6 ms·

True, but exacerbated in the Bay Area by the effects of Proposition 13, which makes it even harder for cities to pay for improvements in services. https://en.w

by sib 10y ago

True, but exacerbated in the Bay Area by the effects of Proposition 13, which makes it even harder for cities to pay for improvements in services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

azinman2 10y ago
San Francisco has record revenue, almost doubling in recent years (and what's been done? We had a 100M deficit last year???!). There's lots of taxes one can put in place beyond property taxes. Furthermore, those that are locked in by prop 13 will slowly die or move losing that protected status. Meanwhile if prop 13 went away people like my parents who bought in the bay long ago would no longer be able to afford living here. We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. They're becoming increasingly rare, and once trends change (suburbs become popular, tech busts, prices are too high, other cities catch up, etc) SF would be bare without them.
- Kalium 10y ago
  > We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. Sure. But at what cost? And paid by who? And for how long? When we're preserving someone's memories of SF from 1965 at a huge cost to everyone who has the temerity to be under 45, it may be time to maybe possibly consider a re-evaluation of the balance of costs and benefits. If preserving things for your parents means a hundred working-class families get pushed out by rents rising because your parents' memories require no new housing built, the balance of policy exhibits significant opportunity for improvement. The past is important, but it's not healthy for the future to be enslaved to the past. Your parents, too, are a trend that will change.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    Pushing people out of their houses because the city needs more revenue is not cool. Most people understand that, which is why prop 13 stays.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      Pushing people out of their homes because fixing some voter's property taxes to the mid 1970s has over time resulted in a truly evil rental market is not cool either. Most people understand this too, which is why there is some hostility to those protected by prop 13. Do you think the people protected by prop 13 deserve to be protected and the people living in apartments in the Mission don't? What about anyone moving to the area now and getting hammered with $3k+ rent? Prop 13, by itself and in isolation, is not a bad thing. In SF specifically and the Bay in general, it has had very nasty and pernicious knock-on effects that harm everyone. It's pushing out the people who made the area what it is - the very people prop 13 is supposed to protect! In short, I agree with you. Pushing people out of their homes is not cool. We should pursue policies that don't cause people to be pushed out of their homes.
      - ktRolster 10y ago
        Why on earth do you think changing proposition 13 would 'fix' the rental market?
        Kalium 10y ago
        There are a couple of reasons. First, there are sane rental markets in other places without prop 13 or anything like it. This makes clear that prop 13 is neither necessary nor sufficient for a sane rental market. This raises the question of whether prop 13 is really needed at all. Second, prop 13 has contributed to the current insanity by created a privileged group that acts to protect their privilege. They protect their privilege by becoming ferocious NIMBYs and other means. This means that housing for people not currently covered by prop 13 is more expensive than it needs to be. Changing prop 13 is not sufficient to fix an insane rental market, but we really should consider a potential re-examination of a policy that has helped push a great many people out of their homes. Pushing people out of their homes is not cool. We should consider maybe doing less of it.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        How does prop 13 make housing more expensive for people not currently covered by prop 13? If the owner of the apartment pays fewer taxes, won't that keep prices down for the renter?

by sib 10y ago

azinman2 10y ago

San Francisco has record revenue, almost doubling in recent years (and what's been done? We had a 100M deficit last year???!). There's lots of taxes one can put in place beyond property taxes. Furthermore, those that are locked in by prop 13 will slowly die or move losing that protected status. Meanwhile if prop 13 went away people like my parents who bought in the bay long ago would no longer be able to afford living here. We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. They're becoming increasingly rare, and once trends change (suburbs become popular, tech busts, prices are too high, other cities catch up, etc) SF would be bare without them.

Kalium 10y ago
> We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. Sure. But at what cost? And paid by who? And for how long? When we're preserving someone's memories of SF from 1965 at a huge cost to everyone who has the temerity to be under 45, it may be time to maybe possibly consider a re-evaluation of the balance of costs and benefits. If preserving things for your parents means a hundred working-class families get pushed out by rents rising because your parents' memories require no new housing built, the balance of policy exhibits significant opportunity for improvement. The past is important, but it's not healthy for the future to be enslaved to the past. Your parents, too, are a trend that will change.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Pushing people out of their houses because the city needs more revenue is not cool. Most people understand that, which is why prop 13 stays.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Pushing people out of their homes because fixing some voter's property taxes to the mid 1970s has over time resulted in a truly evil rental market is not cool either. Most people understand this too, which is why there is some hostility to those protected by prop 13. Do you think the people protected by prop 13 deserve to be protected and the people living in apartments in the Mission don't? What about anyone moving to the area now and getting hammered with $3k+ rent? Prop 13, by itself and in isolation, is not a bad thing. In SF specifically and the Bay in general, it has had very nasty and pernicious knock-on effects that harm everyone. It's pushing out the people who made the area what it is - the very people prop 13 is supposed to protect! In short, I agree with you. Pushing people out of their homes is not cool. We should pursue policies that don't cause people to be pushed out of their homes.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      Why on earth do you think changing proposition 13 would 'fix' the rental market?
      - Kalium 10y ago
        There are a couple of reasons. First, there are sane rental markets in other places without prop 13 or anything like it. This makes clear that prop 13 is neither necessary nor sufficient for a sane rental market. This raises the question of whether prop 13 is really needed at all. Second, prop 13 has contributed to the current insanity by created a privileged group that acts to protect their privilege. They protect their privilege by becoming ferocious NIMBYs and other means. This means that housing for people not currently covered by prop 13 is more expensive than it needs to be. Changing prop 13 is not sufficient to fix an insane rental market, but we really should consider a potential re-examination of a policy that has helped push a great many people out of their homes. Pushing people out of their homes is not cool. We should consider maybe doing less of it.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        How does prop 13 make housing more expensive for people not currently covered by prop 13? If the owner of the apartment pays fewer taxes, won't that keep prices down for the renter?