4 ms·

Prop 13 doesn't exist in Seattle, yet prices are rising as fast or faster than the bay (on a percentage basis). There the lesson is supply/demand - there is onl

Prop 13 doesn't exist in Seattle, yet prices are rising as fast or faster than the bay (on a percentage basis). There the lesson is supply/demand - there is only 1 month or less of housing stock available, when 6 would be a historically median market. Everyone is going crazy to buy something as fast as possible before they get left behind. Absolutely though Prop 13 hurts liquidity in California though. There's a lot of factors, nobody can agree on them, so we're stuck with this massively overheated market.

xapata 9y ago
It's easy to have high percentage growth when you start from relatively small magnitudes. When I moved to Seattle from the East coast, I was surprised with how cheap everything was given all the complaints I'd heard. Seattle is catching up with the other big cities, but it's still lower cost. Especially given how new the buildings are.
reilly3000 9y ago
The growth management act seems to engender a similar effect. It primarily limits new construction. I think Seattle’s charms also make it sticky for its permanent residents.
- taurath 9y ago
  The housing stock here is too low to not just hold on. There’s no guarantee you’ll get another desirable place if you sell, unless it’s for an upzone in which case you can move up from developer money.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
nwah1 9y ago
Yep, Prop 13 is flagrantly unfair, but the general mechanisms by which land value rises is intrinsic to our system of land tenure. However, these windfall gains can be recycled into public coffers via the tax system and lighten tax burdens on productive activity. As a nice bonus, it would make it much harder to be an idle landlord in a prime area... the physical equivalent of a patent troll.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Treblemaker 9y ago
  > Prop 13 is flagrantly unfair How do you define "fairness" in this context? * Edited to less confrontational question.
  - nwah1 9y ago
    It privileges long time titleholders over newcomers, in addition to the basic problem of land speculation being exacerbated, allowing random titleholders to capture even more of the gains of surrounding economic development that they, in their role as titleholder, played no necessary role in. In fact, by effectively being a tollbooth operator upon the prerequisites for economic development they are an active hindrance. Land titles are necessary, but it is not necessary that they keep the land rent, only the improvement values that they are responsible for.

xapata 9y ago

It's easy to have high percentage growth when you start from relatively small magnitudes. When I moved to Seattle from the East coast, I was surprised with how cheap everything was given all the complaints I'd heard. Seattle is catching up with the other big cities, but it's still lower cost. Especially given how new the buildings are.

reilly3000 9y ago

The growth management act seems to engender a similar effect. It primarily limits new construction. I think Seattle’s charms also make it sticky for its permanent residents.

taurath 9y ago
The housing stock here is too low to not just hold on. There’s no guarantee you’ll get another desirable place if you sell, unless it’s for an upzone in which case you can move up from developer money.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

nwah1 9y ago

Yep, Prop 13 is flagrantly unfair, but the general mechanisms by which land value rises is intrinsic to our system of land tenure. However, these windfall gains can be recycled into public coffers via the tax system and lighten tax burdens on productive activity. As a nice bonus, it would make it much harder to be an idle landlord in a prime area... the physical equivalent of a patent troll.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Treblemaker 9y ago
> Prop 13 is flagrantly unfair How do you define "fairness" in this context? * Edited to less confrontational question.
- nwah1 9y ago
  It privileges long time titleholders over newcomers, in addition to the basic problem of land speculation being exacerbated, allowing random titleholders to capture even more of the gains of surrounding economic development that they, in their role as titleholder, played no necessary role in. In fact, by effectively being a tollbooth operator upon the prerequisites for economic development they are an active hindrance. Land titles are necessary, but it is not necessary that they keep the land rent, only the improvement values that they are responsible for.