5 ms·

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at

by api 9y ago

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-state residences held by non-occupants and on out-of-state non-occupant purchases.

briandear 9y ago
A total repeal of Prop 13.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pascalxus 9y ago
  Repeal 13 and lower the property taxes from 1.3% to 0.6%. Of course, about 80 to 90% of the existing homeowners (in many neighborhoods most people bought they're homes more than 20 years ago, you can verify this for yourself on zillow) won't like that, as they're currently paying about 0.1 to 0.05%! So, it's a pretty hard sell.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that have a better chance at making an actual impact. I'm much more in favor of incentivizing people to support positive change than just bringing out the big sticks. How about giving everyone in the neighboorhood a property tax credit if they vote to upzone? Or giving companies big tax breaks if they allow 50% of their workforce to work remotely (tackling both housing and transportation issues)?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pound 9y ago
    That's correct, so I think the only chance we have is phased approach. Not repealing prop 13 as of now but start with excluding new homeowners from it (or at least increase limits on annual reassessments for them (from current no more than 2% a year)). There is an idea of excluding commercial properties from Prop 13 too (I think they shouldn't have to be covered to begin with, the whole idea of prop 13 was to "keep that old lady in her house when she has retired and cannot keep up with raising expenses"). Also props 58 and 193 allow to inherit Prop 13 tax assessment by children and grandchildren (again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired) so Prop 13 expanded that way to became multi-generational. We can consider excluding non-primary residences from it too.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      "again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired" But if that isn't the case, then wouldn't a home have to be sold to cover the tax increase? So you couldn't keep a home in the family, either.
      - pound 9y ago
        Is it a declared right to keep a home in the family? Also why new homeowners not inheriting it are supposed to be paying property taxes in full?
        pound 9y ago
        Also in this case if you want to help someone to keep property they cannot afford then maybe tax assessment reduction should be based on new owner's income level and not on a year deceased relatives bought place
        deleted 9y ago
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  If only. I pay more than 4x what my parents will ever pay in property taxes on their home that is worth more than 4x what mine is. Prop 13 was, pardon my french, such a dumb fucking proposition.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Unfortunately doing so will just reintroduce the problem it was meant to combat: People being forced out of their homes because of property tax. That's definitely not a desirable thing, either.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  A complete repeal is politically impossible, but there are two changes that should be made. One, as mentioned above, is to restrict it to owner-occupied residences only. The other is to change the 2% annual increase limit from a limit on the amount of tax assessed to a limit on the amount due in a given year. If the assessed tax exceeds that limit, the locality would receive a lien for the difference, this lien becoming due only when the property is sold. This accomplishes the original goal of the initiative — to keep fixed-income seniors in their homes — without starving localities of property tax money and disincentivizing them from allowing new housing to be built. Politically, passing these changes would still be hellishly difficult, particularly the second one, which is not so easy to understand. One way of putting the problem is that Prop. 13 represents a massive transfer of wealth from future California residents to present ones. Of course, the future ones can't vote against it since they don't live here yet.
  - api 9y ago
    Personally I think we should just go for the first one, which is why I didn't mention anything else. Proposition 13 limits should be for owner occupied residences only. This would go a long way to fixing the financialization of real estate problem, which is an often under-discussed contributing factor. You'd get a lot less resistance there. You're not messing with cost of living for owner occupied homes, just second properties, investment properties, and of course all those foreign cash buyers using our real estate as a money laundering vehicle.
    - taysic 9y ago
      One of the reasons Prop 13 happened was to go hand in hand with rent control and help offset the negative costs of rent control. (An advantage for the owner and renter). So I think you'd need to get rid of rent control to get rid of Prop 13 for a large group of people and that would be very hard.
      - khuey 9y ago
        Prop 13 preceded rent control in San Francisco and in most (maybe even all) California cities that have rent control.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
I'd be in favor of this applied federally and being based on amount (percent, not dollar) of property taxes paid on the property even though it would hurt me personally. Non-residents cannot hold governments accountable (by voting) for how they use the money which allows the towns to side step one of the core principals of democracy (not to mention that non residents don't have as good information on which to evaluate the performance of local government since many local issues will not affect non-residents). I would have no problem taxing people who enable this by having income or vacation properties in towns they don't live and taxing local property owners who vote for the people who do it.

by api 9y ago

briandear 9y ago

A total repeal of Prop 13.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pascalxus 9y ago
Repeal 13 and lower the property taxes from 1.3% to 0.6%. Of course, about 80 to 90% of the existing homeowners (in many neighborhoods most people bought they're homes more than 20 years ago, you can verify this for yourself on zillow) won't like that, as they're currently paying about 0.1 to 0.05%! So, it's a pretty hard sell.
joejerryronnie 9y ago
This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that have a better chance at making an actual impact. I'm much more in favor of incentivizing people to support positive change than just bringing out the big sticks. How about giving everyone in the neighboorhood a property tax credit if they vote to upzone? Or giving companies big tax breaks if they allow 50% of their workforce to work remotely (tackling both housing and transportation issues)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pound 9y ago
  That's correct, so I think the only chance we have is phased approach. Not repealing prop 13 as of now but start with excluding new homeowners from it (or at least increase limits on annual reassessments for them (from current no more than 2% a year)). There is an idea of excluding commercial properties from Prop 13 too (I think they shouldn't have to be covered to begin with, the whole idea of prop 13 was to "keep that old lady in her house when she has retired and cannot keep up with raising expenses"). Also props 58 and 193 allow to inherit Prop 13 tax assessment by children and grandchildren (again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired) so Prop 13 expanded that way to became multi-generational. We can consider excluding non-primary residences from it too.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired" But if that isn't the case, then wouldn't a home have to be sold to cover the tax increase? So you couldn't keep a home in the family, either.
    - pound 9y ago
      Is it a declared right to keep a home in the family? Also why new homeowners not inheriting it are supposed to be paying property taxes in full?
      - pound 9y ago
        Also in this case if you want to help someone to keep property they cannot afford then maybe tax assessment reduction should be based on new owner's income level and not on a year deceased relatives bought place
        deleted 9y ago
mmanfrin 9y ago
If only. I pay more than 4x what my parents will ever pay in property taxes on their home that is worth more than 4x what mine is. Prop 13 was, pardon my french, such a dumb fucking proposition.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Unfortunately doing so will just reintroduce the problem it was meant to combat: People being forced out of their homes because of property tax. That's definitely not a desirable thing, either.
ScottBurson 9y ago
A complete repeal is politically impossible, but there are two changes that should be made. One, as mentioned above, is to restrict it to owner-occupied residences only. The other is to change the 2% annual increase limit from a limit on the amount of tax assessed to a limit on the amount due in a given year. If the assessed tax exceeds that limit, the locality would receive a lien for the difference, this lien becoming due only when the property is sold. This accomplishes the original goal of the initiative — to keep fixed-income seniors in their homes — without starving localities of property tax money and disincentivizing them from allowing new housing to be built. Politically, passing these changes would still be hellishly difficult, particularly the second one, which is not so easy to understand. One way of putting the problem is that Prop. 13 represents a massive transfer of wealth from future California residents to present ones. Of course, the future ones can't vote against it since they don't live here yet.
- api 9y ago
  Personally I think we should just go for the first one, which is why I didn't mention anything else. Proposition 13 limits should be for owner occupied residences only. This would go a long way to fixing the financialization of real estate problem, which is an often under-discussed contributing factor. You'd get a lot less resistance there. You're not messing with cost of living for owner occupied homes, just second properties, investment properties, and of course all those foreign cash buyers using our real estate as a money laundering vehicle.
  - taysic 9y ago
    One of the reasons Prop 13 happened was to go hand in hand with rent control and help offset the negative costs of rent control. (An advantage for the owner and renter). So I think you'd need to get rid of rent control to get rid of Prop 13 for a large group of people and that would be very hard.
    - khuey 9y ago
      Prop 13 preceded rent control in San Francisco and in most (maybe even all) California cities that have rent control.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

I'd be in favor of this applied federally and being based on amount (percent, not dollar) of property taxes paid on the property even though it would hurt me personally. Non-residents cannot hold governments accountable (by voting) for how they use the money which allows the towns to side step one of the core principals of democracy (not to mention that non residents don't have as good information on which to evaluate the performance of local government since many local issues will not affect non-residents). I would have no problem taxing people who enable this by having income or vacation properties in towns they don't live and taxing local property owners who vote for the people who do it.