5 ms·

I ask this every time this comes up, and have yet to get an answer: in what way are "property taxes" for residents of a development not just "condo fees"? I ha

I ask this every time this comes up, and have yet to get an answer: in what way are "property taxes" for residents of a development not just "condo fees"? I have to be missing _something_

sandworm101 6y ago
Condo fees go to a small body controlled by people who pay the tax. Property taxes go to a very much larger body which includes all sorts of people who, for whatever reason, don't necessarily pay the tax directly. That inclusivity on the basis of legal status, citizenship rather than asset ownership/wealth, is the difference between civil government and a private club requiring buy-in. The requirement to own property in order to participate in government was abandoned long ago, with good cause. That system was horrible.
- cl42 6y ago
  I just want to say that this is extremely eloquent and well-written. I aspire to write like this. I also agree with you.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I'm not sure I understand. I have a friend renting a condo from its owners, which I gather isn't an unheard-of occurrence. Given that she's not paying the "property taxes" (HOA fees) and not a member of the direct democracy "government" (the HOA), is she any different from someone living in this development who rents from an owner?
  - gtfoutttt 6y ago
    They pay the HOA, it's just built into their rent. Most property owners and landlords don't tend to overlook stuff like that.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      Yes, I know. That's the case for my friend, and I don't think anyone would suggest that her situation is horribly undemocratic. The parent comment's claim, as I understood it, is that this is horribly undemocratic because my renter friend is not directly a member of and represented by the HOA, as those rights are proxied through her landlord. My point is that I don't see how that differs from this proposed development: either you own, and are represented by the HOA-equivalent, or you rent, and are in the same position as any renter of a condo.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        It sounds like they would suggest your friend's situation is horribly undemocratic.
        wutbrodo 6y ago
        Sure, but that brings me back to my original question: people's reaction to "Google wants to charge property taxes" has been nowhere near their reaction to "condominiums exist". I'm hoping to get an answer to my question that isn't simply "people are stupid and react based on buzzwords instead of a basic understanding of what they're talking about".
pseudalopex 6y ago
Your friend's HOA represents her landlord and neighbors. Their interests overlap. She could know many of them. Sidewalk Labs would exercise much more power over many more people on behalf of Alphabet shareholders. Your friend could escape the HOA by moving across the street when her lease ends. Her landlord would have to sell the condo. Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job Ah interesting, so your interpretation of sandworm's point _is_ explicitly saying that condominiums become abusive above a certain area/size. Thank you, this is a novel point that I hadn't yet heard. That being said, the ambitious version of this development (before the reduction in land made available to them) is 1.5 sq mi. This means that you can pretty easily do the equivalent of "moving across the street": if I'm doing my math right, someone living in the most suboptimal possible dead-center of the community will have a minimum of a staggering....0.7 miles added to their commute. This seems a whole lot closer to my friend's situation than paying property taxes to live in a city does.

I ask this every time this comes up, and have yet to get an answer: in what way are "property taxes" for residents of a development not just "condo fees"? I have to be missing _something_

sandworm101 6y ago

Condo fees go to a small body controlled by people who pay the tax. Property taxes go to a very much larger body which includes all sorts of people who, for whatever reason, don't necessarily pay the tax directly. That inclusivity on the basis of legal status, citizenship rather than asset ownership/wealth, is the difference between civil government and a private club requiring buy-in. The requirement to own property in order to participate in government was abandoned long ago, with good cause. That system was horrible.

cl42 6y ago
I just want to say that this is extremely eloquent and well-written. I aspire to write like this. I also agree with you.
wutbrodo 6y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I'm not sure I understand. I have a friend renting a condo from its owners, which I gather isn't an unheard-of occurrence. Given that she's not paying the "property taxes" (HOA fees) and not a member of the direct democracy "government" (the HOA), is she any different from someone living in this development who rents from an owner?
- gtfoutttt 6y ago
  They pay the HOA, it's just built into their rent. Most property owners and landlords don't tend to overlook stuff like that.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    Yes, I know. That's the case for my friend, and I don't think anyone would suggest that her situation is horribly undemocratic. The parent comment's claim, as I understood it, is that this is horribly undemocratic because my renter friend is not directly a member of and represented by the HOA, as those rights are proxied through her landlord. My point is that I don't see how that differs from this proposed development: either you own, and are represented by the HOA-equivalent, or you rent, and are in the same position as any renter of a condo.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      It sounds like they would suggest your friend's situation is horribly undemocratic.
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        Sure, but that brings me back to my original question: people's reaction to "Google wants to charge property taxes" has been nowhere near their reaction to "condominiums exist". I'm hoping to get an answer to my question that isn't simply "people are stupid and react based on buzzwords instead of a basic understanding of what they're talking about".

pseudalopex 6y ago

Your friend's HOA represents her landlord and neighbors. Their interests overlap. She could know many of them. Sidewalk Labs would exercise much more power over many more people on behalf of Alphabet shareholders. Your friend could escape the HOA by moving across the street when her lease ends. Her landlord would have to sell the condo. Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job Ah interesting, so your interpretation of sandworm's point _is_ explicitly saying that condominiums become abusive above a certain area/size. Thank you, this is a novel point that I hadn't yet heard. That being said, the ambitious version of this development (before the reduction in land made available to them) is 1.5 sq mi. This means that you can pretty easily do the equivalent of "moving across the street": if I'm doing my math right, someone living in the most suboptimal possible dead-center of the community will have a minimum of a staggering....0.7 miles added to their commute. This seems a whole lot closer to my friend's situation than paying property taxes to live in a city does.