wide problem more broadly. I.e., areas outside the policy of San Francisco, such as peninsula, south bay, etc, are not significantly cheaper. And entire other metros, like Los Angeles and San Diego, have had similar percentage cost increases (and those metros are actually more "unaffordable" since incomes are lower there).
  - rsync 11y ago
    I am sympathetic to the notion that prop 13 is a massive distortion that is driving all of these problems ... But I have a hard time reconciling that with the relative pricing in other equally desirable coastal areas that do not have prop 13 (or anything like it). I am simplifying greatly, but in a broad sense, SF housing is as expensive as Boston housing is as expensive as NYC housing ... and certain hot-or-not inspired pic sites[1] lead me to believe that Vancouver beats all of them. Are you suggesting that, all else being equal, if prop13 was not extant, SF housing would be markedly lower than the aforementioned areas ? I can't imagine it would be ... [1] http://www.crackshackormansion.com/ http://www.crackshackormansion.com/
    - nkurz 11y ago
      I am simplifying greatly, but in a broad sense, SF housing is as expensive as Boston housing I don't think that's true even in the "broad sense". San Francisco rents may be roughly comparable to to NYC, but are significantly more than Boston: https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/04/zumper-national-rent-report-april-2016/ https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/04/zumper-national-rent-rep... It may not be true, but I think the argument would be that in the absence of Prop 13, SF rents would indeed be comparable to Boston rather than 50% higher.
Pinatubo 11y ago
> We live in a building of 60 units where probably at least a third of those are absentee owners. They're rich enough and the cost to maintain is so low that they don't even need or want to rent those units out. Another possible cause is that being a landlord in San Francisco is incredibly difficult and time consuming. Last year friends of mine rented out their condo to someone that turned out to be a problem tenant. They had to hire a lawyer and pay the tenant off in order to get him to move. Rather than making money as landlords, they lost almost $50,000 on the deal. The apartment now sits vacant, and they have no plans to rent it out again.
Agustus 11y ago
In your example, the building you describe is a condominium? If so, then what does it matter what your tax bill is and if they are absentee owners; if the owner maintains the property, pays their bills and taxes, then you should be happy to have them. Tax reassessments during the boom of 2001 to 2007 were on track to price a lot of people out of their houses based on their current economic status. Proposition 13 and other bills passed across the country allowed individuals to avoid being "taxed out" of their house. If you have a job that pays $100,000 and the taxes on your $250,000 house is $7,500 (3% property tax) and the tax quadruples to $30,000 in five years; why would you want the market fluctuations to be able to force an individual to leave their house? The main item with this problem, as is with all affordability issues is that supply is not meeting demand. Look in Detroit and Flint where there is not enough demand and the supply is worth next to nothing. Author's points of increased units would lead to a drop in prices until it becomes affordable to all. San Francisco will never allow it because the people who live there want to keep it San Francisco and NIMBY rules.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  It creates a built in incentive for NIMBYs to not block development, lest they feel the pain of increased 'rent' too. If the bay area built as many units at the rate of texas or seattle for example, none of this would of been a big deal. Imagine old people viciously fighting for increased development lest their property tax bill goes up, unlike the opposite today at most city council meetings. The elderly drive most housing policy in many ways because they have the free time, general boredom and incentive to participate in the political process this way. Property tax is also almost never approaching %3. The range can be %0.5 to %2.5. A high property tax rate actually helps modulate the value of houses in a market since the price of housing is based on the monthly payment. This is what contributes to texas being a cheap housing state, since the high property tax prevents housing values from going up too quickly. Unoccupied properties also cause the supply to go down without a person or family inside it contributing to the local economy. Idle assets should be put to productive use, it's half the point of a property tax already.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
coroutines 11y ago
Prop 13 is really great and really bad. My grandparents own a home in Livermore they've had from 1925. Livermore is now a very costly place to live in, and modern property taxes would make it impossible for them to live in a city they saw grow up around them. I do think Prop 13's protection should be eliminated for businesses - most definitely. If you're a landlord, perhaps it would make sense to allow up to 2 x Prop 13-protected [low-density] properties, and all those after would have unfixed property tax. The problem here is landlords will simply pass this along to renters, so it seems 'sane' to just eliminate Prop 13 for commercial and not residential properties. We lose billions of dollars in tax money from corporations because of Prop 13. :(
- mahyarm 11y ago
  Then make prop 13 a 65+ only law that can only apply to your main residence.
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    Why only 65+? What about not forcing families to uproot and move because they can't afford the taxes?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - muzz 11y ago
      The only way this would happen is if the property appreciates. At current property tax rate of 1.1%, a half-million dollar appreciation would result in $5500 yr additional property tax. I would gladly trade spots with those who have to uproot themselves because they've had such massive home price appreciation.
  - coroutines 11y ago
    Final answer: Residential only, not commercial/business property. Seniors aren't the only ones who need this. I also want to add that what sucks so hard about businesses being protected by Prop 13 is that businesses can live much longer than people. Disney might keep its decades-old fixed property tax for more than a hundred years.
gedy 11y ago
You should separate absentee owners from all owner occupied. Otherwise it seems you are saying: "Housing is too expensive - so we need to increase the property tax to be much higher than it is now."
capkutay 11y ago
If you care about SF housing, please just show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. Talking about policy on hacker news is useless. Better yet, start or join a grassroots group of at least 10-15 people and thoughtfully present all your ideas without coming off as insensitive towards the homeless or low-income individuals. There's TONS of room for public input in SF, it's what makes our planning process unique. In many cases, this leads to a deficit in housing because planning is so sensitive to the request of those who actually show up to meetings and make their case.
- skewart 11y ago
  I wish I could upvote your comment twice. People need to get involved in person!
- smrtinsert 11y ago
  It's not useless, its confirmation that those of us enjoying our easy lives in DC should stay here.
- SonjaKT 11y ago
  ---> And, YOU CAN VOTE MAY 10th! www.sfyimby.org/slate/ TELL A FRIEND ALSO
dv_dt 11y ago
In my view, Prop 13 is a most problematic as applied to investment/commercial real estate, a lesser one applied to secondary residences - but really is a good thing for primary residences.
- zach 11y ago
  People are surprised that Prop. 13 applies to investment and commercial real estate. I was too until I discovered that Howard Jarvis and the backers of the proposition were all apartment owners. If it only applied to owner-occupied residences, it would never have been up for a (off-year election) vote.
rokhayakebe 11y ago
But why are people upset at others who've made a good investment 10, 20, 50 years ago. That's like telling you you have to either use your savings you haven't touched in x years or give the money to someone else to use it.
- mdb333 11y ago
  not really... it's more like a de-escalating tax bracket; The longer you've owned the home the lower the taxes you pay. However, the reality is that in return you're receiving the exact same "services" as the person buying today. How is that equitable in any way? Their good investment allows them to sell that property at a profit, rent it for cash flow, or just sit on it. It's still their choice. Just like in the financial crisis, companies were hoarding cash due to uncertainty but because interest rates were zero-negative this encouraged spending and propped up the economy until more material improvements could be achieved. It's basic economics at the end of the day.
marincounty 11y ago
I'm getting tired of defending prop 13. I'll take it as fact that their's empty potential rental units in San Francisco because it's so cheap to just keep the place. I work in San Francisco. I have lived in San Francisco. I have had two generations of family live in that city. I don't like the city like a lot of you do. I try to avoid it on weekends. I just haven't seen these empty potential rental units? I now live in Marin County. I can guarantee I have never seen a empty house due to low property taxes. My aunt used to live in Marin county. She was far from wealthy. She could only afford to stay here because her property taxes were reasonable. Actually, I would have let her stay with me for free, but she wanted her own house. A house she bought on a librarian's wage in the 50's. Yea--I know--you should let rediculious property taxes force her to move in with you to free up a home. A home she bought. You will be her one day--I guarantee that--especially the average Programmer. I was a kid, but before prop 13 property rates were going up every year--without a ceiling in sight. It was making Everyone scared. Beyond scared. Mad as Hell--by Howard Jarvis. I remember my father barely making those bi-yearly payments. I remember the fear on their faces. This was in the 70's, when San Francisco and Marin county were still basically middle class. Way before society decided these counties were magical? When prop 13 passed. Their was a middle class sigh of relief. Why can't you find a reasonable place to rent? San Francisco has always been a tight market. Yea, blame rent control. Marin has always been a tight market--no rent control, except in San Anselmo--detached mother-inlaw units are attached to federal poverty level in some way? So--what's the problem? It's a unicorn of problems. People are greedy. Building is very difficult. Zoning codes are ridid. Their are NIMBYs. Etc. Again--people are greedy. Say there's a three bedroom two car garage house in Marin is paying $6000/yr in property taxes. The house has one working bathroom. There's no legal on street parking. Do you really think that house will not be rented out. How do you think these people have the money they appear to have? Even if your premise is right--do you really think rents would drop, if say 10 percent of housing opened up overnight? I really don't think some of you realize this is not the Bible Belt. There's not much morality here, except on Christmas, and maybe a few other holidays. People want their money. They are greedy. Get used to it. I've seen greedy behavior forever, and there's always those that will look for something easy to blame it on. It's not prop 13! It's usually that CEO who needs to live in only the best enviornment? The beach, and mountians, and a low crime rate. Yea--that's where I want to set up shop? Let's the peons fight for housing. Actually, the state would love it if this blame catches on. The State of California will rob you blind. That greedy behavior I have see in people, and even the state always sickened me. (I wrote this off the cuff. There's bound to be errors. I really don't care to hear about petty errors. Actually, I don't come back to most posts, so fight among yourselfs. I can guarantee the state loves this blame on prop 13.)

by mdb333 11y ago

jjav 11y ago

> are only adjusted upon sale of the property While often repeated, that is incorrect. In reality property tax goes up 2% every year under prop 13.

seattle_spring 11y ago
Which is insignificant compared to yearly property appreciation in the same area.
- rsync 11y ago
  Let's please test your intellectual honesty, shall we ? You are indeed correct that in our very modern era, the 2% ratchet under prop13 is less than what we see California real estate appreciating at. So would you indeed support rebates and/or clawbacks and/or negative property tax increases if California was to ever see sustained drops in valuation ? I own property in California as well as in other states and I can tell you that the property taxes sure go upwards very easily ... not so much the other way around ...
  - dv_dt 11y ago
    I don't think the people railing against prop 13 have ever lived in states where property tax rates are out of control to the point the people lose their homes... it's not pretty.
    - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
      Do they lose their house in the sense of selling it at a massive profit? Or are the taxes rising irrespective of property prices?
      - dv_dt 11y ago
        I'm not sure what it used to look like in CA pre prop 13, but I get the sense that many people lose homes due to even fairly short periods of cashflow problems, leading to tax leins leading to forclosure (and possible loss of much more equity): http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/ Seniors in those kind of conditions, would be unlikely do better selling off their homes and subject themselves to a more volatile rent for their homes.. which would likely lead to even higher societal financial supports needed so seniors don't end up on the street.
lovich 11y ago
I see sources backing up percentage increases that are much larger than 2% http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ https://www.boe.ca.gov/ma/news/AV_Bay-Area_PC.htm https://www.boe.ca.gov/ma/news/AV_Bay-Area_PC.htm
- iolothebard 11y ago
  Sales reset the property taxes on properties. It was one of a few reasons I didn't buy a home in the Bay Area a few years back. Probably should have, my buddy that bought his house for 500k in the city is sitting on probably 1.2-1.4m now. Not bad for 3-4 years appreciation.
mikeyouse 11y ago
So over 20 years, your property taxes would increase by ~49%. The median sale price in 1996 for a home in SF was $275/sq. ft, today it's more like $1,250/sq ft. 450% appreciation in 20 years, or something like 7x faster than property tax increases.
- gedy 11y ago
  And why exactly would that help housing availability and costs for people living in SF?
  - mjevans 11y ago
    Supply side market pressure. More housing, lots, and lost, and lots of housing. Also, corresponding infrastructure (including civic utilities like parks) to accommodate the additional residents.

zt 11y ago

(I'm the author) Prop 13 is a problem, no doubt. It would deserve a very long essay -- some of them exist as sub-essays within Kim-Mai Cutler's writings. I tried to focus on policy ideas that, more-or-less, San Francisco could implement themselves.

muzz 11y ago
The magnitude of Prop 13's distortions contribute much more to the problem than policies that a city could implement itself. Housing is often viewed as a San Francisco problem, but really it's an area-wide problem acutely and a state-wide problem more broadly. I.e., areas outside the policy of San Francisco, such as peninsula, south bay, etc, are not significantly cheaper. And entire other metros, like Los Angeles and San Diego, have had similar percentage cost increases (and those metros are actually more "unaffordable" since incomes are lower there).
- rsync 11y ago
  I am sympathetic to the notion that prop 13 is a massive distortion that is driving all of these problems ... But I have a hard time reconciling that with the relative pricing in other equally desirable coastal areas that do not have prop 13 (or anything like it). I am simplifying greatly, but in a broad sense, SF housing is as expensive as Boston housing is as expensive as NYC housing ... and certain hot-or-not inspired pic sites[1] lead me to believe that Vancouver beats all of them. Are you suggesting that, all else being equal, if prop13 was not extant, SF housing would be markedly lower than the aforementioned areas ? I can't imagine it would be ... [1] http://www.crackshackormansion.com/ http://www.crackshackormansion.com/
  - nkurz 11y ago
    I am simplifying greatly, but in a broad sense, SF housing is as expensive as Boston housing I don't think that's true even in the "broad sense". San Francisco rents may be roughly comparable to to NYC, but are significantly more than Boston: https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/04/zumper-national-rent-report-april-2016/ https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/04/zumper-national-rent-rep... It may not be true, but I think the argument would be that in the absence of Prop 13, SF rents would indeed be comparable to Boston rather than 50% higher.

Pinatubo 11y ago

> We live in a building of 60 units where probably at least a third of those are absentee owners. They're rich enough and the cost to maintain is so low that they don't even need or want to rent those units out. Another possible cause is that being a landlord in San Francisco is incredibly difficult and time consuming. Last year friends of mine rented out their condo to someone that turned out to be a problem tenant. They had to hire a lawyer and pay the tenant off in order to get him to move. Rather than making money as landlords, they lost almost $50,000 on the deal. The apartment now sits vacant, and they have no plans to rent it out again.

Agustus 11y ago

In your example, the building you describe is a condominium? If so, then what does it matter what your tax bill is and if they are absentee owners; if the owner maintains the property, pays their bills and taxes, then you should be happy to have them. Tax reassessments during the boom of 2001 to 2007 were on track to price a lot of people out of their houses based on their current economic status. Proposition 13 and other bills passed across the country allowed individuals to avoid being "taxed out" of their house. If you have a job that pays $100,000 and the taxes on your $250,000 house is $7,500 (3% property tax) and the tax quadruples to $30,000 in five years; why would you want the market fluctuations to be able to force an individual to leave their house? The main item with this problem, as is with all affordability issues is that supply is not meeting demand. Look in Detroit and Flint where there is not enough demand and the supply is worth next to nothing. Author's points of increased units would lead to a drop in prices until it becomes affordable to all. San Francisco will never allow it because the people who live there want to keep it San Francisco and NIMBY rules.

mahyarm 11y ago
It creates a built in incentive for NIMBYs to not block development, lest they feel the pain of increased 'rent' too. If the bay area built as many units at the rate of texas or seattle for example, none of this would of been a big deal. Imagine old people viciously fighting for increased development lest their property tax bill goes up, unlike the opposite today at most city council meetings. The elderly drive most housing policy in many ways because they have the free time, general boredom and incentive to participate in the political process this way. Property tax is also almost never approaching %3. The range can be %0.5 to %2.5. A high property tax rate actually helps modulate the value of houses in a market since the price of housing is based on the monthly payment. This is what contributes to texas being a cheap housing state, since the high property tax prevents housing values from going up too quickly. Unoccupied properties also cause the supply to go down without a person or family inside it contributing to the local economy. Idle assets should be put to productive use, it's half the point of a property tax already.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago

coroutines 11y ago

Prop 13 is really great and really bad. My grandparents own a home in Livermore they've had from 1925. Livermore is now a very costly place to live in, and modern property taxes would make it impossible for them to live in a city they saw grow up around them. I do think Prop 13's protection should be eliminated for businesses - most definitely. If you're a landlord, perhaps it would make sense to allow up to 2 x Prop 13-protected [low-density] properties, and all those after would have unfixed property tax. The problem here is landlords will simply pass this along to renters, so it seems 'sane' to just eliminate Prop 13 for commercial and not residential properties. We lose billions of dollars in tax money from corporations because of Prop 13. :(

mahyarm 11y ago
Then make prop 13 a 65+ only law that can only apply to your main residence.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  Why only 65+? What about not forcing families to uproot and move because they can't afford the taxes?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - muzz 11y ago
    The only way this would happen is if the property appreciates. At current property tax rate of 1.1%, a half-million dollar appreciation would result in $5500 yr additional property tax. I would gladly trade spots with those who have to uproot themselves because they've had such massive home price appreciation.
- coroutines 11y ago
  Final answer: Residential only, not commercial/business property. Seniors aren't the only ones who need this. I also want to add that what sucks so hard about businesses being protected by Prop 13 is that businesses can live much longer than people. Disney might keep its decades-old fixed property tax for more than a hundred years.

gedy 11y ago

You should separate absentee owners from all owner occupied. Otherwise it seems you are saying: "Housing is too expensive - so we need to increase the property tax to be much higher than it is now."

capkutay 11y ago

If you care about SF housing, please just show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. Talking about policy on hacker news is useless. Better yet, start or join a grassroots group of at least 10-15 people and thoughtfully present all your ideas without coming off as insensitive towards the homeless or low-income individuals. There's TONS of room for public input in SF, it's what makes our planning process unique. In many cases, this leads to a deficit in housing because planning is so sensitive to the request of those who actually show up to meetings and make their case.

skewart 11y ago
I wish I could upvote your comment twice. People need to get involved in person!
smrtinsert 11y ago
It's not useless, its confirmation that those of us enjoying our easy lives in DC should stay here.
SonjaKT 11y ago
---> And, YOU CAN VOTE MAY 10th! www.sfyimby.org/slate/ TELL A FRIEND ALSO

dv_dt 11y ago

In my view, Prop 13 is a most problematic as applied to investment/commercial real estate, a lesser one applied to secondary residences - but really is a good thing for primary residences.

zach 11y ago
People are surprised that Prop. 13 applies to investment and commercial real estate. I was too until I discovered that Howard Jarvis and the backers of the proposition were all apartment owners. If it only applied to owner-occupied residences, it would never have been up for a (off-year election) vote.

rokhayakebe 11y ago

But why are people upset at others who've made a good investment 10, 20, 50 years ago. That's like telling you you have to either use your savings you haven't touched in x years or give the money to someone else to use it.

mdb333 11y ago
not really... it's more like a de-escalating tax bracket; The longer you've owned the home the lower the taxes you pay. However, the reality is that in return you're receiving the exact same "services" as the person buying today. How is that equitable in any way? Their good investment allows them to sell that property at a profit, rent it for cash flow, or just sit on it. It's still their choice. Just like in the financial crisis, companies were hoarding cash due to uncertainty but because interest rates were zero-negative this encouraged spending and propped up the economy until more material improvements could be achieved. It's basic economics at the end of the day.

marincounty 11y ago

I'm getting tired of defending prop 13. I'll take it as fact that their's empty potential rental units in San Francisco because it's so cheap to just keep the place. I work in San Francisco. I have lived in San Francisco. I have had two generations of family live in that city. I don't like the city like a lot of you do. I try to avoid it on weekends. I just haven't seen these empty potential rental units? I now live in Marin County. I can guarantee I have never seen a empty house due to low property taxes. My aunt used to live in Marin county. She was far from wealthy. She could only afford to stay here because her property taxes were reasonable. Actually, I would have let her stay with me for free, but she wanted her own house. A house she bought on a librarian's wage in the 50's. Yea--I know--you should let rediculious property taxes force her to move in with you to free up a home. A home she bought. You will be her one day--I guarantee that--especially the average Programmer. I was a kid, but before prop 13 property rates were going up every year--without a ceiling in sight. It was making Everyone scared. Beyond scared. Mad as Hell--by Howard Jarvis. I remember my father barely making those bi-yearly payments. I remember the fear on their faces. This was in the 70's, when San Francisco and Marin county were still basically middle class. Way before society decided these counties were magical? When prop 13 passed. Their was a middle class sigh of relief. Why can't you find a reasonable place to rent? San Francisco has always been a tight market. Yea, blame rent control. Marin has always been a tight market--no rent control, except in San Anselmo--detached mother-inlaw units are attached to federal poverty level in some way? So--what's the problem? It's a unicorn of problems. People are greedy. Building is very difficult. Zoning codes are ridid. Their are NIMBYs. Etc. Again--people are greedy. Say there's a three bedroom two car garage house in Marin is paying $6000/yr in property taxes. The house has one working bathroom. There's no legal on street parking. Do you really think that house will not be rented out. How do you think these people have the money they appear to have? Even if your premise is right--do you really think rents would drop, if say 10 percent of housing opened up overnight? I really don't think some of you realize this is not the Bible Belt. There's not much morality here, except on Christmas, and maybe a few other holidays. People want their money. They are greedy. Get used to it. I've seen greedy behavior forever, and there's always those that will look for something easy to blame it on. It's not prop 13! It's usually that CEO who needs to live in only the best enviornment? The beach, and mountians, and a low crime rate. Yea--that's where I want to set up shop? Let's the peons fight for housing. Actually, the state would love it if this blame catches on. The State of California will rob you blind. That greedy behavior I have see in people, and even the state always sickened me. (I wrote this off the cuff. There's bound to be errors. I really don't care to hear about petty errors. Actually, I don't come back to most posts, so fight among yourselfs. I can guarantee the state loves this blame on prop 13.)