2 ms·

This is a bit of a strawman. The people I’m talking about aren’t funding those things anyway because they pay next to nothing in property tax compared to their

This is a bit of a strawman. The people I’m talking about aren’t funding those things anyway because they pay next to nothing in property tax compared to their new neighbors thanks to prop13. I’m also not arguing for housing projects. The median housing cost in Palo Alto is well over a million. Prop13 means that old owners aren’t paying the tax on that cost and are incentivized to restrict building. This drives costs higher for really low quality housing. This means only multimillionaires can afford to buy housing here. Everyone else is someone who got in long ago or are new kids out of college with high paying jobs renting with three roommates. Increasing the housing supply makes the cost less absurd for everyone, a natural extension of that is more people can afford to live there and you get more diversity (since history has skewed who has that kind of wealth on average). The people restricting housing are acting in their own financial interest, they should have to pay that cost in property tax at their house FMV. At a minimum on sale, but I’d prefer some percentage each year closing the gap unless their town builds some large amount of new housing.

tinyhouse 6y ago
I don't argue with that. My comment was more general, not about the Palo Alto area and its property tax laws. I don't live in California and not familiar with the specifics of housing in the Bay Area. My main comment was in response to "black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.".
- fossuser 6y ago
  You argued that it wasn't race, but socioeconomic status. It was explicitly race historically: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neighborhoods-were-created-equal-in-palo-alto https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neigh... https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo-alto-longtime-residents-describe-painful-toll-of-everyday-racism https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo... Restricting supply now is often justified by 'keeping neighborhood character', but that character is one which explicitly excluded others based on their race. I'd argue there are also examples where it's race and not socioeconomic status today. There was a recent story from a black VC jogging in Palo Alto who had the police called on him because 'he was up to something'. (I searched around, but couldn't find the link to his story). Increasing housing supply doesn't make neighborhoods unsafe and would increase the funding available to the local communities. > "There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US." It may not be their job to fix everything, but I'd argue they're responsible for not pushing policy to make things worse.

tinyhouse 6y ago

I don't argue with that. My comment was more general, not about the Palo Alto area and its property tax laws. I don't live in California and not familiar with the specifics of housing in the Bay Area. My main comment was in response to "black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.".

fossuser 6y ago
You argued that it wasn't race, but socioeconomic status. It was explicitly race historically: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neighborhoods-were-created-equal-in-palo-alto https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neigh... https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo-alto-longtime-residents-describe-painful-toll-of-everyday-racism https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo... Restricting supply now is often justified by 'keeping neighborhood character', but that character is one which explicitly excluded others based on their race. I'd argue there are also examples where it's race and not socioeconomic status today. There was a recent story from a black VC jogging in Palo Alto who had the police called on him because 'he was up to something'. (I searched around, but couldn't find the link to his story). Increasing housing supply doesn't make neighborhoods unsafe and would increase the funding available to the local communities. > "There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US." It may not be their job to fix everything, but I'd argue they're responsible for not pushing policy to make things worse.