4 ms·

The way to bring prices down is by expanding supply. Do we at least agree on that?

twblalock 10y ago
Yes.
dpark 10y ago
I agree the Bay needs to expand supply. But I think your premise is flawed. You say that commercial is prioritized over residential because it generates greater tax revenue. This may be true (edit: it's not), but new home construction generates greater tax revenue than existing homes thanks to prop 13. And yet, existing homes are prioritized over new homes as well. The issue is less that city councils need incentives to build new housing and more that the NIMBYs do. Large chunks of the population decry the high cost of housing and then vote against more. No one actually wants to see their home values drop and no one wants to see the rate of appreciation slow. You won't fix any of this by adding tax liens against these people. Also they'll just vote down your proposal. Edit: Actually, commercial construction isn't generating more tax revenue, because commercial properties also receive prop 13 protections. Residential properties supposedly generate 72% of tax revenues. http://www.evolve-ca.org/prop-13-facts/ http://www.evolve-ca.org/prop-13-facts/ Edit 2: General property taxes produced 6.5 times as much revenue for SF as sales taxes in 2015. Property taxes on vehicles alone (which is not included the the general property taxes) accounted for more revenue than sales taxes. It's utterly untrue that commercial real estate generates more revenue than residential. https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Spending-And-Revenue/bpnb-jwfb/data#column-menu https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Spending-A...
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > It's utterly untrue that commercial real estate generates more revenue than residential. You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the relative contribution of existing residential property vs. existing commercial property is; what matters is how new construction will affect the city's revenue. The argument is that given a parcel of land and the question of whether to approve it for residential or commercial construction, the city will realize more revenue from a commercial project. > Large chunks of the population decry the high cost of housing and then vote against more. No one actually wants to see their home values drop and no one wants to see the rate of appreciation slow. You won't fix any of this by adding tax liens against these people. Also they'll just vote down your proposal. Certainly there's a lot of that. My posting is an attempt to shift the debate by whatever small increment I can manage to. Also see: http://www.sfyimby.org/ http://www.sfyimby.org/ I think there is starting to be a change in sentiment as prices continue to rise.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the relative contribution of existing residential property vs. existing commercial property is; what matters is how new construction will affect the city's revenue. The argument is that given a parcel of land and the question of whether to approve it for residential or commercial construction, the city will realize more revenue from a commercial project. I can see that this is your argument. I'm not sure that it's at all true, though. Businesses in the Bay don't pay much in terms of direct business taxes. They do pay property taxes, but they sit on their properties much longer than typical homeowners so over time their taxes end up much lower. So you maybe get more sales tax, but that's really dependent on residents spending. I also don't see that construction of residential and commercial real estate as being in direct competition. Residential developments aren't being voted down in favor of commercial developments on the same parcels. > Certainly there's a lot of that. My posting is an attempt to shift the debate by whatever small increment I can manage to. I just don't see that your proposal addresses any of the real issues. What your proposal does is magnify the biggest negative effects of prop 13. > I think there is starting to be a change in sentiment as prices continue to rise. I hope sentiment changes, but I'm not seeing much evidence. The focuses seem to be around continuing the distorting effects of rent control and low-income housing. I'm not opposed to either of those, but they don't address the broader problems. If you want housing prices in reduce overall, you need more housing and/or better transit to make it easier to get in from more distant housing. You also need people to accept that their housing investments won't yield the returns they'd hoped for which is a tough sell.

Yes.

dpark 10y ago

I agree the Bay needs to expand supply. But I think your premise is flawed. You say that commercial is prioritized over residential because it generates greater tax revenue. This may be true (edit: it's not), but new home construction generates greater tax revenue than existing homes thanks to prop 13. And yet, existing homes are prioritized over new homes as well. The issue is less that city councils need incentives to build new housing and more that the NIMBYs do. Large chunks of the population decry the high cost of housing and then vote against more. No one actually wants to see their home values drop and no one wants to see the rate of appreciation slow. You won't fix any of this by adding tax liens against these people. Also they'll just vote down your proposal. Edit: Actually, commercial construction isn't generating more tax revenue, because commercial properties also receive prop 13 protections. Residential properties supposedly generate 72% of tax revenues. http://www.evolve-ca.org/prop-13-facts/ http://www.evolve-ca.org/prop-13-facts/ Edit 2: General property taxes produced 6.5 times as much revenue for SF as sales taxes in 2015. Property taxes on vehicles alone (which is not included the the general property taxes) accounted for more revenue than sales taxes. It's utterly untrue that commercial real estate generates more revenue than residential. https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Spending-And-Revenue/bpnb-jwfb/data#column-menu https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Spending-A...

ScottBurson 10y ago
> It's utterly untrue that commercial real estate generates more revenue than residential. You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the relative contribution of existing residential property vs. existing commercial property is; what matters is how new construction will affect the city's revenue. The argument is that given a parcel of land and the question of whether to approve it for residential or commercial construction, the city will realize more revenue from a commercial project. > Large chunks of the population decry the high cost of housing and then vote against more. No one actually wants to see their home values drop and no one wants to see the rate of appreciation slow. You won't fix any of this by adding tax liens against these people. Also they'll just vote down your proposal. Certainly there's a lot of that. My posting is an attempt to shift the debate by whatever small increment I can manage to. Also see: http://www.sfyimby.org/ http://www.sfyimby.org/ I think there is starting to be a change in sentiment as prices continue to rise.
- dpark 10y ago
  > You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the relative contribution of existing residential property vs. existing commercial property is; what matters is how new construction will affect the city's revenue. The argument is that given a parcel of land and the question of whether to approve it for residential or commercial construction, the city will realize more revenue from a commercial project. I can see that this is your argument. I'm not sure that it's at all true, though. Businesses in the Bay don't pay much in terms of direct business taxes. They do pay property taxes, but they sit on their properties much longer than typical homeowners so over time their taxes end up much lower. So you maybe get more sales tax, but that's really dependent on residents spending. I also don't see that construction of residential and commercial real estate as being in direct competition. Residential developments aren't being voted down in favor of commercial developments on the same parcels. > Certainly there's a lot of that. My posting is an attempt to shift the debate by whatever small increment I can manage to. I just don't see that your proposal addresses any of the real issues. What your proposal does is magnify the biggest negative effects of prop 13. > I think there is starting to be a change in sentiment as prices continue to rise. I hope sentiment changes, but I'm not seeing much evidence. The focuses seem to be around continuing the distorting effects of rent control and low-income housing. I'm not opposed to either of those, but they don't address the broader problems. If you want housing prices in reduce overall, you need more housing and/or better transit to make it easier to get in from more distant housing. You also need people to accept that their housing investments won't yield the returns they'd hoped for which is a tough sell.