5 ms·

There are other ways to dehoardify prime land that don't require tearing up nature. Raising property taxes (i.e. shredding prop 13) would help. The NIMBYs woul

There are other ways to dehoardify prime land that don't require tearing up nature. Raising property taxes (i.e. shredding prop 13) would help. The NIMBYs would be less motivated if rising land values were captured by taxes rather than winners of the homeowner lottery (and who likes SF NIMBYs?) A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). Also more tax income.

longerthoughts 8y ago
>A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. Raising tax rates won't touch these people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  Hence why I said "i.e. shredding prop 13" and why my other comment in the thread said "blame the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation".
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    Ah, missed that in your comment. I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether but I wonder if they could get exceptions passed in counties that could benefit the most. I believe Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties.
    - ak217 8y ago
      > I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether Support is rising quickly. > Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties. It does not.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. No, they don't. The tax basis value is adjusted annually to the lesser of the actual value or 2% greater than the previous year’s tax basis value in the absence of an event allowing unrestricted full-market assessment (most sales, for instance.) The 1% maximum increase does not (except when inflation happens to be unusually low) amount to adjusting for inflation, and it's not done without reassessment (value drops—rare in the Bay but still can happen—are immediately reflected, but increases are capped.) > Raising tax rates won't touch these people. Plus, the same thing that creates the limit on basis increases also puts a hard cap on rates.
taysic 8y ago
Creating more density would greatly impact nature though. Having grown up not too far from Manhattan I can attest that for the most part the nature has been bulldozed over and polluted. SF is not so extreme and many people don’t want it to be more due to the unique natural environment it is in.

longerthoughts 8y ago

>A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. Raising tax rates won't touch these people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

crdoconnor 8y ago
Hence why I said "i.e. shredding prop 13" and why my other comment in the thread said "blame the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation".
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  Ah, missed that in your comment. I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether but I wonder if they could get exceptions passed in counties that could benefit the most. I believe Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties.
  - ak217 8y ago
    > I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether Support is rising quickly. > Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties. It does not.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. No, they don't. The tax basis value is adjusted annually to the lesser of the actual value or 2% greater than the previous year’s tax basis value in the absence of an event allowing unrestricted full-market assessment (most sales, for instance.) The 1% maximum increase does not (except when inflation happens to be unusually low) amount to adjusting for inflation, and it's not done without reassessment (value drops—rare in the Bay but still can happen—are immediately reflected, but increases are capped.) > Raising tax rates won't touch these people. Plus, the same thing that creates the limit on basis increases also puts a hard cap on rates.

taysic 8y ago

Creating more density would greatly impact nature though. Having grown up not too far from Manhattan I can attest that for the most part the nature has been bulldozed over and polluted. SF is not so extreme and many people don’t want it to be more due to the unique natural environment it is in.