4 ms·

It would have to be a statewide ballot proposition, and you'd be up against the entire real estate industry, which has large parts of the California State Legis

It would have to be a statewide ballot proposition, and you'd be up against the entire real estate industry, which has large parts of the California State Legislature in its hands. They would spend enormous amounts of money to mis-market it in poor political advertising. Perversely, two-thirds of the financial benefits of Prop. 13 and its tax freeze went to commercial interests even though it was sold as a way to keep homeowners in their homes. One only-third of its foregone revenues benefit homeowners. A lot of California policymakers have wanted to change this for years, since it really screwed with public school and city finances for decades.

muzz 12y ago
> These are people who may not intend to actually live in the Bay Area, yet they buy up homes without even seeing them. A higher property tax with a "homestead exemption", i.e. for those who live in the property they own, would serve to counter-act absentee owners. As you sort of allude to, the tax structure and Prop 13 incentive is to buy and hold, regardless of occupancy.
- ktothemc 12y ago
  Right, but how do you prove that? That is the dilemma all these prospective piece of legislation in Vancouver, NYC are running up against? What would you do? How would you enforce it? Water bills? Electricity? Which you could fake. Phone presence? A rebate program, which no one would vote for anyway.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Occasional random door-to-door checks? (Miss too many, and you lose your local-resident exemption.)
    - ktothemc 12y ago
      I'm sure voters would vote for that. Any additional property tax in any city in the state of California has to go before a vote of the affected property owners per Prop. 218, passed in 1996. God bless our direct democracy system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(1996) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(199...
      - ende 12y ago
        A land value tax isn't a property tax, so no problem there.
      - gojomo 12y ago
        If it lowers voters' taxes, but increases costs on faraway non-residents/non-voters... isn't that exactly what voters like? Also, the Legislative Analyst's Office says Prop 218/1996 doesn't affect property taxes, but rather other kinds of property fees. See http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_pro... – especially figure 2. Clearly, fixes are going to have to unwind previous statewide and local law... which means convincing people of the causes and solutions, over time. It took decades to enact the bad policies; it'll take many election cycles to chip away at them as well.
  - muzz 12y ago
    Similar to the way deductions are enforced on income tax, i.e. self-reporting and it is a crime to lie about it (essentially the same way that mortgage interest on primary residence is deducted, etc).
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Coupled with the fact that you can only have one primary residence at a time. Won't be perfect, but I'm not sure it needs to be.

muzz 12y ago

> These are people who may not intend to actually live in the Bay Area, yet they buy up homes without even seeing them. A higher property tax with a "homestead exemption", i.e. for those who live in the property they own, would serve to counter-act absentee owners. As you sort of allude to, the tax structure and Prop 13 incentive is to buy and hold, regardless of occupancy.

ktothemc 12y ago
Right, but how do you prove that? That is the dilemma all these prospective piece of legislation in Vancouver, NYC are running up against? What would you do? How would you enforce it? Water bills? Electricity? Which you could fake. Phone presence? A rebate program, which no one would vote for anyway.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Occasional random door-to-door checks? (Miss too many, and you lose your local-resident exemption.)
  - ktothemc 12y ago
    I'm sure voters would vote for that. Any additional property tax in any city in the state of California has to go before a vote of the affected property owners per Prop. 218, passed in 1996. God bless our direct democracy system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(1996) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(199...
    - ende 12y ago
      A land value tax isn't a property tax, so no problem there.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      If it lowers voters' taxes, but increases costs on faraway non-residents/non-voters... isn't that exactly what voters like? Also, the Legislative Analyst's Office says Prop 218/1996 doesn't affect property taxes, but rather other kinds of property fees. See http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_pro... – especially figure 2. Clearly, fixes are going to have to unwind previous statewide and local law... which means convincing people of the causes and solutions, over time. It took decades to enact the bad policies; it'll take many election cycles to chip away at them as well.
- muzz 12y ago
  Similar to the way deductions are enforced on income tax, i.e. self-reporting and it is a crime to lie about it (essentially the same way that mortgage interest on primary residence is deducted, etc).
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Coupled with the fact that you can only have one primary residence at a time. Won't be perfect, but I'm not sure it needs to be.