Prop 13, Or, California's Progressive Blindspot Illuminated(sfbamo.com)
sfbamo.com
Prop 13, Or, California's Progressive Blindspot Illuminated
http://sfbamo.com/news/editorial-prop-13-or-the-california-progressive-blindspot-illuminated/
89 comments
The biggest issue with Prop 13 is the allowance for commercial properties.
Prop 13 for protecting individual residential property owners on a fixed income from escalating "assessed" property values makes a good deal of sense. Especially in a state like California, if left unchecked, would be raising all sorts of taxes and fees for failed experiments.
(Note - born/raised/ life long Bay Area resident)
Prop 13 needs a revision to exempt commercial property...
Prop 13 for protecting individual residential property owners on a fixed income from escalating "assessed" property values makes a good deal of sense. Especially in a state like California, if left unchecked, would be raising all sorts of taxes and fees for failed experiments.
(Note - born/raised/ life long Bay Area resident)
Prop 13 needs a revision to exempt commercial property...
No. The biggest issue is the enormous and growing transfer of wealth from people engaged in productive economic activity to a caste of rentiers who extract money while producing nothing. This is what is meant by feudalism, and it manages to be bad both in terms of justice and in terms of economic efficiency.
From this point of view, commercial property is at least used for economic activity. Exempting it from Prop 13 would reduce inequitable treatment of different commercial property owners, yes, but it would also impose yet another burden on productive activity, and ultimately on the overtaxed serfs. Instead of reducing feudalism, it would exacerbate it.
No, the biggest problem is precisely residential property.
From this point of view, commercial property is at least used for economic activity. Exempting it from Prop 13 would reduce inequitable treatment of different commercial property owners, yes, but it would also impose yet another burden on productive activity, and ultimately on the overtaxed serfs. Instead of reducing feudalism, it would exacerbate it.
No, the biggest problem is precisely residential property.
Nope.
Track 13 and the commercial revenue space and the ease with which getting around 13 is available.
Sorry corporations aren't people.
A librarian inheriting property worth an interesting amount shouldn't be forced to sell it based on tax predictions... when corporations have exemptions that shelter them from the same exemptions...
It is always interesting reading HN libertarian comments from people who haven't grown up in a region or community.
The discussion on manhattan and traffic is classic.
Maybe spend a few years living and understanding.
Looking forward to the down votes.
Track 13 and the commercial revenue space and the ease with which getting around 13 is available.
Sorry corporations aren't people.
A librarian inheriting property worth an interesting amount shouldn't be forced to sell it based on tax predictions... when corporations have exemptions that shelter them from the same exemptions...
It is always interesting reading HN libertarian comments from people who haven't grown up in a region or community.
The discussion on manhattan and traffic is classic.
Maybe spend a few years living and understanding.
Looking forward to the down votes.
Commercial property -- to which I'm including multi-family residential for this post -- is almost definitely the bigger problem. The reason arises from the fact that these properties very rarely trigger a reassessment of property taxes and as a result tons of commercial property owners are paying 1980s era property taxes. Firstly, commercial properties are often held by long time/indefinite property owners -- companies -- who rarely sell and don't "die" (deaths especially those involving split inheritances commonly cause property sales which trigger a reassessment). Secondly, in the event a company does sell, they can usually avoid triggering a reassessment by only selling a "stake" in the property. If that stake is below a certain threshold, there's no reassessment. You can read about this by googling "close the prop 13 loophole". Residential properties are very simply reassessed more frequently on average than commercial and this problem is going to get worse over time.
Oftentimes, properties in California (especially multi-family residential) are owned by a corp/LLC which owns nothing other than that single property. That corp is then owned by a larger company who can sell a stake in single property company if the right buyer comes around. The CPAs have avoiding a prop 13 reassessment down to a science. If you write a rent check to a company that has your street number or street name in the company name, that's why.
Much of valuable property in this state was developed before 1978 and as a result the owners are paying just a fraction of what their taxes would be after a assessment. Sales and income taxes are subsidizing this difference. Now, the counterpoint to this is that raising property taxes will result in some of those taxes being passed on to renters. While this is true, not all of it could be due to simple supply and demand. The worst offenders will be able to pass on the least of that difference. The state would also be able to lower corporate, sales or income taxes as a result of phasing in market property taxes too. Maybe that last part is just wishful thinking on my part.
Regardless of your take on residential vs commercial property and prop 13, this is a problem that is only going to get worse with time. With no changes, 50 years from now, there will literally be people and companies paying property taxes like it is 1990. The result is that in order to make up that difference, corporate, sales, income and "new" property taxes will have to be higher than they are today. If those other taxes rise enough, people leave the state for greener pastures and property values fall or stagnate which is another more painful way to equilibrium.
Significantly higher property/land taxes in this state than we have now would solve or curb a lot of problems. From housing bubbles (probably merely curbed) to encouraging cities like SF to build more densely to allowing lower income/sales/corp taxes to encourage investment, many of the states problems were created or exacerbated by prop 13. When Warren Buffett was Schwarzenegger's economic advisor during the campaign he said that prop 13 doesn't make sense. He was right.
Oftentimes, properties in California (especially multi-family residential) are owned by a corp/LLC which owns nothing other than that single property. That corp is then owned by a larger company who can sell a stake in single property company if the right buyer comes around. The CPAs have avoiding a prop 13 reassessment down to a science. If you write a rent check to a company that has your street number or street name in the company name, that's why.
Much of valuable property in this state was developed before 1978 and as a result the owners are paying just a fraction of what their taxes would be after a assessment. Sales and income taxes are subsidizing this difference. Now, the counterpoint to this is that raising property taxes will result in some of those taxes being passed on to renters. While this is true, not all of it could be due to simple supply and demand. The worst offenders will be able to pass on the least of that difference. The state would also be able to lower corporate, sales or income taxes as a result of phasing in market property taxes too. Maybe that last part is just wishful thinking on my part.
Regardless of your take on residential vs commercial property and prop 13, this is a problem that is only going to get worse with time. With no changes, 50 years from now, there will literally be people and companies paying property taxes like it is 1990. The result is that in order to make up that difference, corporate, sales, income and "new" property taxes will have to be higher than they are today. If those other taxes rise enough, people leave the state for greener pastures and property values fall or stagnate which is another more painful way to equilibrium.
Significantly higher property/land taxes in this state than we have now would solve or curb a lot of problems. From housing bubbles (probably merely curbed) to encouraging cities like SF to build more densely to allowing lower income/sales/corp taxes to encourage investment, many of the states problems were created or exacerbated by prop 13. When Warren Buffett was Schwarzenegger's economic advisor during the campaign he said that prop 13 doesn't make sense. He was right.
Not disagreeing. But, another factor worth mentioning is the impact of local rent control laws.
If prop 13 went away statewide but local rent control laws remained in effect, owners would be looking around to make up the difference.
If an apartment building saw regular property tax hikes, the owner's inability to pass most of the higher tax costs on to renters would cause new unintended consequences (e.g. reduced building maintenance).
If prop 13 went away statewide but local rent control laws remained in effect, owners would be looking around to make up the difference.
If an apartment building saw regular property tax hikes, the owner's inability to pass most of the higher tax costs on to renters would cause new unintended consequences (e.g. reduced building maintenance).
Why wouldn't they already be maximizing their own profit today?
yes. right. i think they are trying to maximize profit in any environment.
and eliminating prop 13 would mean less profit. if the experience of rent control laws over the last forty years in places like Santa Monica is any guide, the property owners will cut corners on building maintenance if they are not allowed to raise rents and pass the tax hikes through to tenants.
and eliminating prop 13 would mean less profit. if the experience of rent control laws over the last forty years in places like Santa Monica is any guide, the property owners will cut corners on building maintenance if they are not allowed to raise rents and pass the tax hikes through to tenants.
(I think that all of prop 13 is quite bad, but) I hugely agree on the commercial properties allowance.
It's comical in an ironic sort of way walking around SOMA. You find yourself treading what is literally some of the most valuable land on the entire planet, and yet you're surrounded by automechanics, private parking garages, old warehouses, and frequently — even empty lots. In a world without prop 13 the development of this sort of low value use would be highly incentivized because your tax bill would go up with the surrounding land, but in modern day California these things can stay ~forever (or at least until a developer comes along with an offer so preposterous that the owner cannot refuse it).
I do have to add the caveat that it's mostly bad, but not _all_ bad: some of my favorite spots in town would have almost certainly had to evacuate the city by now if they weren't grandfathered into a certain tax rate (usually cafes/restaurants/bars).
It's comical in an ironic sort of way walking around SOMA. You find yourself treading what is literally some of the most valuable land on the entire planet, and yet you're surrounded by automechanics, private parking garages, old warehouses, and frequently — even empty lots. In a world without prop 13 the development of this sort of low value use would be highly incentivized because your tax bill would go up with the surrounding land, but in modern day California these things can stay ~forever (or at least until a developer comes along with an offer so preposterous that the owner cannot refuse it).
I do have to add the caveat that it's mostly bad, but not _all_ bad: some of my favorite spots in town would have almost certainly had to evacuate the city by now if they weren't grandfathered into a certain tax rate (usually cafes/restaurants/bars).
> I do have to add the caveat that it's mostly bad, but not _all_ bad: some of my favorite spots in town would have almost certainly had to evacuate the city by now if they weren't grandfathered into a certain tax rate (usually cafes/restaurants/bars).
This is certainly true-- it does create its share of "hidden treasures," but I find that for every favorite business that sticks around because it owns its property, I see two favorite businesses that close because they rent.
This is certainly true-- it does create its share of "hidden treasures," but I find that for every favorite business that sticks around because it owns its property, I see two favorite businesses that close because they rent.
> This is certainly true-- it does create its share of "hidden treasures," but I find that for every favorite business that sticks around because it owns its property, I see two favorite businesses that close because they rent.
Agreed. Unfortunately it's a case where the lucky [1] survived. Even in the few years that I've been in SF I've seen a lot of amazing places disappear.
[1] I use "lucky" because no one 30-40 years ago could have predicted the disproportionate lucrativity that real estate would have compared to any other class of investment. It wasn't all that unreasonable to rent at the time.
Agreed. Unfortunately it's a case where the lucky [1] survived. Even in the few years that I've been in SF I've seen a lot of amazing places disappear.
[1] I use "lucky" because no one 30-40 years ago could have predicted the disproportionate lucrativity that real estate would have compared to any other class of investment. It wasn't all that unreasonable to rent at the time.
60k in 1979 is worth 2.8M if it had been invested in the stock market. While you can't live in your stocks, you likely do get some amounts of dividends.
> Prop 13 needs a revision to exempt commercial property...
All arguments _for_ Prop 13 are about people who live in their homes whose value appreciate abruptly. Prop 13 needs to be revised to narrowly target this group and only this group.
All arguments _for_ Prop 13 are about people who live in their homes whose value appreciate abruptly. Prop 13 needs to be revised to narrowly target this group and only this group.
How would you explain 2006-2008? There weren't many places that were exempt from appreciating abruptly during that time. Housing prices across all of California were insane.
TL;DR Prop 13 main focus was it reduced property tax increases to a fixed level because retired residents were being gentrified out of their homes when they could no longer afford to pay taxes on their increasingly valuable homes. My grandparents benefited from this enormously as they bought a home in 1968 near Los Gatos for $30,000 and it's now worth over $1,000,000 but they have Prop 13 and so are able to afford property taxes. Most anyone whom moves loses this protection, so residents tend to cling to their homes because of the fear of losing Prop 13, and so many very elderly residents in California rarely, if ever, move.
Prop 13 was a half-baked, short-term solution to a terrible issue. Real-estate taxes should be scaled with both income and wealth progressive tests to prevent both obscene burdens and tax dodging, so that they are affordable, encourage people both to attract residents to the state and pay their fair shares, but knowing how Sacramento dances around hardly doing anything, it's unlikely to ever be revisited without a sustained, on-message campaign and buckets of crowdfunded cash.
Prop 13 was a half-baked, short-term solution to a terrible issue. Real-estate taxes should be scaled with both income and wealth progressive tests to prevent both obscene burdens and tax dodging, so that they are affordable, encourage people both to attract residents to the state and pay their fair shares, but knowing how Sacramento dances around hardly doing anything, it's unlikely to ever be revisited without a sustained, on-message campaign and buckets of crowdfunded cash.
If you're going to ask me about what should be the case, I'd certainly want to move more towards a land value tax[0], which captures the rental value of the land, but doesn't tax the improvements on top of it. It's agreed upon by many economists and ethicists to be fair, efficient, and consistent with sustainable urban planning and finance. It's arguably the most progressive tax.
Prop 13, FWIW, is almost precisely the opposite of a LVT. It's been putting more of the burden of financing California onto income, sales taxes, etc, in order to subsidize landowners.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Prop 13, FWIW, is almost precisely the opposite of a LVT. It's been putting more of the burden of financing California onto income, sales taxes, etc, in order to subsidize landowners.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
How does that help in the situation of a homeowner not being able to afford their tax bill because their property increased in value?
How does it help? By creating a competitive market in housing, it should ensure that the housing stock is full enough to create new affordable living for the person to move to.
But... does that still mean people might be taxed out of their home?
I hope it would be rare, because it is a bummer, but I am convinced that there is no sustainable system in which people wouldn't be "taxed out of their home" in some cases. However, consider that they'd still get a sizeable payout, and plenty of available options in their community.
It's the sad truth about land-- if someone is using it inefficiently (which is the case with the single-family households having trouble with property taxes), it's a market signal that the land should be developed more densely...
But... does that still mean people might be taxed out of their home?
I hope it would be rare, because it is a bummer, but I am convinced that there is no sustainable system in which people wouldn't be "taxed out of their home" in some cases. However, consider that they'd still get a sizeable payout, and plenty of available options in their community.
It's the sad truth about land-- if someone is using it inefficiently (which is the case with the single-family households having trouble with property taxes), it's a market signal that the land should be developed more densely...
This. This. This.
In both places I've lived in the Bay Area, there were vacant houses on the block. In the old town, apparently the house was owned by an old widow who is in a nursing home and who refuses to sell. In the new neighborhood, the house has fire damage. The owner apparently has several properties around the Bay, and just isn't in a hurry to do anything -- the house has been that way for five years or more.
I hear from people living in Palo Alto that their neighborhoods are dotted with vacant homes owned by overseas investors.
Meanwhile, people making $200k a year are commuting an hour each way because they can't afford to live any closer.
Market rate property taxation would provide a strong incentive for these owners to either sell or rent out their properties.
In both places I've lived in the Bay Area, there were vacant houses on the block. In the old town, apparently the house was owned by an old widow who is in a nursing home and who refuses to sell. In the new neighborhood, the house has fire damage. The owner apparently has several properties around the Bay, and just isn't in a hurry to do anything -- the house has been that way for five years or more.
I hear from people living in Palo Alto that their neighborhoods are dotted with vacant homes owned by overseas investors.
Meanwhile, people making $200k a year are commuting an hour each way because they can't afford to live any closer.
Market rate property taxation would provide a strong incentive for these owners to either sell or rent out their properties.
You can do (or I guess proposed to do) what Vancouver did, tax vacant properties. Foreign buyers would purchase homes and then let them sit, reducing inventory and raising prices.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-vac...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-vac...
This is certainly a low-hanging fruit to attack, but one can get to the point where land is inefficiently used, even if it's completely occupied.
Would it not be possible to defer these taxes for people over a certain age and make it work like a lien on the house when it is sold and collected from their estate? Sure, it probably makes the income for the government less regular, but surely there could be some sort of financial instrument that could be created to smooth out these inflows, no?
Yes, some have outlined a deferement, roll-up option that would work to do this.[0]
Another option would be a Community Land Trust[1], which would take the responsibility of land ownership away, and allow residents to have more stability at the cost of not directly being responsible for land stewardship.
[0] http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-poor-widow-bogey.htm...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust
Another option would be a Community Land Trust[1], which would take the responsibility of land ownership away, and allow residents to have more stability at the cost of not directly being responsible for land stewardship.
[0] http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-poor-widow-bogey.htm...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust
[deleted]
> It's the sad truth about land-- if someone is using it inefficiently (which is the case with the single-family households having trouble with property taxes), it's a market signal that the land should be developed more densely...
If the purpose of property taxes is to encourage or force efficient land use, what happens to local zoning laws? The taxes go up and the homeowner responds by trying to build, say, a 4 unit apartment where their single family dwelling was - but the city zoning does not allow it.
Now what? Where's the increased efficiency of land use?
If the purpose of property taxes is to encourage or force efficient land use, what happens to local zoning laws? The taxes go up and the homeowner responds by trying to build, say, a 4 unit apartment where their single family dwelling was - but the city zoning does not allow it.
Now what? Where's the increased efficiency of land use?
> How does that help in the situation of a homeowner not being able to afford their tax bill because their property increased in value?
If you cant afford the tax, you should move out and sell/rent out. This whole premise is absurd.
Sorry down voter. But this is a fact. We have property tax to discourage under utilization of scarce resources. If you can't afford the tax rate, you should you should find some way to increase your income. This is a prime example of why we don't need the 0.001% to screw over the rest of us. We the 99% are perfectly capable of screwing over ourselves!
The "community" doesn't owe long time residents or new residents anything just because they decided to buy instead of renting. Let's be rational here.
If you cant afford the tax, you should move out and sell/rent out. This whole premise is absurd.
Sorry down voter. But this is a fact. We have property tax to discourage under utilization of scarce resources. If you can't afford the tax rate, you should you should find some way to increase your income. This is a prime example of why we don't need the 0.001% to screw over the rest of us. We the 99% are perfectly capable of screwing over ourselves!
The "community" doesn't owe long time residents or new residents anything just because they decided to buy instead of renting. Let's be rational here.
"If you cant afford the tax, you should move out and sell/rent out"
This makes zero sense to me. Someone bought the property 50 years ago and now is the sole owner, but it is reasonable to force them off their property / out of their home? I get it, other people are willing to pay more for it, but it is the owner's property.
This makes zero sense to me. Someone bought the property 50 years ago and now is the sole owner, but it is reasonable to force them off their property / out of their home? I get it, other people are willing to pay more for it, but it is the owner's property.
Taken to the full Georgist theory, a person is entitled to property in themselves, and in what they create, but not to land and other natural resources; they have no right to excludes others from natural resources without paying the rest of the community rent for its use.
This reminds me of an article posted on HN a few years ago (not California) but one state was increasing property taxes based upon the persons view the State increased his home value by over a hundred thousand dollars and his house was something like a cabin.
If you bought 20-30 years ago when housing prices were more reasonable but due to bubbles created by the Government your property increased in value from 150k to 600k your property taxes now would be about $800 a month. Living in San Diego you cannot really buy a house for less then 500k. Raising everyone's property taxes to this level would essentially evict many millions of homeowners. Prop 13 is a good thing there are plenty of taxes already including a very high income tax, property tax addons (extra fees besides the main tax), sales taxes, prepared food taxes, lighting and fixture taxes on businesses, sewer tax, and many other thousands of taxes for the the California Government to mismanage.
Same argument can be made about buying in the bay area. If you can't afford it, move. My argument is just as unreasonable to make as telling someone to leave their home.
> But this is a fact. We have property tax to discourage under utilization of scarce resources.
I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that. In places where land is cheap and plentiful, and there not even remotely a problem with under utilization of scarce resources, they still tend to have property taxes. Property tax rates tend to be set at a level that correlates almost perfectly with local government funding needs. That suggests that we have property taxes to fund local government.
I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that. In places where land is cheap and plentiful, and there not even remotely a problem with under utilization of scarce resources, they still tend to have property taxes. Property tax rates tend to be set at a level that correlates almost perfectly with local government funding needs. That suggests that we have property taxes to fund local government.
This is a major reason why a Land Value Tax is more equitable than a property tax.
You own land in downtown SF? That's a very scarce resource, and you ought to be taxed on it in order to make sure it's correctly utilized. (Note: the infrastructure within SF is relatively good, which is theoretically what the land tax is paying for.)
You own land outside of a small town and you wish to build a factory? Your land is next to valueless, and the improvements you build shouldn't be discouraged through taxes. (Note: the infrastructure out here is fairly poor, which explains why the land tax is minimal.)
To jump to a theoretical conclusion, Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated through the Henry George Theorem[0] that the quantity of public goods a municipal government supplies is equal to the amount it would receive in a land value tax, given certain assumptions. In short, a land value tax would optimally fund local government.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
You own land in downtown SF? That's a very scarce resource, and you ought to be taxed on it in order to make sure it's correctly utilized. (Note: the infrastructure within SF is relatively good, which is theoretically what the land tax is paying for.)
You own land outside of a small town and you wish to build a factory? Your land is next to valueless, and the improvements you build shouldn't be discouraged through taxes. (Note: the infrastructure out here is fairly poor, which explains why the land tax is minimal.)
To jump to a theoretical conclusion, Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated through the Henry George Theorem[0] that the quantity of public goods a municipal government supplies is equal to the amount it would receive in a land value tax, given certain assumptions. In short, a land value tax would optimally fund local government.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
Some states have property tax deferral programs where retired owner can borrow money for property tax which is paid off when property is sold or transferred on death. This would let fixed income residents stay in home but keeping fair property tax rates.
It doesn't, which is part of the fairness of it.
You can always just lock in low property taxes only for people on fixed incomes.
What makes no sense to me is why would you cap someone's tax rate when the cause of it going up is their house is worth a shit ton more? They have the financial means to pay it (equity in the house)!
It would make more sense to me to either do nothing and let home owners get a reverse mortgage and use that to pay their tax bill or have the gov't just put a lien on the property and when the next sale happens they get their cut.
It would seem to me that homeowners facing a higher tax bill because their home drastically increased in value should be the last ones you subsidize.
It would make more sense to me to either do nothing and let home owners get a reverse mortgage and use that to pay their tax bill or have the gov't just put a lien on the property and when the next sale happens they get their cut.
It would seem to me that homeowners facing a higher tax bill because their home drastically increased in value should be the last ones you subsidize.
Why not handle changes in land value the same way we handle changes in value of personal property?
Suppose I hire a young, unknown artist to paint a portrait for me, for $100. Thirty years later, the artist is very famous and recognized as one of the most talented and important artists of his generation, and his early works (such as my portrait) sell for tens of millions of dollars.
The way we handle taxing that tens of millions of value that my painting gained is that when I sell it, the difference between the sales price and what I paid counts as income (probably long term capital gains income in this case), and I pay tax on it.
Property taxes are usually used to fund local government and the services it provides. Those don't really correlate well with the value of property. My house and land are assessed about twice as much as that of my neighbor two houses away for instance, and about half of my neighbor across the street, but we are all provide about the same burden on the city for services and all reap about the same benefits.
Thus, I wonder if the way we should do this is that property taxes to fund local government should simply be per lot (or maybe per family, or something like that), and not be tied to the market value of the property. The value of the property would figure into income taxes, when those changes are realized during a sale of the property, using the same rules that we now use for personal property.
Suppose I hire a young, unknown artist to paint a portrait for me, for $100. Thirty years later, the artist is very famous and recognized as one of the most talented and important artists of his generation, and his early works (such as my portrait) sell for tens of millions of dollars.
The way we handle taxing that tens of millions of value that my painting gained is that when I sell it, the difference between the sales price and what I paid counts as income (probably long term capital gains income in this case), and I pay tax on it.
Property taxes are usually used to fund local government and the services it provides. Those don't really correlate well with the value of property. My house and land are assessed about twice as much as that of my neighbor two houses away for instance, and about half of my neighbor across the street, but we are all provide about the same burden on the city for services and all reap about the same benefits.
Thus, I wonder if the way we should do this is that property taxes to fund local government should simply be per lot (or maybe per family, or something like that), and not be tied to the market value of the property. The value of the property would figure into income taxes, when those changes are realized during a sale of the property, using the same rules that we now use for personal property.
The per-lot taxes you suggest are increasingly the way things are financed in California: it's called a parcel tax and when a city wants to raise money for schools and the like, it's one of their few options for passing a new tax, since they've already maxed out the property tax allowed under Prop 13. The other major option for new taxes is sales taxes, but those create a perverse incentive for cities to maximize the number of car dealerships and other commercial property and minimize the amount of new housing they allow, since it's stores that pay property taxes, while houses tend to consume more city resources while paying fewer taxes.
I don't agree with that. If I was an old person, and I bought a house at 30K, and its paid off after years of hard work. It would freaking suck if my tax bill is suddenly more than what I can afford to pay, forcing me to move.
That's not fair.
I am young so I do not benefit from Prop 13, but I can see why its an undue burden on people who just want to live their life.
Someone suggested pegging it off of income, or other assets, and I think that's fair.
Maybe it's even more fair to peg the local government budget based on what could be collected from the surrounding homeowners. If the government can't afford to keep the neighborhood super nice, then perhaps the home value would remain low, thus self-justifying the low tax.
That's not fair.
I am young so I do not benefit from Prop 13, but I can see why its an undue burden on people who just want to live their life.
Someone suggested pegging it off of income, or other assets, and I think that's fair.
Maybe it's even more fair to peg the local government budget based on what could be collected from the surrounding homeowners. If the government can't afford to keep the neighborhood super nice, then perhaps the home value would remain low, thus self-justifying the low tax.
That's not fair? Consider this:
Man buys a house house for $100K in 1980, pays it off by 2010 and owns it outright. The value of the home has increased to $1.5M. All of his mortgage payments amounted to $250K, so that's $1.25M in profit.
He's on a fixed income, so he can't afford it when his property tax bill rises to $12,000 per year. As a result, he get a cut on his property taxes while his $1.25M in equity just sits there. After he dies, all that money goes to his heirs.
I consider that unfair.
Man buys a house house for $100K in 1980, pays it off by 2010 and owns it outright. The value of the home has increased to $1.5M. All of his mortgage payments amounted to $250K, so that's $1.25M in profit.
He's on a fixed income, so he can't afford it when his property tax bill rises to $12,000 per year. As a result, he get a cut on his property taxes while his $1.25M in equity just sits there. After he dies, all that money goes to his heirs.
I consider that unfair.
Unfair to whom?
People whose parents didn't win the housing lottery by buying in Cali 30 years ago but whose parents are from (yegads) Nevada or even (chortle) the other coast and who don't have either Prop13 protection or a convenient million dollar home to hand - but who are the ones who actually pay for all the public services in Cali with their taxes?
(I live half a world away from there and really don't have a horse in that race, but you have to be wilfully blind not to see both the injustice and the economic inefficiency.)
(I live half a world away from there and really don't have a horse in that race, but you have to be wilfully blind not to see both the injustice and the economic inefficiency.)
So instead we should shift the benefit to the people who would be able to afford giant property taxes? I.e. Another set of incredibly privileged people.
What on earth is fair about taxation based on property value anyway? Other countries e.g. the U.K. do it by property size and the implied use of services.
Why shouldn't it be possible to buy a home safe in the knowledge that you won't be forced out because of the choices of people around you that you have nothing to do with?
If you're going to talk about random lotteries - why aren't you taking about raising taxes on people who made paper money from other unsold assets that happen to have appreciated dramatically in the last 30 years?
What on earth is fair about taxation based on property value anyway? Other countries e.g. the U.K. do it by property size and the implied use of services.
Why shouldn't it be possible to buy a home safe in the knowledge that you won't be forced out because of the choices of people around you that you have nothing to do with?
If you're going to talk about random lotteries - why aren't you taking about raising taxes on people who made paper money from other unsold assets that happen to have appreciated dramatically in the last 30 years?
All those people who spent their 20's eating $13 sandwiches from Seamless, instead of putting their money in the bank.
It's a textbook case of populism. The people voting are, by definition, the current residents of the state, and many of them are homeowners. Capping their tax rate and pushing any increase off on newcomers looks like a wonderful idea.
You could call it a form of generational theft, from the 1978 population of California against all future generations to move there.
Nordlinger v Hahn (1992)[0] challenged the Constitutionality of this under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They ruled 8-1 that it was (John Paul Stevens dissenting)[1]. Stevens' dissent is worth reading. To excerpt:
> These property owners (hereinafter Squires) are guaranteed that, so long as they retain their property and do not improve it, their taxes will not increase more than 2% in any given year. As a direct result of this windfall for the Squires, later purchasers must pay far more than their fair share of property taxes.
[0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1912
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1/case.html
Nordlinger v Hahn (1992)[0] challenged the Constitutionality of this under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They ruled 8-1 that it was (John Paul Stevens dissenting)[1]. Stevens' dissent is worth reading. To excerpt:
> These property owners (hereinafter Squires) are guaranteed that, so long as they retain their property and do not improve it, their taxes will not increase more than 2% in any given year. As a direct result of this windfall for the Squires, later purchasers must pay far more than their fair share of property taxes.
[0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1912
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1/case.html
> Real-estate taxes should be scaled with both income and wealth progressive tests to prevent both obscene burdens and tax dodging, so that they are affordable, encourage people both to attract residents to the state and pay their fair shares
Ultimately, this will not sufficiently increase housing stock enough to solve the problem. The problem here isn't that the State of California isn't making enough money in income taxes, but that there's an artificial ceiling on the tax base, because people can't afford to move in (to new developments) and start paying property taxes themselves.
Ultimately, allowing people to stay will only exacerbate the problem. NIMBY is a political phenomenon advanced by an artificially small voting base which is acting in its own interests. If their taxes normalize, and they start to move out, then so does their political influence also start to wane. This will gradually allow for new development to start up and for new people to move in, which will both bring additional tax revenue and proportionally reduce political support for NIMBY. Over time, this becomes a self-reinforcing positive cycle for development.
And no, I don't have any sympathy for Grandma and Grandpa having to move. First of all, because they're going to get a massive payday for doing so, since their real estate is worth so much. And second of all, because the laws of economics are blind. Are Grandma and Grandpa really more deserving of affordable housing than anybody else? Prop 13 is the government picking winners and losers, and calling Grandma and Grandpa "losers" because they were forced to sell for millions is, quite frankly, offensive to anybody who is losing under Prop 13.
Ultimately, this will not sufficiently increase housing stock enough to solve the problem. The problem here isn't that the State of California isn't making enough money in income taxes, but that there's an artificial ceiling on the tax base, because people can't afford to move in (to new developments) and start paying property taxes themselves.
Ultimately, allowing people to stay will only exacerbate the problem. NIMBY is a political phenomenon advanced by an artificially small voting base which is acting in its own interests. If their taxes normalize, and they start to move out, then so does their political influence also start to wane. This will gradually allow for new development to start up and for new people to move in, which will both bring additional tax revenue and proportionally reduce political support for NIMBY. Over time, this becomes a self-reinforcing positive cycle for development.
And no, I don't have any sympathy for Grandma and Grandpa having to move. First of all, because they're going to get a massive payday for doing so, since their real estate is worth so much. And second of all, because the laws of economics are blind. Are Grandma and Grandpa really more deserving of affordable housing than anybody else? Prop 13 is the government picking winners and losers, and calling Grandma and Grandpa "losers" because they were forced to sell for millions is, quite frankly, offensive to anybody who is losing under Prop 13.
Regardless of what I think of prop 13, this article is not mathematically sound. In a non-hyper-constrained market (consider the Central Valley for example), prop 13 also helps hold down rents; the cost of owning a rental property does not go up due to property tax rise. Thus if there is competition for renters, prices stabilize. As taxes are part of the op ex (along with fixing the roof etc), renters pay them -- they are just built into the rent.
The reason this doesn't apply to a place like SF is that the tax assessment is in the noise: a severe shortage of places raises the price. If the tax assessment were adjusted normally, rents would go UP.
I benefit from Prop 13 in multiple ways: not only has my property tax been largely fixed, but I live in a neighborhood of people who've mostly lived in their homes for decades. It makes for a nice mix of ages from 20s to 70s. Those on a fixed income would have been forced out, and while it's nice to have new neighbors move in the stability is valuable to me as a QoL issue.
(Prop 13 has screwed up things like school funding and the like as well -- I'm quite aware of its problems. This screed simply doesn't get into them).
The reason this doesn't apply to a place like SF is that the tax assessment is in the noise: a severe shortage of places raises the price. If the tax assessment were adjusted normally, rents would go UP.
I benefit from Prop 13 in multiple ways: not only has my property tax been largely fixed, but I live in a neighborhood of people who've mostly lived in their homes for decades. It makes for a nice mix of ages from 20s to 70s. Those on a fixed income would have been forced out, and while it's nice to have new neighbors move in the stability is valuable to me as a QoL issue.
(Prop 13 has screwed up things like school funding and the like as well -- I'm quite aware of its problems. This screed simply doesn't get into them).
Really glad to see this. I've hated Prop. 13 ever since I moved to California in 1986.
As I've argued a few times on HN [0] [1], the way it should have been done would have been simply to defer the excess tax until the property was sold, not to simply return it to the homeowner.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576948
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12764264
As I've argued a few times on HN [0] [1], the way it should have been done would have been simply to defer the excess tax until the property was sold, not to simply return it to the homeowner.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576948
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12764264
Bad solution. You'd just encourage rental at market rate and no-one selling because of the massive tax bill.
Basically you'd solve nothing and make it worse.
Basically you'd solve nothing and make it worse.
I take it you didn't read the second link, where I said:
No, this wouldn't happen, because the lien is only on 1% of the excess gain (the amount the value increased over 2%). If, for one example, the value jumped in the first year and then went flat, the payment would continue to grow at 2% annually until it caught up to the value. The only scenario that generates a lien larger than the owner's gain is if the market has been up but then drops sharply just before the owner wants to sell -- in short, if there was a bubble. Well, bubbles produce lots of dislocation; I don't think they make for a good argument against this proposal.
No, this wouldn't happen, because the lien is only on 1% of the excess gain (the amount the value increased over 2%). If, for one example, the value jumped in the first year and then went flat, the payment would continue to grow at 2% annually until it caught up to the value. The only scenario that generates a lien larger than the owner's gain is if the market has been up but then drops sharply just before the owner wants to sell -- in short, if there was a bubble. Well, bubbles produce lots of dislocation; I don't think they make for a good argument against this proposal.
You are describing it well, but not countering the point I raised with anything other than "yes, but I don't understand how people work so here are some numbers that if people were robots might justify this idea."
But they aren't. So it doesn't.
Peoples reaction would be exactly what I described and your explanation doesn't change that. It just shows you're incapable of understanding why they'd react that way.
But they aren't. So it doesn't.
Peoples reaction would be exactly what I described and your explanation doesn't change that. It just shows you're incapable of understanding why they'd react that way.
You're certainly not the first to raise this objection.
I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would have them paying more taxes. So even though the objection you're raising is not, in fact, true, it's a lie people would want to believe.
I know it would take a sea change in sentiment to enact this proposal post-Prop. 13. (I don't know that such a sea change is impossible in the long run, which is why I'm talking about this now, but I understand that it won't happen soon.)
But if we imagine ourselves back in 1978, and if the structure I'm suggesting had been the proposal on the table instead of Prop. 13 as it was, it would have passed easily, being a clear improvement on the status quo ante. There would have been no case in which someone would have paid more tax, or done so at a less convenient time, than under the previous system -- quite the contrary. So it would have been totally possible then.
But again, given that Prop. 13 exists in its present form, the modification I'm proposing is a tough sell. Maybe we'd have to stipulate that the amount of the lien will be limited to 1/2 of the gain on the sale, after commissions, and would be zero in the case of a loss.
BTW, I'm attempting to respond constructively to your post on principle, but I don't feel yours was offered in the same spirit.
I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would have them paying more taxes. So even though the objection you're raising is not, in fact, true, it's a lie people would want to believe.
I know it would take a sea change in sentiment to enact this proposal post-Prop. 13. (I don't know that such a sea change is impossible in the long run, which is why I'm talking about this now, but I understand that it won't happen soon.)
But if we imagine ourselves back in 1978, and if the structure I'm suggesting had been the proposal on the table instead of Prop. 13 as it was, it would have passed easily, being a clear improvement on the status quo ante. There would have been no case in which someone would have paid more tax, or done so at a less convenient time, than under the previous system -- quite the contrary. So it would have been totally possible then.
But again, given that Prop. 13 exists in its present form, the modification I'm proposing is a tough sell. Maybe we'd have to stipulate that the amount of the lien will be limited to 1/2 of the gain on the sale, after commissions, and would be zero in the case of a loss.
BTW, I'm attempting to respond constructively to your post on principle, but I don't feel yours was offered in the same spirit.
People's gut reactions can be overcome with time: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/recycled-drinking-...
People don't live forever.
This is true today, under Prop 13. It doesn't help much.
Prop 13 is one of the most Regressive Taxes (not progressive) in the history of housing. You have 2 people living next to each, both got exactly the same house, but one purchased it 20 years ago for 200K, the guy who purchases it today, has to pay 10 times more for the SAME house: 2 million dollars and then to add insult to injury has to pay nearly 10 times more taxes too.
If it wanted to be fair, Prop 13 should be exactly the opposite of what it is: it should tax the one who bought the house 10 times cheaper more and the new guy less.
If it wanted to be fair, Prop 13 should be exactly the opposite of what it is: it should tax the one who bought the house 10 times cheaper more and the new guy less.
Beyond the usual "email / write / call your state congressperson," are there any effective ways to lobby for changes to Prop 13?
It only takes a simple majority vote to change it, you just need enough signature to get in on the ballot.
It's worth noting that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association[0], the group that originally passed Prop 13, fights for its continued existence as a dedicated lobby, and they're extremely well organized.
[0] http://www.hjta.org/
[0] http://www.hjta.org/
Having moved to the bay area for work Prop 13 seems like a great injustice to newcomers. However, having learned about how prop 13 was originally sold I'm particularly curious why elderly fixed income people expect to stay in large very expensive homes throughout their retirement/death. I grew up in Toronto and once people's kids grew up and left the house they would often move into much smaller affordable condos. These had fewer stairs and much less maintenance.
There wasn't the same need to retire/die in the house you raised your kids in, its a ton of maintenance for too much space anyways. Why do elderly folks on fixed income in CA want to keep their homes forever, is it because there are no smaller condos in the same neighborhood (development problem) or because they expect the property value to increase enough to warrant keeping the home. The later doesn't seem to apply in Toronto as home values in Toronto have skyrocketed...
There wasn't the same need to retire/die in the house you raised your kids in, its a ton of maintenance for too much space anyways. Why do elderly folks on fixed income in CA want to keep their homes forever, is it because there are no smaller condos in the same neighborhood (development problem) or because they expect the property value to increase enough to warrant keeping the home. The later doesn't seem to apply in Toronto as home values in Toronto have skyrocketed...
California is rapacious enough without removing the one protection residents have from excess taxation.
The ironic thing is that if we had a sensible property tax system, sales and income taxes could be lowered quite a bit and our governments would have much more consistent funding.
Well, I suppose that's possible. But before Prop 13 passed sales and income taxes were both high by national standards.
Prop 13 and various forms of taxable money laundering (overseas money dumped into real estate, Other People's Money based VC funds, imported under-market labor...) are the only things keeping this godforsaken state from going Full Venezuela, which is about 10 years from happening anyway due to continuing demographic decline.
If you allow the clowns in the state legislature to raise taxes ad infinitum they will do so, and then wail endlessly about white flight.
California Secession Now; they must serve as a warning to others.
If you allow the clowns in the state legislature to raise taxes ad infinitum they will do so, and then wail endlessly about white flight.
California Secession Now; they must serve as a warning to others.
There are a bunch of things that bother me with regards to the discussion against Prop 13.
- There are older folks that have owned their homes for over 30+ yrs that are on fixed income that wouldn't be able to absorb increased taxes. My grandparents would've been in this case.
- There are folks that are middle class folks, think central California that couldn't absorb increased taxes.
- The variability year to year dealing with the assessments makes it difficult to plan for the potential increase in taxes. Look at what happened in Cook County in Illinois. Some homeowners were facing thousands of dollars of taxes none of them were prepared to pay.
The argument of telling someone to just move if they can't afford the taxes doesn't fly with me. Because I would just put it back on those individuals, you don't like the housing prices... Get out of the bay area. I mean I know you can go to Bakersfield get a palace for 500-600K. Case in point, brand new construction 462k 4BR, 3BA (http://www.zillow.com/community/camden-cove-pinnacle-series/...)
I think there are ways to address some of the issues without a blanket reversal of Prop 13, because this would effect more than just the bay area.
So what potential changes could you make. Couple of ideas:
- Transfer of property through inheritance would be subject to re-assessment. At that point the original owners have presumably passed and the new owners aren't necessarily living in the property. If the taxes were adjusted to the current property value that decreases the profit from just renting the home.
- Remove the applicability to commercial properties. Other articles on the subject that I've read, describe techniques that people use to try to game the re-assessment of a property through exchanges of corporate entities, eliminate that practice, especially for homes that are zoned residential.
- If the issue is around vacancy, do what Vancouver did, tax vacant properties. If there is an abundant supply of vacant homes, force rental of those homes through taxing of vacant homes. That increased the supply of available homes, depressing rent and lowered home prices within a few weeks of its enactment.
I'm not saying at all that Prop 13 is perfect and no doubt there is abuse of the rules. I'd focus on closing the loopholes around transfers of property first before trying to change something that would affect every single homeowner.
- There are older folks that have owned their homes for over 30+ yrs that are on fixed income that wouldn't be able to absorb increased taxes. My grandparents would've been in this case.
- There are folks that are middle class folks, think central California that couldn't absorb increased taxes.
- The variability year to year dealing with the assessments makes it difficult to plan for the potential increase in taxes. Look at what happened in Cook County in Illinois. Some homeowners were facing thousands of dollars of taxes none of them were prepared to pay.
The argument of telling someone to just move if they can't afford the taxes doesn't fly with me. Because I would just put it back on those individuals, you don't like the housing prices... Get out of the bay area. I mean I know you can go to Bakersfield get a palace for 500-600K. Case in point, brand new construction 462k 4BR, 3BA (http://www.zillow.com/community/camden-cove-pinnacle-series/...)
I think there are ways to address some of the issues without a blanket reversal of Prop 13, because this would effect more than just the bay area.
So what potential changes could you make. Couple of ideas:
- Transfer of property through inheritance would be subject to re-assessment. At that point the original owners have presumably passed and the new owners aren't necessarily living in the property. If the taxes were adjusted to the current property value that decreases the profit from just renting the home.
- Remove the applicability to commercial properties. Other articles on the subject that I've read, describe techniques that people use to try to game the re-assessment of a property through exchanges of corporate entities, eliminate that practice, especially for homes that are zoned residential.
- If the issue is around vacancy, do what Vancouver did, tax vacant properties. If there is an abundant supply of vacant homes, force rental of those homes through taxing of vacant homes. That increased the supply of available homes, depressing rent and lowered home prices within a few weeks of its enactment.
I'm not saying at all that Prop 13 is perfect and no doubt there is abuse of the rules. I'd focus on closing the loopholes around transfers of property first before trying to change something that would affect every single homeowner.
You are assuming taxes would uniformally go up. If everyone was paying equally, many places would see a reduction (see the MA example elsewhere in the comments).
I fail to find the connection between the first half of the article criticizing Prop 13, and the second half listing the sins of supposed "progressives".
I mean – you can certainly argue that people are wrong to try to protect the unique character of their neighborhood. But that argument seems to be completely separate from Prop 13, except maybe with regards to the line of "protecting incumbent residents".
I mean – you can certainly argue that people are wrong to try to protect the unique character of their neighborhood. But that argument seems to be completely separate from Prop 13, except maybe with regards to the line of "protecting incumbent residents".
The connection: without Prop 13, a decision to protect neighborhood character would have an explicit trade-off for residents-- their decision not to develop would lead to scarcity in developable land and thus higher land values, and thus higher property taxes.
When this is decoupled, residents (who control all zoning decisions) have every incentive to approve every anti-housing measure, insofar as they're insulated from the costs.
When this is decoupled, residents (who control all zoning decisions) have every incentive to approve every anti-housing measure, insofar as they're insulated from the costs.
I see the author's point, but having lived in MA, which strives to keep assessed property values very accurate and very much in line with the market value, people there were just as rabid about keeping out new development. Ultimately, any increase in property tax is offset 100-fold by increases in home value, and both are probably eclipsed by the emotional desire to live in "a nice neighborhood"
In short, while I would fully support the repeal of Prop 13, I don't think it would suddenly result in an about-face on zoning policy to limit home price appreciation.
In short, while I would fully support the repeal of Prop 13, I don't think it would suddenly result in an about-face on zoning policy to limit home price appreciation.
Interesting point. Out of curiosity, what's the property tax rate in these communities?
To elaborate ... MA is the the original home of direct democracy. Towns in the state hold annual town meetings, with a committee of the whole coming together to vote on key issues. In addition, they have a fair number of ballot referenda, but not as many as CA.
MA has its own "Prop 2 1/2" which caps real estate taxes at 2.5% of assessed value, and limits annual increases in the total assessment to 2.5%.
Quite literally, the cities and towns are continuously re-assessing their property base, and literally re-set the tax rate on an annual basis to deliver the revenue that they need to run the town. Thus, you see Cambridge's rate plunging by 25% year over year, presumably as property values on high-dollar properties have boomed. This gives lie to the idea that politicians would just take the increased taxes from higher property values as a windfall. In actuality, the tax burden is redistributed as real estate wealth is created.
MA has its own "Prop 2 1/2" which caps real estate taxes at 2.5% of assessed value, and limits annual increases in the total assessment to 2.5%.
Quite literally, the cities and towns are continuously re-assessing their property base, and literally re-set the tax rate on an annual basis to deliver the revenue that they need to run the town. Thus, you see Cambridge's rate plunging by 25% year over year, presumably as property values on high-dollar properties have boomed. This gives lie to the idea that politicians would just take the increased taxes from higher property values as a windfall. In actuality, the tax burden is redistributed as real estate wealth is created.
In Wellesley, MA, its 1.183%
In Cambridge, MA, its .69 percent (down from .83 percent in 2015 !!!), with an exemption on the first $277,000 in value.
These are communities with top-notch schools and amenities, and a state-wide income tax rate half that of California's.
In Cambridge, MA, its .69 percent (down from .83 percent in 2015 !!!), with an exemption on the first $277,000 in value.
These are communities with top-notch schools and amenities, and a state-wide income tax rate half that of California's.
In fact, they're not just insulated from the costs, but their house appreciates in value significantly, which means they can later sell it for much more than they would otherwise. The voters have voted themselves a huge windfall.
Can anyone tell me why a maximum tax growth isn't a better solution?
Same idea but cap it at.. 2-3% a year or something? Would protect buyers from wild swings but allow growth in tax revenue over time.
It's the lock-in that's the issue, surely?
Same idea but cap it at.. 2-3% a year or something? Would protect buyers from wild swings but allow growth in tax revenue over time.
It's the lock-in that's the issue, surely?
This doesn't help fixed income home owners who Prop 13 was designed to protect.
My ass it was designed that way. It was sold that way and continues to be lobbied that way because it's an easy emotional sell. But designed? No.
Also then fix it just for fixed income as an exception. Or make it a tax credit you can claim from state.
There are a ton of really easy and trivial solutions that any legislation that was designed to solve that problem could of used.
It didn't - they knew what they were doing.
Also then fix it just for fixed income as an exception. Or make it a tax credit you can claim from state.
There are a ton of really easy and trivial solutions that any legislation that was designed to solve that problem could of used.
It didn't - they knew what they were doing.
Bit of a rant. The site is the mouthpiece of people who are suing the city of Lafayette, for violating state law by not building enough housing.
It's an editorial, for sure.
And yes, the site is connected with the Yimby Party[0] and SFBARF[1], who have been featured in HN before.[2]
FWIW, I helped put together the website, which uses Armin Ronacher's Lektor CMS.[3] And as far as this has gone, it's been a tremendous success, for putting together a straightforward news site that is usable for both tech-savvy operators as well as those unacquainted with the command-line.
[0] http://www.sfyimby.org/
[1] http://www.sfbarf.org/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12310151
[3] https://www.getlektor.com/
And yes, the site is connected with the Yimby Party[0] and SFBARF[1], who have been featured in HN before.[2]
FWIW, I helped put together the website, which uses Armin Ronacher's Lektor CMS.[3] And as far as this has gone, it's been a tremendous success, for putting together a straightforward news site that is usable for both tech-savvy operators as well as those unacquainted with the command-line.
[0] http://www.sfyimby.org/
[1] http://www.sfbarf.org/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12310151
[3] https://www.getlektor.com/
Keep it up--you're making amazing content
I can't take any credit for the site's content (aside from the time I live-tweeted a Palo Alto City Council meeting)[0]-- my hat is certainly off to the journalism that site has come to provide, covering stories one won't find anywhere else.
[0] http://sfbamo.com/news/tweets-from-the-front-palo-alto-city-...
[0] http://sfbamo.com/news/tweets-from-the-front-palo-alto-city-...
Good! I'm glad there's an organization out there representing my viewpoint.
I'm a "tech worker" who moved here for a job, and I'm pretty sick of being the scapegoat for the housing woes while half my income goes to my landlord who enjoys the benefit of being perceived as an upstanding long-term member of the community as he grows fat suckling at my teat.
I'm a "tech worker" who moved here for a job, and I'm pretty sick of being the scapegoat for the housing woes while half my income goes to my landlord who enjoys the benefit of being perceived as an upstanding long-term member of the community as he grows fat suckling at my teat.
This guy is eminently quotable too:
> “Revolt” sounds too noble to me, even “populist.” I prefer to call it feudalism.
And on the popular anti-tech sentiment:
> New, young computer programmers with six-figure salaries may easy to scapegoat as the emblem of the Bay Area’s 21st Century inequality, but even if they can afford real estate, their privilege is chump change compared to that of pre-1979 homebuyers and their descendants.
A few key observations in there:
* The power imbalance between buyers and renters in the country is already bad due to the interest rate deductions, but Prop 13 adds insult to injury. While rent control (for renters) is not widespread, owners in California (who are often the upper class stratas, especially in the Bay Area) have built-in rent control everywhere, forever. You can even pass it down to your kids!
* He uses the term BMR (Below Market Rate) instead of "affordable housing". There's been a concerted attempt by politicians to conflate these terms to buy more populist votes. As noted in the article, an important aspect of BMR is that its cost is passed on to new buyers; the perfect political tool: a tax that's not called a tax!
* Many of the local anti-development politicians are riding off the aforementioned "feudal" privilege. Kudos to the author for pulling information on a few of them. Of course the data is anecdotal, but it's amazing how many of these high-income people inherited their primary residence from their parents during their working lifetimes. That's very hard to imagine in most of North America.