4 ms·

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 sca

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... :-)
- runamok 9y ago
  Oh and in my empty nester scenario earlier they could be as young as 40 and as old as 70+ so not all would qualify. You definitely taught me something new though!

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... :-)
runamok 9y ago
Oh and in my empty nester scenario earlier they could be as young as 40 and as old as 70+ so not all would qualify. You definitely taught me something new though!