5 ms·

We do tax them, but it's indirect, because property taxes go up. You could do it by say taking 25% of increased property taxes and remitting them to transit cos

by rnk 4y ago

We do tax them, but it's indirect, because property taxes go up. You could do it by say taking 25% of increased property taxes and remitting them to transit costs. That's an interesting idea I never heard of before.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
No, I believe the way it's done in Asian countries is that public transportation is run by (usually) private companies that have the right to develop the land. Thus the incentive is to put things on top of transit which align with what commuters need. In Singapore, for example the pad around every station typically has a hawker stand (food court), drugstore, supermarket, which are the things you might need on your way home.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  The US used to work like this, developers would build streetcars to connect suburbs of cities and make it profitable to sell lots to build houses on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb I live in one but unfortunately there’s no streetcar anymore.
- nephanth 4y ago
  Tokyo works that way. Here's a good article I read about it: https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-tokyo-est-il-l-avenir-des-transports-europeens-2 https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-to... They do, however, mention some bad externalities at the end
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
This exists, it is called tax increment financing.
0_____0 4y ago
In California this is broken -- property taxes are assessed using the price when last sold, plus a 2% annual increase. Any property in California that hasn't changed hands recently is likely very under-taxed. Basically it amounts to a subsidy for sitting on property and not developing it.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Basically it amounts to a protection to people so that they won't be forced to sell their home just because property values go up, something that happened quite often before prop 13 went into effect. But hey, let's kick out people from their homes, that they can afford, because they can't afford to pay the Sheriff of Nottingham when he comes to collect his taxes.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Even if the "old lady gets kicked out" were a major issue, you could at least repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties, and implement other "prevent from being kicked out" rules. But Prop 13 will never change, it's a political 3rd rail now.
  - EricDeb 4y ago
    I mean it's similar to rent going up.. you could afford it before you can't afford it now sorry
    - msla 4y ago
      Which leads to rent control, which leads to a reduce in supply of rental properties. Being fair to the people already here leads to being unfair to people newly moving in, which effectively includes young people just starting out and looking for places of their own. https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-eviden...
  - 0_____0 4y ago
    That reasoning is how it was sold to the Californian voter in the 70s during the era of popular rebellion against taxes. The writers and underwriters of that ballot initiative knew what they were doing, keeping grandma in her house was merely a pretext. The average homeowner benefits directly from Prop 13 and fails to see how it has impacted other aspects of their life. The implications for the municipal governments have been disastrous. Municipal tax inflows went from being ~95% property taxes to being closer to 40% in the present day. The rest of the income comes from new taxes and fees invented to fill the gaps. Prop 13 is a major (but not sole) reason why CA has underbuilt housing for the last four decades. The tax assessed has no relation to the value of the land it sits on, so the trend is to underuse and underdevelop land. If your house is taxed at $1500 a year and keeps appreciating, why sell? Have that 4br/2ba to yourself, or rent it out and make a net gain of $60,000/yr. Either way it makes no sense to sell the property and allow it to be redeveloped into something that could house 10x the people. I know property owners who bought for $40k in Berkeley and are now sitting on 2.4MM$ in value, doing the minimum in repairs while renting the unit for $6k/mo. This is not unusual. These people do not deserve your pity, and they do not deserve a massive systemic wealth transfer in their direction. Unfortunately I think the dysfunction in California will have to reach catastrophic levels before Prop 13 repeal becomes politically^Wemotionally feasible for CA voters. The knock-on effects of P13 are too far removed from the average voter -- most won't connect increased crime, failing schools and public services, increased cost of living all the way back to it.

by rnk 4y ago

throwawaymaths 4y ago

No, I believe the way it's done in Asian countries is that public transportation is run by (usually) private companies that have the right to develop the land. Thus the incentive is to put things on top of transit which align with what commuters need. In Singapore, for example the pad around every station typically has a hawker stand (food court), drugstore, supermarket, which are the things you might need on your way home.

NegativeLatency 4y ago
The US used to work like this, developers would build streetcars to connect suburbs of cities and make it profitable to sell lots to build houses on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb I live in one but unfortunately there’s no streetcar anymore.
nephanth 4y ago
Tokyo works that way. Here's a good article I read about it: https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-tokyo-est-il-l-avenir-des-transports-europeens-2 https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-to... They do, however, mention some bad externalities at the end

thescriptkiddie 4y ago

This exists, it is called tax increment financing.

0_____0 4y ago

In California this is broken -- property taxes are assessed using the price when last sold, plus a 2% annual increase. Any property in California that hasn't changed hands recently is likely very under-taxed. Basically it amounts to a subsidy for sitting on property and not developing it.

ROTMetro 4y ago
Basically it amounts to a protection to people so that they won't be forced to sell their home just because property values go up, something that happened quite often before prop 13 went into effect. But hey, let's kick out people from their homes, that they can afford, because they can't afford to pay the Sheriff of Nottingham when he comes to collect his taxes.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Even if the "old lady gets kicked out" were a major issue, you could at least repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties, and implement other "prevent from being kicked out" rules. But Prop 13 will never change, it's a political 3rd rail now.
- EricDeb 4y ago
  I mean it's similar to rent going up.. you could afford it before you can't afford it now sorry
  - msla 4y ago
    Which leads to rent control, which leads to a reduce in supply of rental properties. Being fair to the people already here leads to being unfair to people newly moving in, which effectively includes young people just starting out and looking for places of their own. https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-eviden...
- 0_____0 4y ago
  That reasoning is how it was sold to the Californian voter in the 70s during the era of popular rebellion against taxes. The writers and underwriters of that ballot initiative knew what they were doing, keeping grandma in her house was merely a pretext. The average homeowner benefits directly from Prop 13 and fails to see how it has impacted other aspects of their life. The implications for the municipal governments have been disastrous. Municipal tax inflows went from being ~95% property taxes to being closer to 40% in the present day. The rest of the income comes from new taxes and fees invented to fill the gaps. Prop 13 is a major (but not sole) reason why CA has underbuilt housing for the last four decades. The tax assessed has no relation to the value of the land it sits on, so the trend is to underuse and underdevelop land. If your house is taxed at $1500 a year and keeps appreciating, why sell? Have that 4br/2ba to yourself, or rent it out and make a net gain of $60,000/yr. Either way it makes no sense to sell the property and allow it to be redeveloped into something that could house 10x the people. I know property owners who bought for $40k in Berkeley and are now sitting on 2.4MM$ in value, doing the minimum in repairs while renting the unit for $6k/mo. This is not unusual. These people do not deserve your pity, and they do not deserve a massive systemic wealth transfer in their direction. Unfortunately I think the dysfunction in California will have to reach catastrophic levels before Prop 13 repeal becomes politically^Wemotionally feasible for CA voters. The knock-on effects of P13 are too far removed from the average voter -- most won't connect increased crime, failing schools and public services, increased cost of living all the way back to it.