4 ms·

Keep going up the chain of causality. Property Owners are so NIMBY because there's an economic incentive to behave that way. This is only the case because Prop

Keep going up the chain of causality. Property Owners are so NIMBY because there's an economic incentive to behave that way. This is only the case because Prop 13 caps their property taxes. If California had property taxes that, like other states, could increase as the assessed value of your home increases, the incentive to oppose new building would be significantly lessened and it would then be in everyone's best interest to keep housing costs low, not just those who rent or are looking to buy. Prop 13 is immoral and has not only wreaked havoc on real estate market in the state but has also gutted the state's public education system. It needs to be repealed before any progress on these housing issues can be made. There can be provisions to ensure that people don't lose their homes to rising property taxes...Texas, IIRC, has one that allows property taxes to accrue and only need to be paid when the title of the property changes hands, which seems like a good compromise. But the state's population is going to go up which means we're going to need to build a lot more housing, and our laws need to create an environment where that can happen.

solatic 9y ago
> There can be provisions to ensure that people don't lose their homes to rising property taxes...Texas, IIRC, has one that allows property taxes to accrue and only need to be paid when the title of the property changes hands, which seems like a good compromise. So it's not OK for rising rents to force property elderly owners to sell and move away, but it is OK for rising rents to force elderly renters to move away? You can't defend property tax deferments for the elderly without also defending rent control for them. Either way you have the same problem of local residents thinking it's OK for everyone else to suffer lower supply and higher costs, as long as they aren't suffering.
emodendroket 9y ago
> If California had property taxes that, like other states, could increase as the assessed value of your home increases, the incentive to oppose new building would be significantly lessened and it would then be in everyone's best interest to keep housing costs low, not just those who rent or are looking to buy. That might make rational sense but it is not how homeowners actually behave.
- bb611 9y ago
  I'v seen this extensively in multiple upper-middle income communities on the east coast. Houses that have tripled in relative value force their now retired owners to sell because they can't afford the higher property tax. Developers can buy above market because they demo the house and put down 2 houses that each sell for 75% the original home's value. This scales for quite a long time, and is generally how suburbia transforms into, well, east San Jose. It's not that homeowners make rational choices as a result, it's that over time they are pushed out and the rational choice is made by the larger market.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It seems like if you're retired and having trouble with property tax a reverse mortgage would be pretty attractive.
dmode 9y ago
I wonder if a deal that removes Prop 13 but reduces state income taxes can be put on the ballot. That way you keep overall revenues same, but just change how it is collected.
- curun1r 9y ago
  Perhaps income and sales taxes could go down...California has some of the highest rates in the nation for both. But it would be a good idea to not have it net to zero considering Prop 13 originally resulted in deep cuts to public education in the state and the quality of schools has dropped significantly from pre-Prop 13 levels.
andrewjl 9y ago
The Texas approach does sound like a good compromise. I'd be curious to know if this was proposed during the Prop 13 debate and what the public reaction was.

solatic 9y ago

> There can be provisions to ensure that people don't lose their homes to rising property taxes...Texas, IIRC, has one that allows property taxes to accrue and only need to be paid when the title of the property changes hands, which seems like a good compromise. So it's not OK for rising rents to force property elderly owners to sell and move away, but it is OK for rising rents to force elderly renters to move away? You can't defend property tax deferments for the elderly without also defending rent control for them. Either way you have the same problem of local residents thinking it's OK for everyone else to suffer lower supply and higher costs, as long as they aren't suffering.

emodendroket 9y ago

> If California had property taxes that, like other states, could increase as the assessed value of your home increases, the incentive to oppose new building would be significantly lessened and it would then be in everyone's best interest to keep housing costs low, not just those who rent or are looking to buy. That might make rational sense but it is not how homeowners actually behave.

bb611 9y ago
I'v seen this extensively in multiple upper-middle income communities on the east coast. Houses that have tripled in relative value force their now retired owners to sell because they can't afford the higher property tax. Developers can buy above market because they demo the house and put down 2 houses that each sell for 75% the original home's value. This scales for quite a long time, and is generally how suburbia transforms into, well, east San Jose. It's not that homeowners make rational choices as a result, it's that over time they are pushed out and the rational choice is made by the larger market.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It seems like if you're retired and having trouble with property tax a reverse mortgage would be pretty attractive.

dmode 9y ago

I wonder if a deal that removes Prop 13 but reduces state income taxes can be put on the ballot. That way you keep overall revenues same, but just change how it is collected.

curun1r 9y ago
Perhaps income and sales taxes could go down...California has some of the highest rates in the nation for both. But it would be a good idea to not have it net to zero considering Prop 13 originally resulted in deep cuts to public education in the state and the quality of schools has dropped significantly from pre-Prop 13 levels.

andrewjl 9y ago

The Texas approach does sound like a good compromise. I'd be curious to know if this was proposed during the Prop 13 debate and what the public reaction was.