4 ms·

IIRC most counties let you transfer your prop 13 status to a smaller dwelling. But I think it has to be within the same county. I'm not sure how accurate tha

by sbov 10y ago

IIRC most counties let you transfer your prop 13 status to a smaller dwelling. But I think it has to be within the same county. I'm not sure how accurate that is, it was just something my mom mentioned in passing a while back. She lives in a 4 bedroom in San Jose she bought in the early 70's and has been considering downsizing. However, her property taxes are so low it wouldn't make sense to make the switch to a condo or apartment, as she pays so little in property taxes. HN likes to blame prop 13 for California's housing problem. But keep in mind that prop 13 was passed because of rapidly increasing property values. Given that, it seems likely that a large portion of California's housing prices have no relation to prop 13.

linkregister 10y ago
In the article it notes a drastic increase in housing prices and a massive drop in development after the passing of prop 13. I didn't see a graph so it could be wildly exaggerating the impact of prop 13.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 10y ago
>prop 13 was passed because of rapidly increasing property values The owners who passed it are content to sit on their houses in perpetuity. If property values had continued to rise past owners' appetite for property tax bills, CA homes would be occupied by people under financial pressure to sell them. It seems reasonable to think that would leave prices lower than where they are today. It wouldn't stop the pressure, probably wouldn't keep those people from getting displaced, but it'd be a relief valve for the tech workers trying to move in.
- sbov 10y ago
  Why is a relief valve for tech workers more important than the people you would be displacing? I agree that, on average, prop 13 should go. But you cannot do it overnight. It would likely cause an over correction and a ton of other problems - including having owners who could afford their house under the final price, but still having to sell since counties tend to be slow at lowering property taxes. We saw it during the housing crash, where some cities would outright refuse to reduce property tax bills. If anything, there should be a gradual phase out. Or, let people keep their prop 13 status as long as they downgrade, and no prop 13 for those that "upgrade". This would slowly phase out those who are in an advantageous position. It will be slower, but it seems like a fair compromise to correct the problem.

by sbov 10y ago

linkregister 10y ago

In the article it notes a drastic increase in housing prices and a massive drop in development after the passing of prop 13. I didn't see a graph so it could be wildly exaggerating the impact of prop 13.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

closeparen 10y ago

>prop 13 was passed because of rapidly increasing property values The owners who passed it are content to sit on their houses in perpetuity. If property values had continued to rise past owners' appetite for property tax bills, CA homes would be occupied by people under financial pressure to sell them. It seems reasonable to think that would leave prices lower than where they are today. It wouldn't stop the pressure, probably wouldn't keep those people from getting displaced, but it'd be a relief valve for the tech workers trying to move in.

sbov 10y ago
Why is a relief valve for tech workers more important than the people you would be displacing? I agree that, on average, prop 13 should go. But you cannot do it overnight. It would likely cause an over correction and a ton of other problems - including having owners who could afford their house under the final price, but still having to sell since counties tend to be slow at lowering property taxes. We saw it during the housing crash, where some cities would outright refuse to reduce property tax bills. If anything, there should be a gradual phase out. Or, let people keep their prop 13 status as long as they downgrade, and no prop 13 for those that "upgrade". This would slowly phase out those who are in an advantageous position. It will be slower, but it seems like a fair compromise to correct the problem.