3 ms·

Those are all really nice things for the Bay itself, but they aren't the way to fix things, they are just band-aids. If you really wan't to fix it, call your l

Those are all really nice things for the Bay itself, but they aren't the way to fix things, they are just band-aids. If you really wan't to fix it, call your legislator and tell them to get rid of Prop 13. It's not commonly known for transplants to the Bay, but property taxes only get re-assessed upon sale of the property in California. They do not get reassessed every 5 years or so, like in most states (read the wiki article for more info, and yes, what I said is not exactly true, things get complicated very quickly, but I think the gist of what I said was true) My folks in the East Bay paid ~70k for the house in about 1970. Their monthly taxes are under $200 and they paid off the mortgage a few decades ago. Their new neighbors paid ~1 million for the exact same 3 bed/1 bath but just filled with black mold. We estimate they pay ~2.5k/month in taxes, let alone the mortgage (likely ~6.5k/month total with electricity, water, sewer, etc. every month, for the rest of their lives). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

kevinburke 9y ago
I agree, it's just that there isn't any immediate action you can take to get Prop 13 reform, whereas each of the things above is something concrete you can do right now to help the issue. If and when we get a Prop 13 ballot issue then yeah, I'll do a big call to action on it.
xienze 9y ago
So where are your parents going to move when Prop 13 is repealed and they can't afford to live in their home of 45+ years?
- Balgair 9y ago
  Bingo. I think you see now why things are so crazy in the CA property market then. For a few years after the repeal, you'd be kicking a LOT of older home-owners out of their homes. My folks, likely, included. However, what is the alternative? My siblings and I moved out of state a long time ago, due specifically to the housing issues. Most of my former HS classmates do not own homes in CA. They simply cannot afford it. Prop 13 'ate the seed-corn' of California youth's property aspirations. We simply cannot afford to own homes. This is why I said that GP's ideas were only band-aids. The giant elephant in the room in CA housing discussions is Prop 13, something that is abhorrent to continue on with and something that cannot possibly be removed now. CA will have to remove it someday, to give the youth any hope at reasonably 'owning' California, and everyday that it does not, things will get worse for when they do remove it. It's a quagmire, but it is the thing to talk about, not higher density band-aids.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > We simply cannot afford to own homes. Sure you can. Maybe not in LA, Palo Alto, or SF, but somewhere in California. I mean just how affordable do you think housing would get on the peninsula without Prop 13? $300K starter homes? Surely you jest. Manhattan doesn't have a Prop 13, still pretty expensive last I checked. Everyone is moving to the area, and any additional supply is going to get snapped up instantly. And the issue of "grandma getting kicked out of her home" will always loom large in such a desirable and expensive part of the country, it's not something that would just happen in the aftermath of a repeal. I mean that was the driving force behind Prop 13 in the first place.
cjensen 9y ago
Let me give a clear example of why repealing Prop 13 would be a bad idea: my Mom. My Mom has a fixed income and owns her home. Plenty of savings for retirement like a responsible person. My Dad retired in 1986. This is in Fremont, California. Since then, prices have skyrocketed. In your example, she would have to pay $30K/year in taxes. So here's the problem: how do you plan for retirement if reassessments are a thing? Depending on luck, you may live for 40 years or more past retirement. Must one move away from family that serves as a support system? Some states do reassess, but recognize that that is a policy choice. California has made a choice which results in predictable tax consequences which can be planned for. It's not a perfect policy choice, but it is a legitimate choice that results in predictable outcomes.
- cbr 9y ago
  One way to handle this would be with a reverse mortgage. Effectively, the $30k/y of taxes are counted against the value of the home when it's sold. Since the home has gotten enormously more valuable (which is why the taxes would be higher) the homeowner still comes out very much ahead.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  One solution is to sell your home and rent. You'd be a millionaire renter, and a lot of renters would want to trade places with you. Another solution would be to design the reform bill to grandfather in people who have lived in their homes for some long amount of time, or are above a certain age, or whatever. In some sense, though, the way we are using land is currently very inefficient and improvements necessarily mean changing how we use the land.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  If people had "skin in the game" with regards to the housing market you'd see a lot more people out ensuring an adequate supply of houses are constructed. Instead, you have large amounts of people living off of Prop. 13 and rent control "subsidies" who are actively opposing new housing construction. We need to slowly phase out these "subsidies" to ensure that people making the policy decisions also live with the consequences (whether they be positive or negative). There are many other metro areas in the U.S. that don't have Prop. 13-style controls or rent control, and have a much larger supply of affordable houses.

kevinburke 9y ago

I agree, it's just that there isn't any immediate action you can take to get Prop 13 reform, whereas each of the things above is something concrete you can do right now to help the issue. If and when we get a Prop 13 ballot issue then yeah, I'll do a big call to action on it.

xienze 9y ago

So where are your parents going to move when Prop 13 is repealed and they can't afford to live in their home of 45+ years?

Balgair 9y ago
Bingo. I think you see now why things are so crazy in the CA property market then. For a few years after the repeal, you'd be kicking a LOT of older home-owners out of their homes. My folks, likely, included. However, what is the alternative? My siblings and I moved out of state a long time ago, due specifically to the housing issues. Most of my former HS classmates do not own homes in CA. They simply cannot afford it. Prop 13 'ate the seed-corn' of California youth's property aspirations. We simply cannot afford to own homes. This is why I said that GP's ideas were only band-aids. The giant elephant in the room in CA housing discussions is Prop 13, something that is abhorrent to continue on with and something that cannot possibly be removed now. CA will have to remove it someday, to give the youth any hope at reasonably 'owning' California, and everyday that it does not, things will get worse for when they do remove it. It's a quagmire, but it is the thing to talk about, not higher density band-aids.
- xienze 9y ago
  > We simply cannot afford to own homes. Sure you can. Maybe not in LA, Palo Alto, or SF, but somewhere in California. I mean just how affordable do you think housing would get on the peninsula without Prop 13? $300K starter homes? Surely you jest. Manhattan doesn't have a Prop 13, still pretty expensive last I checked. Everyone is moving to the area, and any additional supply is going to get snapped up instantly. And the issue of "grandma getting kicked out of her home" will always loom large in such a desirable and expensive part of the country, it's not something that would just happen in the aftermath of a repeal. I mean that was the driving force behind Prop 13 in the first place.

cjensen 9y ago

Let me give a clear example of why repealing Prop 13 would be a bad idea: my Mom. My Mom has a fixed income and owns her home. Plenty of savings for retirement like a responsible person. My Dad retired in 1986. This is in Fremont, California. Since then, prices have skyrocketed. In your example, she would have to pay $30K/year in taxes. So here's the problem: how do you plan for retirement if reassessments are a thing? Depending on luck, you may live for 40 years or more past retirement. Must one move away from family that serves as a support system? Some states do reassess, but recognize that that is a policy choice. California has made a choice which results in predictable tax consequences which can be planned for. It's not a perfect policy choice, but it is a legitimate choice that results in predictable outcomes.

cbr 9y ago
One way to handle this would be with a reverse mortgage. Effectively, the $30k/y of taxes are counted against the value of the home when it's sold. Since the home has gotten enormously more valuable (which is why the taxes would be higher) the homeowner still comes out very much ahead.
kevinburke 9y ago
One solution is to sell your home and rent. You'd be a millionaire renter, and a lot of renters would want to trade places with you. Another solution would be to design the reform bill to grandfather in people who have lived in their homes for some long amount of time, or are above a certain age, or whatever. In some sense, though, the way we are using land is currently very inefficient and improvements necessarily mean changing how we use the land.
jdavis703 9y ago
If people had "skin in the game" with regards to the housing market you'd see a lot more people out ensuring an adequate supply of houses are constructed. Instead, you have large amounts of people living off of Prop. 13 and rent control "subsidies" who are actively opposing new housing construction. We need to slowly phase out these "subsidies" to ensure that people making the policy decisions also live with the consequences (whether they be positive or negative). There are many other metro areas in the U.S. that don't have Prop. 13-style controls or rent control, and have a much larger supply of affordable houses.