3 ms·

Yes. We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. Esp

Yes. We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. Especially, the older people that maybe once were highly productive but, now, might not be able to as rapidly advance in wages or, God forbid, may even be retired and now on a fixed income; the nerve of those people to think that somehow property ownership entitles them to live in their homes for as long as they want. The community has needs and, as the old saying goes, "on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des œufs"! Imagine how much faster re-gentrification and local government growth could be if you could push the churn of homes up? Clear out the dead-weight I say. Now admittedly, I'm being somewhat of a hypocrite here. I am best described as a marginal homeowner in beautiful San Francisco. I bought a home in a somewhat so-so part of town that was surprisingly affordable, relative speaking, for what we got. And we could afford it, we measured where we were looking, and balanced our expenses including taxes, and made good decisions. But that was more than a decade ago and times have changed over the past few years. Our little neighborhood is on an uptick and getting much more expensive. While that has brought some advantages (lower crime, better shopping)... it means if I were to try and buy my home at today's market rates, I simply couldn't do it. And if the taxes on my place had kept up "with inflation" in local home prices, I'd have to sell. Sure, I'd have a handsome capital gain... much of which I would also have to pay in taxes (the community has needs after all), before having to likely move out of the Bay Area, but... progress. I'm also older... damn near 50! Which means I'm not at the bottom of my earning potential, but at the top. So I'm with you. It's completely unfair that those newcomers should come here and bear the brunt of higher taxes, of course, they should also not think that they can count on stability in tax rates. The community has needs, and you know, progress.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
Great points. It's impossible to know what would happen to the prices in your neighborhood under different conditions. But prices /probably/ wouldn't rise as much if people were forced to sell their homes due to increasing tax burdens. 1) Home owners would new favor development to keep supply high, prices stable, and taxes stable. Who wants to pay more taxes for the same thing? No one. With Prop 13, you get that guaranteed. But everyone else gets fucked. As far as your concerned, who cares? 2) Even though prices would still inevitably rise, it would force those that can't keep up with the increasing taxes to sell, increasing supply and holding down prices.
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). Second, you're conflating issues. Being in favor of Prop 13 is not the same as being against new development. These issues are not the same. Truth is, my neighborhood is one of the few seeing a lot of new development... it's one of the green areas on the map and pretty much all of this development is multi-story/high density housing. I don't necessarily oppose this (I would if it were due to government community redevelopment efforts, special handouts, etc). There would probably be more development if the city was managed more like I would like to see it managed. I am absolutely against the vast majority of regulatory constraint on new development.
  - pm90 8y ago
    > First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). This is a disingenuous characterization of the problem at hand. Its not a question of newcomers getting your single family home from you, its of you selling your home which will likely be redeveloped into higher density housing for a lot more people. And you wouldn't be "fucked": yes you would lose your beautiful single family residence, but more people would be able to afford living in the community in which they are a part of, but can't because of how expensive housing is. On the contrary, by denying newcomers any housing near their workplace, you are fucking up their quality of life immensely: they cannot build equity (prices too high), are forced to commute long distances or are simply excluded from the community because of artificially high home prices, have to pay much more in taxes for services that you use. That is massively fucking a lot of people. This isn't rocket science; it happens all the time in all major cities. Low density gets redeveloped because of changing economic and social conditions. Its how cities evolve. Prop 13 is basically stifling the growth and natural evolution of major cities in all of California, but especially SF.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
dahdum 8y ago
Prop 13 wasn't about the elderly or retired, and there are many tax abatement programs in other states (like homestead exemptions) that benefit them. Prop 13 benefits landlords and corporations, it was a hand out to business interests wrapped up in a feel-good message about the elderly.
jldugger 8y ago
This is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you protect fixed income / elderly via rent control and prop 13 (aka rent control for home owners), you reduce the incentive to trade and build housing. Which means price go up, and now you really need those or the people you purported to protect will be destroyed by a Sword of Damocles of your own construction. > And if the taxes on my place had kept up "with inflation" in local home prices, I'd have to sell. The alternative framing of the issue yields less sympathy: "My home is worth so much now that I had to pay the new occupant tax rate, I'd be forced to sell it for an absurd amount of money." Theoretically, if it came to the point where folks consider leaving town, they'd at least vote for pro-build politicians to alleviate rents / home appreciation. Of course, as a high income renter, I obviously prefer a 'build your way out.' And as a new construction apartment unit occupant, it's not myself I'm volunteering to evict to upzone.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. It should be fair to everyone and not discriminate. So make the tax rate equal for the person who has been there and the person who just bought a house. Otherwise you are making it harder for one of those groups to be able to own a home in that neighborhood for the sake of making it easier for the other group, in which case your sarcastic quip applies back to you.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

Great points. It's impossible to know what would happen to the prices in your neighborhood under different conditions. But prices /probably/ wouldn't rise as much if people were forced to sell their homes due to increasing tax burdens. 1) Home owners would new favor development to keep supply high, prices stable, and taxes stable. Who wants to pay more taxes for the same thing? No one. With Prop 13, you get that guaranteed. But everyone else gets fucked. As far as your concerned, who cares? 2) Even though prices would still inevitably rise, it would force those that can't keep up with the increasing taxes to sell, increasing supply and holding down prices.

sbuttgereit 8y ago
First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). Second, you're conflating issues. Being in favor of Prop 13 is not the same as being against new development. These issues are not the same. Truth is, my neighborhood is one of the few seeing a lot of new development... it's one of the green areas on the map and pretty much all of this development is multi-story/high density housing. I don't necessarily oppose this (I would if it were due to government community redevelopment efforts, special handouts, etc). There would probably be more development if the city was managed more like I would like to see it managed. I am absolutely against the vast majority of regulatory constraint on new development.
- pm90 8y ago
  > First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). This is a disingenuous characterization of the problem at hand. Its not a question of newcomers getting your single family home from you, its of you selling your home which will likely be redeveloped into higher density housing for a lot more people. And you wouldn't be "fucked": yes you would lose your beautiful single family residence, but more people would be able to afford living in the community in which they are a part of, but can't because of how expensive housing is. On the contrary, by denying newcomers any housing near their workplace, you are fucking up their quality of life immensely: they cannot build equity (prices too high), are forced to commute long distances or are simply excluded from the community because of artificially high home prices, have to pay much more in taxes for services that you use. That is massively fucking a lot of people. This isn't rocket science; it happens all the time in all major cities. Low density gets redeveloped because of changing economic and social conditions. Its how cities evolve. Prop 13 is basically stifling the growth and natural evolution of major cities in all of California, but especially SF.
- ubernostrum 8y ago

dahdum 8y ago

Prop 13 wasn't about the elderly or retired, and there are many tax abatement programs in other states (like homestead exemptions) that benefit them. Prop 13 benefits landlords and corporations, it was a hand out to business interests wrapped up in a feel-good message about the elderly.

jldugger 8y ago

This is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you protect fixed income / elderly via rent control and prop 13 (aka rent control for home owners), you reduce the incentive to trade and build housing. Which means price go up, and now you really need those or the people you purported to protect will be destroyed by a Sword of Damocles of your own construction. > And if the taxes on my place had kept up "with inflation" in local home prices, I'd have to sell. The alternative framing of the issue yields less sympathy: "My home is worth so much now that I had to pay the new occupant tax rate, I'd be forced to sell it for an absurd amount of money." Theoretically, if it came to the point where folks consider leaving town, they'd at least vote for pro-build politicians to alleviate rents / home appreciation. Of course, as a high income renter, I obviously prefer a 'build your way out.' And as a new construction apartment unit occupant, it's not myself I'm volunteering to evict to upzone.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. It should be fair to everyone and not discriminate. So make the tax rate equal for the person who has been there and the person who just bought a house. Otherwise you are making it harder for one of those groups to be able to own a home in that neighborhood for the sake of making it easier for the other group, in which case your sarcastic quip applies back to you.