Also, I am still wondering about this: "I think we all understand this is your position, it’s just selfish, entitled, and immoral." I have some trouble squaring that with you don't expect me to fix it personally but I need to vote pretty much how I already vote to avoid being the monster you describe.Vote only for people who are willing to take strong action to address the housing crisis. Throw the NIMBYs out of office on both the state and local level.
It's not like I'm expecting you personally to solve the housing crisis but every person counts.
Almost every affordable home in the Sacramento area is bought by real estate flippers to be returned to the market at a higher price.Home prices are all over the map in my area ignoring COVID driven shortages, despite high average prices affordable homes are available.
They are just small or need work.
Matter of fact, my entire neighborhood started off as tiny little bungalows and neighbors still remember my street being just a dirt road.
"There aren't any affordable homes!!!"
(Spend 2 minutes searching and finds 10 in their price range)
- "That's only has 1300 sq feet and a single bath. We want at least 3000 sq feet and she has to have a walk in closet + 3 bathrooms"
- "That's House needs work. The entire kitchen (where every single appliance works fine) looks like its from the 70's "
- "I don't want to live in that neighborhood because something something something (aka black neighborhood)"
Ok....how much do you have saved up?
"It's impossible. It's going to take forever!!!"
(Observes iPhone, 2 year old BMW and recalls being lectured about how important it is to travel and they just got back from Australia and how the new Brazilian restaurant has the best drinks and they are so glad the cut cord to save money and between Disney+, Amazon Prime, Netflix, HBO Max and Hul they watch all their favorite shows)
Our property taxes are high because our County police get paid well into 6 figure salaries (150K+ a year is not uncommon) and we put a lot of money into Schools. Teachers are well paid as well and our kids have all sorts programs (that don't rhyme with shorts)
As for tax breaks, these are the people that get it:
- Senior Citizens
- Broke ass cripples
- Veterans
- Farmers who haven't sold their farm yet to golf course assholes and real estate developers who will just toss up 400 luxury homes and 2 "affordable homes" so that the scumbag legislator cutting the ribbon can tell people he approved a project that build affordable homes.
I'm curious which of these groups should lose their tax break in the eyes of those in the thread.
With the constant construction and population growth, we already know that we are outta here once our kids are out of the school system.
Between all the trees going down, replaced by construction and crazy people we will gladly sell our house to fskimospy when the time comes. He can tear it down and build 4 family building or something. Actually with the lot he could probably build a 6-8 family building.
Figure by the time I'm playing with my grandkids I'll be reading about how they wiped out the water table and now have to pipe it in from Connecticut or something.
Almost every affordable home in the Sacramento area is bought by real estate flippers to be returned to the market at a higher price.
Better to just have the same rules for everyone. And are you sure you’re voting for people who want to radically upzone California? Lots of democrats are just as bad as republicans.Also, I am still wondering about this: "I think we all understand this is your position, it’s just selfish, entitled, and immoral." I have some trouble squaring that with you don't expect me to fix it personally but I need to vote pretty much how I already vote to avoid being the monster you describe.
I voted against prop 13 but even without benefiting from it myself I would not now vote to force those who have benefited from it to pay back to the state what they have gained by it. I'd rather see the government seize the bank accounts of rich people and or make them pay back dollar wealth they inherited. Why not push to tax increases is stock holdings to pay for housing for the poor? If some people didn't have so damn much money to buy things with they wouldn't cost so much, right?
How about capping the amount you can sell a house for at 100X property tax and allow the owner a one time personal assessment.
Wait, are you saying reducing the supply of houses on the market won’t make the price increase?You say this yet I still haven’t seen any evidence to support what you are claiming or at the very least any sort of negative impact to the very people you say will be impacted.
You are correct. This is one of the few areas where #bothsides is entirely warranted.As much as I usually roll my eyes at both-sides arguments, this really isn't a partisan thing. Here in Huntsville, real estate prices have gone bonkers and developers are starting to do the whole "buy a lot with an old house, tear it down, split the lot into two and make two new houses". Neighborhood folks are, of course, responding by taking the developers to court. And as much as Huntsville sometimes like to insist it's not like the rest of the state ... it's still Alabama.
Yeah, people tend to want to keep their own neighborhood the same. I used to live in an area where older immediate post war houses were being torn down and replaced with much larger modern houses that were 4-5 times more expensive than the houses they replaced. People were losing their shit over their property values going up and therefore their property taxes increasing.You are correct. This is one of the few areas where #bothsides is entirely warranted.
Housing is more expensive in CA due to prop 13, so just like zoning it has contributed to a situation where large parts of the middle class can no longer afford to buy a house in most of coastal CA. The benefits of prop 13 are available to all so long as you have sufficient means to buy a house, something that prop 13 has done a lot to make more difficult. Additionally, taxes are higher in other ways in CA due to lower property tax paid by select homeowners so it makes everything less affordable, not just housing. It's really just absolute shit policy from every possible perspective. Imagine proposing a bill where older, high net worth individuals got a giant tax break financed by raising taxes on younger, low net worth people. Nobody would ever support that in CA these days but that's exactly what Prop 13 does. It should have been repealed years ago.
Again it's darkly funny that the response of boomers to skyrocketing house prices due to their NIMBY attitudes wasn't to try and get house prices under control, it was to make sure they could cash in while leaving everyone else with the bag.
Wait, are you saying reducing the supply of houses on the market won’t make the price increase?
Because people stay in homes much larger than what they need for tax purposes.You’ll have to explain how it reduces the supply of houses as prop 13 only applies your principal residence, which means someone gets a new home and no longer rents or they will be selling their old home.
You’ll have to explain how it reduces the supply of houses as prop 13 only applies your principal residence, which means someone gets a new home and no longer rents or they will be selling their old home.
There are many federal, state, and local laws that distort housing decisions and prices. However, it is often difficult to tease out the quantitative impact of such policies. In this paper, we examine the implications of one of the most significant tax changes initiated by voters in the United States on house prices, housing turnover, and household welfare. In 1978 California passed Proposition 13, which lowered property tax rates and restricted future property tax increases. We find that the introduction of Proposition 13 leads to a 15 percent increase in house prices and a 3.3 percent decrease in the moving rates. The elimination of Proposition 13, however, leads to modest changes in house prices and mobility but sizable welfare gains.
Excuse my ignorance, but are property taxes in California not tied to the yearly assessed value of the dwelling?Pretty sure this is the way it works in most other places with property taxes, but keep telling yourself it's insane. If you don't like it, you should be arguing against all property taxes, not arguing for special exemptions for yourself while fucking over everyone else.
It certainly leads to higher prices.
Proposition 13: An Equilibrium Analysis - American Economic Association
Proposition 13: An Equilibrium Analysis by Ayşe İmrohoroğlu, Kyle Matoba and Şelale Tüzel. Published in volume 10, issue 2, pages 24-51 of American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, April 2018, Abstract: There are many federal, state, and local laws that distort housing decisions and prices. Ho...www.aeaweb.org
Because people stay in homes much larger than what they need for tax purposes.
Yeah I’ll take a citation for that claim. I’m not aware of any study that has shown property tax as a reason to buy a bigger or smaller home.
First, you were already shown a study showing prop 13 raised prices.Yeah I’ll take a citation for that claim. I’m not aware of any study that has shown property tax as a reason to buy a bigger or smaller home.
Not to mention you could leave your house to your kids, and they to their kids, creating a perpetual tax entitlement that grows in value every year in perpetuity. And for what constructive purpose? Nobody knows!You probably would in California if you are locked into very low taxes that would drastically change if you bought a different home.
Not to mention you could leave your house to your kids, and they to their kids, creating a perpetual tax entitlement that grows in value every year in perpetuity. And for what constructive purpose? Nobody knows!
Yes, both need to go. The state needs to take zoning authority away from local government and repeal prop 13.It is completely backwards. They should tie property tax reform into zoning law changes, because if they do fix Prop 13, it will help but it will be a small dent if they don't tie it in to building more housing where people want to live.
It is funny/unsurprising how when people talk about keeping prop 13 they talk about the poor grandma taxed out of her home. In reality by far the biggest beneficiaries are rich people.If we raise property taxes, maybe we can lower our absurdly high, regressive sales taxes. But people here with their $1 million+ homes are way more affected by high property taxes than by high sales taxes. So FYGM.
There are circumstances where high density won't work for the simple reason, there is only so much water. I live on a peninsula where the longest rivers are in reality just creeks that are maybe as much as 10 miles long and empty straight into the Hood Canal. The city of Bremerton has a reservoir on the other side of the small mountain from me which is the source of the Union River, and down the road from me about a mile is Lake Tahuya which is the source for the Tahuya River. There maybe another 10 lakes on the peninsula, many seasonal creeks that are dry from May to September and all water comes from wells. They have zoned high density areas, but they have to rely on the rural area aquifers which are purposely limited to 2 and a half and 5 acre lots.Yeah, people tend to want to keep their own neighborhood the same. I used to live in an area where older immediate post war houses were being torn down and replaced with much larger modern houses that were 4-5 times more expensive than the houses they replaced. People were losing their shit over their property values going up and therefore their property taxes increasing.
One woman scraped here house built a new house on the lot and then started pushing for new zoning restrictions that would have made her house illegal to build in the future.
My next house is going to be on acreage in a rural area. But I do agree with your general argument that preventing denser housing if the market it supports it is stupid.