5 ms·

Every place changes regardless of people trying to preserve them in amber. The 'forced out of your lifelong' home thing is tough but I haven't seen any good sol

Every place changes regardless of people trying to preserve them in amber. The 'forced out of your lifelong' home thing is tough but I haven't seen any good solutions to it. California absolutely messed up their state with their property tax changes that turned home ownership into feudalism. Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier. If housing is actually allowed to be built, someone might be able to stay in the area in a new, nicer, place. However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded. Houston might actually be the closest. Prices in Houston are way lower than many other in-demand major cities.

giantg2 5y ago
"However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded." And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well. "Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier." Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.
- dcow 5y ago
  The supply side changes haven't worked because people are selfish and the system is perverted. “I’ll see your family struggle with gentrification before I lose my bay views and stupidly inflated house value.” The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore. The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The higher taxes mentioned would be a demand side tactic. We could also address the root cause and not just the symptoms. The high paying jobs are one of the biggest things bringing people in. The city could create policies that make other locations more attractive for businesses to create those jobs, thus decreasing demand in the areas with the problem. I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.
- zip1234 5y ago
  Here is an image that shows you what California's property tax system has done: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 Keep in mind that the tax break can be passed on to children when the owner passes. I fail to see the collective good in that system. But at least the owners of that $3.5M home never have to leave while they pay $800/yr in property taxes and the newcomer that moved into the identical house next door pays $25k/yr.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The greater good is that you don't force people out of their homes. If you worked at 1960s-1990s pay, there's no way you're affording $30k a year in tax, so it makes sense to lock it at the purchased value. Sure the child inheritance of the old tax rate might not be. The real question is why not use income tax? This would avoid kicking out the elderly, and only collect money from those who are actually making it. I don't generally like the idea of taxing people on things they already have. I would rather see it on the people who are making money. If you are benefiting from the system (income) then pay part of it (tax). Under these other schemes, it could be that the system has failed you, left you behind, etc and then the tax is like the nail in the coffin. It makes the most sense to take the money from the people who are making it.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 No idea where that is so can't comment on it. However, I do know that some of these sites that report propery taxes do have incorrect information. In my neighborhood (where I bought before it was built and have lived there ever since and know well who has lived for how long in each house) I see most houses on my street reported with their correct property tax but there are a few outliers which are completely wrong. Those show a property tax far lower than it ever was. If someone were to take a screenshot of the property tax reported for my street, they'd think there is a 100x difference between the lowest and the highest for similar homes. But those lowest numbers are not true. The real spread is more like 2.5x from lowest to highest. Which is not nothing, obviously, but way closer than it would seem.
randcraw 5y ago
There are good reasons why Houston stays cheap. (I lived there for a couple of years.) It's a huge metro area with no zoning. That dissuades people from building a castle when a toxic waste dump (or refinery) could go in upwind without warning. The city's large size and the ever-expanding radius to growing exurbs tends to dilute the value of existing homes which slows their appreciation. And the land in the region has no natural beauty. It's scrub. So creating a synthetic upscale suburb would be hard to sell economically. So neighborhood trendiness tends to arise organically, mostly from proximity to central neighborhoods (like University Village near Rice or Memorial in the museum district). Low home prices in Houston wasn't the result of an engineered or government-driven initiative. Like all economic change in Texas, it happened on its own. It's the same phenomena that have restrained home price inflation in Las Vegas. There's a lot of surrounding desert there and not much natural beauty to motivate gentrification in upscaleing the homes/suburb near a natural hot spot.

giantg2 5y ago

"However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded." And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well. "Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier." Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.

dcow 5y ago
The supply side changes haven't worked because people are selfish and the system is perverted. “I’ll see your family struggle with gentrification before I lose my bay views and stupidly inflated house value.” The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore. The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
- giantg2 5y ago
  The higher taxes mentioned would be a demand side tactic. We could also address the root cause and not just the symptoms. The high paying jobs are one of the biggest things bringing people in. The city could create policies that make other locations more attractive for businesses to create those jobs, thus decreasing demand in the areas with the problem. I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.
zip1234 5y ago
Here is an image that shows you what California's property tax system has done: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 Keep in mind that the tax break can be passed on to children when the owner passes. I fail to see the collective good in that system. But at least the owners of that $3.5M home never have to leave while they pay $800/yr in property taxes and the newcomer that moved into the identical house next door pays $25k/yr.
- giantg2 5y ago
  The greater good is that you don't force people out of their homes. If you worked at 1960s-1990s pay, there's no way you're affording $30k a year in tax, so it makes sense to lock it at the purchased value. Sure the child inheritance of the old tax rate might not be. The real question is why not use income tax? This would avoid kicking out the elderly, and only collect money from those who are actually making it. I don't generally like the idea of taxing people on things they already have. I would rather see it on the people who are making money. If you are benefiting from the system (income) then pay part of it (tax). Under these other schemes, it could be that the system has failed you, left you behind, etc and then the tax is like the nail in the coffin. It makes the most sense to take the money from the people who are making it.
- jjav 5y ago
  > https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192 No idea where that is so can't comment on it. However, I do know that some of these sites that report propery taxes do have incorrect information. In my neighborhood (where I bought before it was built and have lived there ever since and know well who has lived for how long in each house) I see most houses on my street reported with their correct property tax but there are a few outliers which are completely wrong. Those show a property tax far lower than it ever was. If someone were to take a screenshot of the property tax reported for my street, they'd think there is a 100x difference between the lowest and the highest for similar homes. But those lowest numbers are not true. The real spread is more like 2.5x from lowest to highest. Which is not nothing, obviously, but way closer than it would seem.

randcraw 5y ago

There are good reasons why Houston stays cheap. (I lived there for a couple of years.) It's a huge metro area with no zoning. That dissuades people from building a castle when a toxic waste dump (or refinery) could go in upwind without warning. The city's large size and the ever-expanding radius to growing exurbs tends to dilute the value of existing homes which slows their appreciation. And the land in the region has no natural beauty. It's scrub. So creating a synthetic upscale suburb would be hard to sell economically. So neighborhood trendiness tends to arise organically, mostly from proximity to central neighborhoods (like University Village near Rice or Memorial in the museum district). Low home prices in Houston wasn't the result of an engineered or government-driven initiative. Like all economic change in Texas, it happened on its own. It's the same phenomena that have restrained home price inflation in Las Vegas. There's a lot of surrounding desert there and not much natural beauty to motivate gentrification in upscaleing the homes/suburb near a natural hot spot.