4 ms·

While technically you're correct, it doesn't mean you're right. It's not so easy to uproot a family from their home and start new somewhere else. It's been stat

While technically you're correct, it doesn't mean you're right. It's not so easy to uproot a family from their home and start new somewhere else. It's been stated several times in each of these discussions that many of those who can't afford the housing increase are the ones who've spent generations in the area. Pushing out area natives and alienating the poor for not 'living where they can afford' is no way to build a community.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
I consider this to be little more than a testament to owning rather than renting. If people have spent generations in the area but are renting, then they were always living on borrowed time anyway. If you've lived there for years and own your flat, it makes zero difference what the housing market looks like today.
- aeorgnoieang 13y ago
  That's not really true. Property taxes are usually assessed based on the value of the property and that rises with the housing market. People are sometimes priced out of areas even when they own their home.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    > when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed value that is equal to its purchase price, or “acquisition value.” Each year thereafter, the property’s assessed value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. This process continues until the property is sold, at which point the county assessor again assigns it an assessed value equal to its most recent purchase price. [1] If you have owned your home for awhile, your property taxes are not changing that much. Your assessed value starts with the purchase price and increases, at most, 2% each year. This house[2] listed on Zillow is a great example. It sold in 1973 for $32K. For the passed 40 years they've been paying property taxes based on the $32K plus ~2% increase each year (I'm not sure how far back that 2% max increase goes). In 2013, the assessed value was still down at $72K... meaning $997 in property taxes. That same year the house was sold for $875K. Now the assessed value resets to market value and the new property taxes will be like $11k rather than the previous year's $1K. So even though the housing prices skyrocketed around them, the previous owner of the house wasn't really effected by that increase. [1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1... [2] http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco-CA-94121/15095502_zpid/ http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco...
ryguytilidie 13y ago
If you decide to rent in one of, if not the highest demand city in the United States, live on a thin margin and start a family, its hard to have sympathy when you're forced to move them to, gasp, San Ramon. It's certainly no way to build a community, but I don't think demonizing people who work 60 hours a week and make 140k is the way to do it either.
raldi 13y ago
Except somehow, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and Philadelphia all manage to do it despite none of those cities having rent control. http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961 http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC. And part of reason Chicago has "affordable" housing is because vast swaths of the south and west side are dangerous, gang-infested, and neglected by city services.
  - raldi 13y ago
    > None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC I suppose you believe that NYC and SF have rent control because housing is so expensive there. Have you considered the possibility that you have it backwards?
    - ForHackernews 13y ago
      Obviously having rent-controlled apartments will increase the price of non-controlled units somewhat. But I certainly don't think that rent-control is the primary driver of high housing costs in SF/NY.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

I consider this to be little more than a testament to owning rather than renting. If people have spent generations in the area but are renting, then they were always living on borrowed time anyway. If you've lived there for years and own your flat, it makes zero difference what the housing market looks like today.

aeorgnoieang 13y ago
That's not really true. Property taxes are usually assessed based on the value of the property and that rises with the housing market. People are sometimes priced out of areas even when they own their home.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  > when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed value that is equal to its purchase price, or “acquisition value.” Each year thereafter, the property’s assessed value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. This process continues until the property is sold, at which point the county assessor again assigns it an assessed value equal to its most recent purchase price. [1] If you have owned your home for awhile, your property taxes are not changing that much. Your assessed value starts with the purchase price and increases, at most, 2% each year. This house[2] listed on Zillow is a great example. It sold in 1973 for $32K. For the passed 40 years they've been paying property taxes based on the $32K plus ~2% increase each year (I'm not sure how far back that 2% max increase goes). In 2013, the assessed value was still down at $72K... meaning $997 in property taxes. That same year the house was sold for $875K. Now the assessed value resets to market value and the new property taxes will be like $11k rather than the previous year's $1K. So even though the housing prices skyrocketed around them, the previous owner of the house wasn't really effected by that increase. [1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1... [2] http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco-CA-94121/15095502_zpid/ http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco...

ryguytilidie 13y ago

If you decide to rent in one of, if not the highest demand city in the United States, live on a thin margin and start a family, its hard to have sympathy when you're forced to move them to, gasp, San Ramon. It's certainly no way to build a community, but I don't think demonizing people who work 60 hours a week and make 140k is the way to do it either.

raldi 13y ago

Except somehow, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and Philadelphia all manage to do it despite none of those cities having rent control. http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961 http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961

ForHackernews 13y ago
None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC. And part of reason Chicago has "affordable" housing is because vast swaths of the south and west side are dangerous, gang-infested, and neglected by city services.
- raldi 13y ago
  > None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC I suppose you believe that NYC and SF have rent control because housing is so expensive there. Have you considered the possibility that you have it backwards?
  - ForHackernews 13y ago
    Obviously having rent-controlled apartments will increase the price of non-controlled units somewhat. But I certainly don't think that rent-control is the primary driver of high housing costs in SF/NY.