4 ms·

The 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: r

by rcpt 8y ago

The 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 ago
Prop 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 ago
You 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 ago
  If 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 ago
There'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...
- rcpt 8y ago
  Reform for only commercial property is what we're voting on in 2020. It'd be great for public services if that passed but housing will remain as fucked as ever. Empty lots will stay empty, entrenched wealthy homeowners will continue to organize against new housing, long time landlords will keep thier fat profit margins. I understand that your neighbor is old and that we should provide a social safety net for her. But that can be done in many different ways that don't involve massive handouts to real estate investors. http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/ http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/ is a good read if you like prop 13 anecdotes

by rcpt 8y ago

stevenwoo 8y ago

Prop 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 ago

You 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 ago
If 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 ago

There'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...

rcpt 8y ago
Reform for only commercial property is what we're voting on in 2020. It'd be great for public services if that passed but housing will remain as fucked as ever. Empty lots will stay empty, entrenched wealthy homeowners will continue to organize against new housing, long time landlords will keep thier fat profit margins. I understand that your neighbor is old and that we should provide a social safety net for her. But that can be done in many different ways that don't involve massive handouts to real estate investors. http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/ http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/ is a good read if you like prop 13 anecdotes