5 ms·

That's a reasonable position to take. That said, one argument for rolling back prop 13 from primary homes too is that as long as it's in place those property p

That's a reasonable position to take. That said, one argument for rolling back prop 13 from primary homes too is that as long as it's in place those property price bubbles are more likely to occur. As long as their property taxes will remain flat existing residents are still incentivized to oppose constructing new housing, pushing prices ever higher. If existing homeowners felt some discomfort from the housing shortage - in the form of higher property taxes - as opposed to only seeing massive financial upside - in the form of rapidly appreciating home prices (which can be realized when they eventually sell or can be borrowed against for immediate cash), then they would be more incentivized to support building more housing supply, keeping prices down. Right now existing homeowners are highly incentivized to oppose building more housing and that's a huge part of the reason why prices are so high. Of course, there are downsides to rolling back prop 13 for primary residences too - it's not as if everything would work out perfectly smoothly. But I suspect a rollback could be crafted so that the transition could be pretty comfortable for existing homeowners.

dv_dt 9y ago
I question the argument that existing residents have incentive to oppose new housing for pricing purposes. Increasing density in the long run increases property prices. Look at prices in any downtown city....
- skewart 9y ago
  You don't think the causality goes the other direction for high-density downtown neighborhoods? Lots of people want to live and work downtown (for a variety of reasons). When thousands of people are will to pay a premium to be within the same square mile it suddenly becomes possible to cover the massive cost of building a steel frame high-rise tower. If density itself increased property values then you could buy a few acres of ranch land in Montana for five hundred dollars, build a high-rise and rake in profit. Density is a trailing indicator of demand to live or work in some particular place. It's that demand that pushes up prices. Of course, in some particular cases where some parcel of vacant urban land had been zoned at low density and then suddenly became up-zoned to allow higher density then its value can go up as a result. It had been able to allow maybe just a $2.5 million single-family home, but now it's possible to build an apartment building worth $60 million, so of course the price would go up.
  - HillaryBriss 9y ago
    i live in LA and my take is that people in single family dwelling residential blocks often resist construction of higher density buildings because quality of life goes down (i.e. more cars on the streets, more smog, traffic, noise, unfamiliar people, potential crime, less access to government resources like schools and law enforcement, per capita, because those resources are not built out as fast as population growth in LA). so, the proposal becomes: if these new zoning changes allow apartments on your block, you'll reap a 200% gain if you sell your house today, but you'll immediately lose backyard privacy, quiet streets, sunshine in parts of your yard, easy access to the freeway, and so your enjoyment of life will decrease and you'll have less free time outside of work, etc my take is simply that a lot of people think the price increase isn't high enough. if they want to keep their existing job in LA, where are they going to move to with that 200%? now, if the number were 2000% instead of 200% maybe zoning changes would be uncontroversial...
    - JamesBarney 9y ago
      But you have to remember that for that every home owner whose quality of life diminishes there are 100's of renters whose quality of life increases because they can live in a neighborhood they wouldn't have previously been able to afford.
      - hulahoof 9y ago
        For a majority of cases if the original home owners hadn't settled and allow infrastructure to mature around their investments then the density would likely not have increased to the point where re-zoning was viable. (At least that's the pattern I see in Australia, where we are at a much lower density across the board)
- klipt 9y ago
  > Increasing density in the long run increases property prices. I think you have your causality backwards there - city centers are inherently valuable (close proximity to jobs, food, recreation, etc) which favors dense development to take advantage of that value. On the other hand if you build a bunch of dense housing in the middle of the desert, it won't be worth much at all.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    Economics is a mesh of effects operating in a loop. There is no easily discerned causality. If no developer wants to build more houses (possibly asking for a zoning change) thereby increasing density, why would an existing homeowner have a decision at all to make in allowing it or preventing it?
  - btmorex 9y ago
    On the other hand, all of your inherent values of a city center can be said to be caused by higher population density. Food and recreation spots will be opened close to where people live. Jobs are variable in terms of location, but there's certainly an advantage to moving close to population centers--at the very least, access to a vast workforce. My point is not really to argue that the opposite is true, rather that you can make an argument either way, whether higher demand leads to higher density or higher density leads to higher demand. There are certainly low density urban centers that no one wants to live in despite their proximity to jobs, food, and recreation.
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    Obviously density isn't sufficient to create value on its own, but in the context of neighbourhoods of a city, more dense areas tend to become more valuable than less dense ones, because density supports better services. So if one suburb lets developers build high rises and another of similar value doesn't, the former is likely to end up more valuable in the future.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Limiting supply in the face of increasing demand causes prices to go up. Increasing density is the effect of higher prices, not the cause.
mars4rp 9y ago
very interesting argument. I wish there was an authority that somebody could just change this stupid zoning laws, we have to analyse this gaming theory strategies to incentive people while everybody know what the solution is. after election I'm starting to doubt democracy!
- nradov 9y ago
  In general state governments can pass laws which override local zoning ordinances.
runamok 9y ago
I think the larger disincentive is simply downsizing (such as the common pattern of becoming an empty nester) or moving in general causes supply to be very scarce. Moving to a smaller and cheaper home might result in the exact same monthly bill. Now that is only fair and it is more accurate to see the low taxes paid in the past as the unfair part but the end result is the same.
- aetoun8cr 9y ago
  Yeah, this is another problem that LA is starting to face in many neighborhoods. There are no smaller houses. What happens is as soon as a small house goes on the market, a developer buys it for several percent over asking price with cash, tears it down and builds a McMansion on it that stretches from one end of the lot to the other. So there is no lower-priced housing stock available to buyers. In fact, it's getting to the point where there's no medium-priced stock in areas like the West side. People with growing families want (and often need) bigger houses, but can't afford them, so they increase the size of their existing house, thereby remaining one more small or medium sized from the market. It's a vicious cycle.
- njarboe 9y ago
  Prop 60 lets people 55 and older a one time transfer of their low property tax assessment value to another home of the same or lesser value. The new home must be in the same county as the old one or in one of eight counties that accept transfers of base-year value from other counties. How can people know about all these different laws that are very important to know if you want to plan well for your future. Seems like legal systems need some kind of lifespan so accumulated complications can be wiped away and a fresh start is possible (sort of like all living things are born and die). I suppose the founding fathers thought of this and included a constitution convention option for when a wholesale reset of the legal system is required. Bloody revolution not necessarily required.
  - runamok 9y ago
    I posited that laws should be reviewed after X years and if there was not a compelling reason (with proof) to continue them then they would lapse. This would hopefully ensure that only really useful laws would even be bothered to be created. California with its props is a whole other ball of wax... :-)

dv_dt 9y ago

I question the argument that existing residents have incentive to oppose new housing for pricing purposes. Increasing density in the long run increases property prices. Look at prices in any downtown city....

skewart 9y ago
You don't think the causality goes the other direction for high-density downtown neighborhoods? Lots of people want to live and work downtown (for a variety of reasons). When thousands of people are will to pay a premium to be within the same square mile it suddenly becomes possible to cover the massive cost of building a steel frame high-rise tower. If density itself increased property values then you could buy a few acres of ranch land in Montana for five hundred dollars, build a high-rise and rake in profit. Density is a trailing indicator of demand to live or work in some particular place. It's that demand that pushes up prices. Of course, in some particular cases where some parcel of vacant urban land had been zoned at low density and then suddenly became up-zoned to allow higher density then its value can go up as a result. It had been able to allow maybe just a $2.5 million single-family home, but now it's possible to build an apartment building worth $60 million, so of course the price would go up.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  i live in LA and my take is that people in single family dwelling residential blocks often resist construction of higher density buildings because quality of life goes down (i.e. more cars on the streets, more smog, traffic, noise, unfamiliar people, potential crime, less access to government resources like schools and law enforcement, per capita, because those resources are not built out as fast as population growth in LA). so, the proposal becomes: if these new zoning changes allow apartments on your block, you'll reap a 200% gain if you sell your house today, but you'll immediately lose backyard privacy, quiet streets, sunshine in parts of your yard, easy access to the freeway, and so your enjoyment of life will decrease and you'll have less free time outside of work, etc my take is simply that a lot of people think the price increase isn't high enough. if they want to keep their existing job in LA, where are they going to move to with that 200%? now, if the number were 2000% instead of 200% maybe zoning changes would be uncontroversial...
  - JamesBarney 9y ago
    But you have to remember that for that every home owner whose quality of life diminishes there are 100's of renters whose quality of life increases because they can live in a neighborhood they wouldn't have previously been able to afford.
    - hulahoof 9y ago
      For a majority of cases if the original home owners hadn't settled and allow infrastructure to mature around their investments then the density would likely not have increased to the point where re-zoning was viable. (At least that's the pattern I see in Australia, where we are at a much lower density across the board)
klipt 9y ago
> Increasing density in the long run increases property prices. I think you have your causality backwards there - city centers are inherently valuable (close proximity to jobs, food, recreation, etc) which favors dense development to take advantage of that value. On the other hand if you build a bunch of dense housing in the middle of the desert, it won't be worth much at all.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Economics is a mesh of effects operating in a loop. There is no easily discerned causality. If no developer wants to build more houses (possibly asking for a zoning change) thereby increasing density, why would an existing homeowner have a decision at all to make in allowing it or preventing it?
- btmorex 9y ago
  On the other hand, all of your inherent values of a city center can be said to be caused by higher population density. Food and recreation spots will be opened close to where people live. Jobs are variable in terms of location, but there's certainly an advantage to moving close to population centers--at the very least, access to a vast workforce. My point is not really to argue that the opposite is true, rather that you can make an argument either way, whether higher demand leads to higher density or higher density leads to higher demand. There are certainly low density urban centers that no one wants to live in despite their proximity to jobs, food, and recreation.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  Obviously density isn't sufficient to create value on its own, but in the context of neighbourhoods of a city, more dense areas tend to become more valuable than less dense ones, because density supports better services. So if one suburb lets developers build high rises and another of similar value doesn't, the former is likely to end up more valuable in the future.
ScottBurson 9y ago
Limiting supply in the face of increasing demand causes prices to go up. Increasing density is the effect of higher prices, not the cause.

mars4rp 9y ago

very interesting argument. I wish there was an authority that somebody could just change this stupid zoning laws, we have to analyse this gaming theory strategies to incentive people while everybody know what the solution is. after election I'm starting to doubt democracy!

nradov 9y ago
In general state governments can pass laws which override local zoning ordinances.

runamok 9y ago

I think the larger disincentive is simply downsizing (such as the common pattern of becoming an empty nester) or moving in general causes supply to be very scarce. Moving to a smaller and cheaper home might result in the exact same monthly bill. Now that is only fair and it is more accurate to see the low taxes paid in the past as the unfair part but the end result is the same.

aetoun8cr 9y ago
Yeah, this is another problem that LA is starting to face in many neighborhoods. There are no smaller houses. What happens is as soon as a small house goes on the market, a developer buys it for several percent over asking price with cash, tears it down and builds a McMansion on it that stretches from one end of the lot to the other. So there is no lower-priced housing stock available to buyers. In fact, it's getting to the point where there's no medium-priced stock in areas like the West side. People with growing families want (and often need) bigger houses, but can't afford them, so they increase the size of their existing house, thereby remaining one more small or medium sized from the market. It's a vicious cycle.
njarboe 9y ago
Prop 60 lets people 55 and older a one time transfer of their low property tax assessment value to another home of the same or lesser value. The new home must be in the same county as the old one or in one of eight counties that accept transfers of base-year value from other counties. How can people know about all these different laws that are very important to know if you want to plan well for your future. Seems like legal systems need some kind of lifespan so accumulated complications can be wiped away and a fresh start is possible (sort of like all living things are born and die). I suppose the founding fathers thought of this and included a constitution convention option for when a wholesale reset of the legal system is required. Bloody revolution not necessarily required.
- runamok 9y ago
  I posited that laws should be reviewed after X years and if there was not a compelling reason (with proof) to continue them then they would lapse. This would hopefully ensure that only really useful laws would even be bothered to be created. California with its props is a whole other ball of wax... :-)