3 ms·
In addition to what buerkle said, build more... what? The amount of property is fixed and already owned. The state isn't somehow making more land in places pe
by mdorazio 7y ago
In addition to what buerkle said, build more... what? The amount of property is fixed and already owned. The state isn't somehow making more land in places people want to live, so there's no real opportunity for the state to get more tax dollars that way.
Additionally, Prop 13 is kind of a disincentive to build higher-density buildings because if you tear down a building and build a new one, your tax base will go up to match the newly assessed property value rather than remain at the artificially low level it was at before.
- mywittyname 7y agoBut that building will be locked into current rates for a long time. So property taxes might hike from $500/yr to $50,000/yr, each rising by 3% pa, but revenues could spike from $40,000/yr to $400,000/yr rising at like 8-12% a year. In 30 years, a $100k/yr property tax bill will be peanuts compared to the $7,000,000 in rent revenues they'll be earning. Developers understand this, they want to build, but they are having trouble getting the permits to replace low density SFH with medium- to high-density housing.
- mdorazio 7y agoI agree, but at the same time there are also a lot of SFH owners who literally could not afford the property tax bill if they even significantly improved their homes, so you get ridiculous situations like entire neighborhoods in LA that are basically ghettos despite the tiny lots being worth close to half a mil each. Any real solution needs to be a combination of changing zoning/permitting and fixing Prop 13.