5 ms·

> This was a red herring when prop 13 was passed, and is a red herring now. 49 other states don't have prop 13, and yet seniors aren't priced out of their homes

> This was a red herring when prop 13 was passed, and is a red herring now. 49 other states don't have prop 13, and yet seniors aren't priced out of their homes. Prop 13 is bad in at least half a dozen ways, but I'm not so sure this problem isn't coming elsewhere or even is absent. It seems to me California may have experienced a leading edge of metro dynamics that are going to come for other states soon. > everyone's home gets reassessed for its value and then the tax rate is set so that the whole county goes up 1%. That's interesting. > And if you're still really concerned about old people losing their homes, at least support getting rid of Prop 13 for all non-primary homes I think something like this is right (and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago?). Residence-first real estate policy needs to include tax that increases on the number of properties owned (and maybe even more steeply in a supply constrained market).

jedberg 5y ago
> and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago? Yes, in the last election. And sadly it was defeated because as usual with state propositions, the side with the most money (developers in this case) were able to convince the public with inaccurate propaganda.
ryandrake 5y ago
> Residence-first real estate policy needs to include tax that increases on the number of properties owned (and maybe even more steeply in a supply constrained market). People might try to get around this by forming corporations or trusts that hold max one property each. There is really no need to count how many other properties someone holds. Just do a re-assessment every year and ratchet up the assessed value on all housing that the owner does not occupy, including vacant property and renter-occupied. Seems a lot simpler.
- jedberg 5y ago
  It's pretty easy for the taxman to detect such shenanigans. There are a bunch of corporate laws that only apply when certain limits are met, like minimum revenue or 50 employees, etc. It's illegal to form extra corporations to get around those rules, and the regulators usually catch on. I'd be especially easy in California because every foreign (out of state) corporation has to register with the state and tell them who the beneficial owners are. It would be fairly easy to trace it back to actual people.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  If a corporation own a property - that it should pay the full tax, no exemptions. Primary residence clauses must never apply to corporations
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I think something like this is right (and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago?). No, a much more limited reform that would have effected some, but not all, commercial and industrial property (but not any, even non-primary, residential) was, and was defeated.

jedberg 5y ago

> and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago? Yes, in the last election. And sadly it was defeated because as usual with state propositions, the side with the most money (developers in this case) were able to convince the public with inaccurate propaganda.

ryandrake 5y ago

> Residence-first real estate policy needs to include tax that increases on the number of properties owned (and maybe even more steeply in a supply constrained market). People might try to get around this by forming corporations or trusts that hold max one property each. There is really no need to count how many other properties someone holds. Just do a re-assessment every year and ratchet up the assessed value on all housing that the owner does not occupy, including vacant property and renter-occupied. Seems a lot simpler.

jedberg 5y ago
It's pretty easy for the taxman to detect such shenanigans. There are a bunch of corporate laws that only apply when certain limits are met, like minimum revenue or 50 employees, etc. It's illegal to form extra corporations to get around those rules, and the regulators usually catch on. I'd be especially easy in California because every foreign (out of state) corporation has to register with the state and tell them who the beneficial owners are. It would be fairly easy to trace it back to actual people.
JAlexoid 5y ago
If a corporation own a property - that it should pay the full tax, no exemptions. Primary residence clauses must never apply to corporations

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I think something like this is right (and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago?). No, a much more limited reform that would have effected some, but not all, commercial and industrial property (but not any, even non-primary, residential) was, and was defeated.