4 ms·

I think when I came to California, I shared your position on Prop13... namely that it was a unnecessary market distortion that distributed wealth from the new t

by jra6 10y ago

I think when I came to California, I shared your position on Prop13... namely that it was a unnecessary market distortion that distributed wealth from the new to the old that ultimately worked against the apparent intent of the legislation (to make California more affordable). I've sinced developed a more nuanced view. I believe Prop13 for owner-occupied, primary residences is perhaps flawed, but something I believe two reasonable people can disagree on (happy to explain more fully). I believe Prop13 for anything else has absolutely no rational justification and needs to be overturned at the earliest opportunity.

greyhoundmatt 10y ago
So, what's your take then on how Prop 13 affected 2 very different areas discussed in your own blog post: Marin on one hand and Oakland on the other? I'm willing to grant you a nuanced understanding, but again, you are celebrating one of the very things that worsened the situation that you are trying to solve. The state guarantees minimum funding, but districts make the rest up from property taxes, and fundraising. You can't tell me that Marin and Oakland are anywhere near equivalent in either of those cases. Side question: I'm curious to where you were educated and how that system was funded as opposed to how California does it?
ScottBurson 10y ago
I'll offer my view. First, I absolutely agree that it should have been limited to primary residences -- extending it to rental and commercial property is lunacy that wasn't even justified by the primary selling point (keeping fixed-income seniors in their homes). Secondly, I contend that the limit should never have been on the amount of tax levied, only on the amount of tax that actually had to be paid in a given year. The locality would receive a lien on the balance which would be paid only when the property was sold. (The lien could also be capped at 1/3 the selling price, to answer objections that it might become so large as to make it uneconomic to sell the property at all. I suggest this because whenever I float this proposal on HN, someone comes along and fixates on that possibility, which is actually extremely unlikely; the market would have to tank very severely for this cap to come into play.) This way, fixed-income seniors could stay in their homes just as long as Prop. 13 allows them to, but localities would still get their money.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  This is a brilliant solution.

by jra6 10y ago

greyhoundmatt 10y ago

So, what's your take then on how Prop 13 affected 2 very different areas discussed in your own blog post: Marin on one hand and Oakland on the other? I'm willing to grant you a nuanced understanding, but again, you are celebrating one of the very things that worsened the situation that you are trying to solve. The state guarantees minimum funding, but districts make the rest up from property taxes, and fundraising. You can't tell me that Marin and Oakland are anywhere near equivalent in either of those cases. Side question: I'm curious to where you were educated and how that system was funded as opposed to how California does it?

ScottBurson 10y ago

I'll offer my view. First, I absolutely agree that it should have been limited to primary residences -- extending it to rental and commercial property is lunacy that wasn't even justified by the primary selling point (keeping fixed-income seniors in their homes). Secondly, I contend that the limit should never have been on the amount of tax levied, only on the amount of tax that actually had to be paid in a given year. The locality would receive a lien on the balance which would be paid only when the property was sold. (The lien could also be capped at 1/3 the selling price, to answer objections that it might become so large as to make it uneconomic to sell the property at all. I suggest this because whenever I float this proposal on HN, someone comes along and fixates on that possibility, which is actually extremely unlikely; the market would have to tank very severely for this cap to come into play.) This way, fixed-income seniors could stay in their homes just as long as Prop. 13 allows them to, but localities would still get their money.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
This is a brilliant solution.