5 ms·
Talk about burying the lede. Today, as the state grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing shortage, Article 34 has limited effects on the construction
by Pharmakon 8y ago
Talk about burying the lede.
Today, as the state grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing shortage, Article 34 has limited effects on the construction of low-income developments. But it remains an obstacle: Los Angeles officials believe that without a public vote in the coming years, the city will no longer be able to finance such projects — even though it has the money to do so.
I realize that screaming at “NIMBYs” is practically a hobby for some, but I can see their perspective too. For one, the resources exist today to do better, but it’s not done. Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. For all that new plans claim to be aimed at housing the poor, it rarely works out that way.
If you want to reduce concerns, use the existing funds responsibly, and prove that future loosening of restrictions wouldn’t just be a bonanza for the wealthy, and lead to even more tech influx. Listen to people who express concerns that leveling smaller structure and building vertically:
A.) Would lead to a predictable boom-bust leaving California at some future date, with a load of ugly, crumbling infrastructure.
B.) That attempts to house the poor will go hand in hand with other efforts to increase economic opportunities for them, expand mental healthcare, and improve policing. Without that it’s just warehousing, and communities do suffer.
C.) Would change what drew people there in the first place, leading to the afformentioned boom-bust.
D.) That this isn’t all about extremely well-paid techies who will move where’ve the money goes.
I see more of a dynamic, in practice, of rich existing interests clashing with rich incoming interests, while the poor are used as little more than a rallying cry or scapegoat. I suspect that I’m one of many unconvincedby arguments of “the character of a community” under threat, as well as facetious arguments from “digital nomads” who are mostly just tired of the commute. I’ll say it again, as the article states the money is there, Article 34 isn’t a significant impediment, yet the poor are still systemically screwed.
- crooked-v 8y ago> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. I've become a firm supporter of the idea of gradually increasing non-occupancy taxes, with some scaling factor based off local overall vacancy rates.
- rcpt 8y agoThe vacancy rates in CA cities are typically low. Vacant apartments aren't the problem - non-existent ones are. If you want to fix this with taxes it's easy: repeal prop 13. We don't need golf courses in city centers or untaxed empty lots in prime locations.
- stevenwoo 8y agoProp 13 reform could fix all those long empty office buildings on 237 among other places - I think some of those have been empty for a decade though I no longer drive along that corridor for work so am not sure of the current situation.
- ThrustVectoring 8y agoYou don't need to repeal proposition 13. It bans ad valorem taxes only. It technically does not ban adding a tax on the raw square footage of land in specific areas that need additional development - only if it's based off the assessed value of the property.
- rcpt 8y agoIf I understood you correctly you're saying CA could implement a land value tax provided that we also create a new assement process that only takes into account the value of one's land? Property taxes wouldn't change but landowners would suddenly be responsible for land taxes. Surely this would still require the 2/3rds majority of voters and lawmakers required by prop 218.
- ridgeguy 8y agoThere's some movement towards modification of Prop 13 [1]. As I understand it, the proposal would lift Prop 13 on commercial properties only. Residential properties would continue as now. It's claimed this would bring in an additional $11B+ in tax revenue. On a brief search, I didn't find an estimate for revenue increase if Prop 13 were abolished. I'd guess it would be at least as much as the proposed commercial-specific mod. My Prop 13 anecdote: a neighbor who bought a 3BR house on 0.8 acre in the 1950s pays less in annual property taxes than I do on one month's utility bills. I'm fine with that, she's pushing 100 and probably wouldn't be able to stay home without Prop 13. Meantime, a 1940s 3BR house on a 0.35 acre lot right across the street from her sold for $2.9 million last December. Anecdotal, but suggests the potential magnitude of tax revenue change if Prop 13 were entirely removed. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/california-to-vote-on-partial-repeal-of-sweeping-tax-law.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/california-to-vote-on...
- wbl 8y agoRemember that those well paid techies are what lets CA balance the budget.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- linkregister 8y ago> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. Do you have any kind of reference for this? It is a contrarian opinion compared to Case Schiller and other well-known housing research organizations.