It's basically the rent control story writ large. Everyone who bought in the 20th century has such an "amazing deal" that they won't give it up unless you a) entice them with a better deal or b) gore their oxen and repeal 13.
On top of this, you can continue to give large multi-million dollar estates down indefinitely to your children without the estates being reassessed for tax purposes. That was an expansion of prop 13 which I definitely think shouldn't exist. So many people I have met here get to live here because of these ridiculous laws that basically keep the 1% the 1%. It props up real estate prices and only benefits wealthy individuals. Even now, you need something like 400k+/yr income to buy a house in quite a few areas. Not realistic for single income! Difficult for dual income if one of them isn't a software engineer at a big tech company.
I've always had to be in these as a tenant. Current one, lady inherited this old 1930's property decades ago and the taxes are less than $6,000/yr for a $1.8mil property. She's making a cool $5k/month off us in profit. I live in the in-law unit and another person rents the house itself. She plans to pass it down to her children so that they can have the rental income too.
Last unit I was in was a 9 unit apartment building. It applies to those too and I think that's bonkers! Guy bought the place back in the 1970's. As you can imagine, it was also about 10-15% of the tax it would be if the property was reassessed. Again, their kids are going to get that for practically free and have tens of thousands of dollars in income with very minimal tax.
I am fiercely against prop 13 but I know it'll never hit the ballot. It would likely send a hell of crushing wave in real estate prices for California. Other states would hate California even more for the mass influx of Californians.
If you own something that's taxable (like property in CA), shouldn't you have to pay tax on the value of the damn thing?
If you're paying tax on the value of your house/land, it only makes sense to pay a tax based on the current value, not the one 30 years ago. Typically your house/land is going to go UP in value, and so do your taxes.
It certainly entices people to hold and rent properties they own rather than sell, but those units are still part of the housing stock.
I think repealing prop 13 for commercial properties makes sense as a way to raise tax revenue, but don’t see doing so for residential property having an impact on housing costs.
A self-centered desire to preserve an environmentally unfriendly suburbia at the expense of others who wanted to share in the region's prosperity contributed the shortage.
In the article the polls cited say that people think it was profit seeking developers and "technology companies who add jobs". Clearly instead of accommodating these desirable jobs we should give ample incentive for them to go elsewhere.
The XXth century's “American way of life” myth, with individual homes in suburbs and a car to go to work. That just doesn't scale well, espacially with the geography of the Bay Area.
And if you're really looking for a “who”: the car manufacturers who fuelled this myth through advertising.
I dont understand whats the outrage is about.
Bay Area / San Francisco housing market is tough because that area is special. Its special because its home to world's most innovative companies that pays its staff world's highest salaries. So it basically became an exclusive neighborhood for the wealthiest and most talented (demanded) people. And it stay special because those who are not in demand cant afford to live there. You think it will be better if housing became cheaper and all those who could not afford to live there now would be able to move there and turn the place into a shit show like Queens and Brooklyn have become? Overcrowded houses with too many cars on the street, all the double parking and chaos not to mention filth on the streets and the noise? You cant afford it for a reason, if you were needed there Google would offer you a salary high enough for you to be able to afford it. Everybody is basically in outrage that they cant get into and live in this exclusive, high class neighborhood but if everybody could afford to live there it would not be exclusive and high class anymore and those things that attracted you there back then would not be in place any more and the area would become into a place that you run away from in the first place.
Interesting that you think SF is special because Google is there. What made it special before Google existed? What made it special before computers existed?
It's geography, climate, and culture make it special. Tech companies don't get to show up and stake an ownership claim on this stuff. If the hippies told the hipsters "we were here first!", they wouldn't be entirely wrong.
Ah, I don’t mind the new housing developments, what does become frustrating is having to deal with all the traffic generated by the kids going to school in the morning. Are there alternatives to mandatory school buses, any research into this?
[+] [-] fricat1ve|8 years ago|reply
It's basically the rent control story writ large. Everyone who bought in the 20th century has such an "amazing deal" that they won't give it up unless you a) entice them with a better deal or b) gore their oxen and repeal 13.
[+] [-] bradlys|8 years ago|reply
I've always had to be in these as a tenant. Current one, lady inherited this old 1930's property decades ago and the taxes are less than $6,000/yr for a $1.8mil property. She's making a cool $5k/month off us in profit. I live in the in-law unit and another person rents the house itself. She plans to pass it down to her children so that they can have the rental income too.
Last unit I was in was a 9 unit apartment building. It applies to those too and I think that's bonkers! Guy bought the place back in the 1970's. As you can imagine, it was also about 10-15% of the tax it would be if the property was reassessed. Again, their kids are going to get that for practically free and have tens of thousands of dollars in income with very minimal tax.
I am fiercely against prop 13 but I know it'll never hit the ballot. It would likely send a hell of crushing wave in real estate prices for California. Other states would hate California even more for the mass influx of Californians.
[+] [-] bluedino|8 years ago|reply
If you own something that's taxable (like property in CA), shouldn't you have to pay tax on the value of the damn thing?
If you're paying tax on the value of your house/land, it only makes sense to pay a tax based on the current value, not the one 30 years ago. Typically your house/land is going to go UP in value, and so do your taxes.
[+] [-] closure|8 years ago|reply
It certainly entices people to hold and rent properties they own rather than sell, but those units are still part of the housing stock.
I think repealing prop 13 for commercial properties makes sense as a way to raise tax revenue, but don’t see doing so for residential property having an impact on housing costs.
[+] [-] bartart|8 years ago|reply
In the article the polls cited say that people think it was profit seeking developers and "technology companies who add jobs". Clearly instead of accommodating these desirable jobs we should give ample incentive for them to go elsewhere.
[+] [-] littlestymaar|8 years ago|reply
And if you're really looking for a “who”: the car manufacturers who fuelled this myth through advertising.
[+] [-] auxym|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elvirs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OpenDrapery|8 years ago|reply
It's geography, climate, and culture make it special. Tech companies don't get to show up and stake an ownership claim on this stuff. If the hippies told the hipsters "we were here first!", they wouldn't be entirely wrong.
[+] [-] RubenSandwich|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] shiftoutbox|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] roflchoppa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|8 years ago|reply