4 ms·

> if my home value doubles just because of natural reasons. There's a lot to unpack with just that. Decades of aggressive downzoning and increasing regulatory

by cactus2093 7y ago

> if my home value doubles just because of natural reasons. There's a lot to unpack with just that. Decades of aggressive downzoning and increasing regulatory hurdles to make building more difficult & costly, is not a natural reason (even if it is the status quo). Just as an analogy, that would be kind of like saying the tens of thousands of automobile deaths per year in the US are deaths from natural causes, since it's a status quo that we don't even blink twice at anymore. You're arguing that your lifestyle has not increased just because your home value increased. It definitely has, basically by definition, now you live in a more expensive house and more desireable location. If we were to itemize the additional value you're getting, the big line item is the cost of keeping other people out of the neighborhood and keeping the density low. 30 years ago that was pretty cheap, now that is an extreme luxury that you are getting. Not to mention other tangible benefits, like access to home equity credit or the ability to sell and move to a much bigger or fancier house almost anywhere else in the country. Just because you aren't going to exercise your ability to do that doesn't mean you aren't getting the value from having that flexibility. This seems to really get at one of the most fundamental things driving NIMBYism, that people's expectation is if they buy a house they have also bought the right to freeze time in their immediate vicinity and remove themselves from the continually evolving outside world. So if they don't perceive that their lifestyle has doubled in value, they're free to just decide that it hasn't and carry on living and paying property tax as if it hasn't.

ericmay 7y ago
To be clear (and this is probably my fault) when I said natural reasons I was thinking along the lines of naturally occurring economic reasons. For example, if people move to my town that will drive property prices. On an individual level there isn’t too much I can do. Maybe I vote to restrict immigration or enact anti-growth policies such as a maximum limit on children. Maybe I sell my home to a developer who turns it into a mall or a 5 story apartment building. Many reasonable courses of action here. By the way, we don’t seem to have much of a problem with prices decreasing, even if that causes a larger financial impact (if you buy a home for $300,000 and policies out of your voting control cause you to lose value, you’re just screwed with no recourse). I don’t buy for a second though, that if your home value doubles that your lifestyle doubles. My mortgage payment and neighborhood are exactly the same. It can certainly have a positive impact, but it’s unrealized. Largely I think people are too quick to focus on demonizing the NIMBY, without really considering the full scope. What if people in the state legislatures vote for something that increases my home value and I vote, write reps, and do anything a person has a reasonable capacity to do. Now my taxes should double or triple? And if I can’t afford it you force me out of my house, away from friends and family? Life isn’t fair I guess? But then people can’t get upset if people go and vote themselves Prop 13 or to defund affordable housing. It’s in their self-interest. Economics is hard. I don’t know the right answer, but as a homeowner in the Great Lakes Region, I feel more sympathy toward other home owners than some here may do.
- yonran 7y ago
  > Further, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do if my home value doubles just because of natural reasons… On an individual level there isn’t too much I can do.… Maybe I sell my home to a developer who turns it into a mall or a 5 story apartment building.… And if I can’t afford it you force me out of my house, away from friends and family? I think what you said is somewhat contradictory. You said you don’t know what you could do if your land value were to increase, but then you list a couple good things that you could do (develop an apartment or sell the house), as well as a couple illiberal policies you would pursue (immigration restrictions or limits on children). I would add that you could rent out a bedroom or build a modest extension to rent out. And I think it is contradictory to say that you could build an apartment and be displaced; it is exactly apartments that would prevent you and your neighbors from being displaced. > By the way, we don’t seem to have much of a problem with prices decreasing, even if that causes a larger financial impact (if you buy a home for $300,000 and policies out of your voting control cause you to lose value, you’re just screwed with no recourse). I agree! This is actually another reason to want higher property taxes. In places like the Bay Area where the land value is so high, buying a house is a very big bet that the high values will be maintained. If taxes on land were higher, then the price would be lower and the government instead of individual homeowners would bear more of the risks. > but as a homeowner in the Great Lakes Region, I feel more sympathy toward other home owners than some here may do. And how do you feel about tenants, who face the same problems but worse? What is the right level of privilege that owners should have above renters and future buyers? The property tax allows society to tune the amount of privilege that owners have over renters and future buyers. If the tax rate were 0% (allodial ownership), landlords would have a great degree of privilege over their serfs. At the other extreme, a tax rate of 100% of the rental value would be equivalent to leasing from the government, and landlords would have no privilege over other tenants. When we break the property tax by preventing it from adjusting to property value (as Proposition 13 did), then current owners become rich from the booming economy even as renters and future buyers become impoverished, or as the article puts it, “it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation.” In my opinion, the property tax rate should be moderately high, so that landowners and tenants’ interests would be more aligned and the government would have the resources it needs to address displacement and inequality.

ericmay 7y ago

To be clear (and this is probably my fault) when I said natural reasons I was thinking along the lines of naturally occurring economic reasons. For example, if people move to my town that will drive property prices. On an individual level there isn’t too much I can do. Maybe I vote to restrict immigration or enact anti-growth policies such as a maximum limit on children. Maybe I sell my home to a developer who turns it into a mall or a 5 story apartment building. Many reasonable courses of action here. By the way, we don’t seem to have much of a problem with prices decreasing, even if that causes a larger financial impact (if you buy a home for $300,000 and policies out of your voting control cause you to lose value, you’re just screwed with no recourse). I don’t buy for a second though, that if your home value doubles that your lifestyle doubles. My mortgage payment and neighborhood are exactly the same. It can certainly have a positive impact, but it’s unrealized. Largely I think people are too quick to focus on demonizing the NIMBY, without really considering the full scope. What if people in the state legislatures vote for something that increases my home value and I vote, write reps, and do anything a person has a reasonable capacity to do. Now my taxes should double or triple? And if I can’t afford it you force me out of my house, away from friends and family? Life isn’t fair I guess? But then people can’t get upset if people go and vote themselves Prop 13 or to defund affordable housing. It’s in their self-interest. Economics is hard. I don’t know the right answer, but as a homeowner in the Great Lakes Region, I feel more sympathy toward other home owners than some here may do.

yonran 7y ago
> Further, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do if my home value doubles just because of natural reasons… On an individual level there isn’t too much I can do.… Maybe I sell my home to a developer who turns it into a mall or a 5 story apartment building.… And if I can’t afford it you force me out of my house, away from friends and family? I think what you said is somewhat contradictory. You said you don’t know what you could do if your land value were to increase, but then you list a couple good things that you could do (develop an apartment or sell the house), as well as a couple illiberal policies you would pursue (immigration restrictions or limits on children). I would add that you could rent out a bedroom or build a modest extension to rent out. And I think it is contradictory to say that you could build an apartment and be displaced; it is exactly apartments that would prevent you and your neighbors from being displaced. > By the way, we don’t seem to have much of a problem with prices decreasing, even if that causes a larger financial impact (if you buy a home for $300,000 and policies out of your voting control cause you to lose value, you’re just screwed with no recourse). I agree! This is actually another reason to want higher property taxes. In places like the Bay Area where the land value is so high, buying a house is a very big bet that the high values will be maintained. If taxes on land were higher, then the price would be lower and the government instead of individual homeowners would bear more of the risks. > but as a homeowner in the Great Lakes Region, I feel more sympathy toward other home owners than some here may do. And how do you feel about tenants, who face the same problems but worse? What is the right level of privilege that owners should have above renters and future buyers? The property tax allows society to tune the amount of privilege that owners have over renters and future buyers. If the tax rate were 0% (allodial ownership), landlords would have a great degree of privilege over their serfs. At the other extreme, a tax rate of 100% of the rental value would be equivalent to leasing from the government, and landlords would have no privilege over other tenants. When we break the property tax by preventing it from adjusting to property value (as Proposition 13 did), then current owners become rich from the booming economy even as renters and future buyers become impoverished, or as the article puts it, “it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation.” In my opinion, the property tax rate should be moderately high, so that landowners and tenants’ interests would be more aligned and the government would have the resources it needs to address displacement and inequality.