4 ms·

Because property taxes support the needs of residents, and because the density of residents would increase, the property tax obtained per acre would need to inc

by burfog 8y ago

Because property taxes support the needs of residents, and because the density of residents would increase, the property tax obtained per acre would need to increase. Thus you can't just shrink lot sizes by 90% and expect to shrink per-lot tax bills by 90%. The average tax, in dollars per acre, must increase in order to compensate for the extra people.

alwaysdoit 8y ago
Not in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
- burfog 8y ago
  Yes in California, or the proposal can't happen. The limit of 1% of the property value looks to be a deal killer here. Cities have an incentive to zone for very low density. The limit of 2% increase per year is also a huge problem, but not specific to small lots. If inflation ever goes above 2%, disaster strikes all California cities. Well, there is one other way. Forget about property taxes. Set them all to 0%. Get the required 2/3 majority vote to raise income taxes, then grant a big chunk of that to the cities based on the number of people living there. Perhaps a UK-style council tax would also work.
  - toast0 8y ago
    The real incentive for cities is to encourage turnover, or at least not long term holding -- sales reset property tax to current market value. Even in 2010, in the depths of the housing bubble burst, most California counties were seeing growing tax rolls as turnover would reset to higher values more often than not. I'm not an expert, but I would think that holding period for smaller, less expensive, 'starter' homes is shorter than larger homes. If that's the case, you want to zone for that. But, zoning is more about not upsetting voters than grand fiscal planning, in my understanding.
wahern 8y ago
> the property tax obtained per acre would need to increase. And it would, because property tax is assessed not just on the land but also on the structures. For condominiums each unit is assessed separately. In addition, the greater the density the lower the cost of infrastructure. I don't think people, especially suburbanites, appreciate how ridiculously expensive roads and sewers are to build and maintain. Mostly because suburbanites tend to move on long before needing to rebuild, leaving behind broken, decaying landscapes. But that game can only last so many decades before society will be forced to deal with the consequences. The consequences are slowly coming into focus across the U.S. but are often couched in terms of affordability in more urban areas (because fewer places to move on to) and the broken finances of municipalities in more rural areas (because they're stuck with what turned out to be inherently unsustainable infrastructure costs).

by burfog 8y ago

alwaysdoit 8y ago

Not in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

burfog 8y ago
Yes in California, or the proposal can't happen. The limit of 1% of the property value looks to be a deal killer here. Cities have an incentive to zone for very low density. The limit of 2% increase per year is also a huge problem, but not specific to small lots. If inflation ever goes above 2%, disaster strikes all California cities. Well, there is one other way. Forget about property taxes. Set them all to 0%. Get the required 2/3 majority vote to raise income taxes, then grant a big chunk of that to the cities based on the number of people living there. Perhaps a UK-style council tax would also work.
- toast0 8y ago
  The real incentive for cities is to encourage turnover, or at least not long term holding -- sales reset property tax to current market value. Even in 2010, in the depths of the housing bubble burst, most California counties were seeing growing tax rolls as turnover would reset to higher values more often than not. I'm not an expert, but I would think that holding period for smaller, less expensive, 'starter' homes is shorter than larger homes. If that's the case, you want to zone for that. But, zoning is more about not upsetting voters than grand fiscal planning, in my understanding.

wahern 8y ago

> the property tax obtained per acre would need to increase. And it would, because property tax is assessed not just on the land but also on the structures. For condominiums each unit is assessed separately. In addition, the greater the density the lower the cost of infrastructure. I don't think people, especially suburbanites, appreciate how ridiculously expensive roads and sewers are to build and maintain. Mostly because suburbanites tend to move on long before needing to rebuild, leaving behind broken, decaying landscapes. But that game can only last so many decades before society will be forced to deal with the consequences. The consequences are slowly coming into focus across the U.S. but are often couched in terms of affordability in more urban areas (because fewer places to move on to) and the broken finances of municipalities in more rural areas (because they're stuck with what turned out to be inherently unsustainable infrastructure costs).