U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-10-2018, 03:48 PM
 
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río Porciúncula
13,545 posts, read 14,044,894 times
Reputation: 9663

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Are you suggesting that the government will begin mandating that developers provide low-income housing?
If developing becomes unpopular or unprofitable then their money will flock to a different form of investment. That would increase housing shortages and/or make housing more expensive.

You can't squeeze money from a vacuum. Bernie Frank tried that, more or less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2018, 04:37 PM
 
Location: SDL/PDX/RDU
4,298 posts, read 2,248,556 times
Reputation: 5158
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Are you suggesting that the government will begin mandating that developers provide low-income housing?
It already happens. There are plenty of cities that mandate a certain percentage of new multi-family developments be for low income residents. Nothing new about that. That's not to say they don't do so kicking and screaming all the way, yet the buildings still go up. Folks have either decided that they'll take a lesser rate of ROI, or they find something else to do for a living. I don't much care either way, but had they been responsive to market needs everyone would have been better served in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 04:51 PM
 
25,801 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Simple math. They currently tax that on the purchase price, and restrict increases in the tax, so people who bought a few years or decades ago are paying less. If they treat everyone equally then that % should go down if their goal is to collect the same amount.
Simple Math... the previous home I bought in 2006 cost 598k... 1725 square feet of original 1957 construction...

Six years later in 2012 my neighbors home goes into foreclosure... 3000+ square feet built in 2002... so 10 years old and nearly twice my size...

Guess what? My neighbor pays the same property tax I do...

How can this be since their home is 45 years newer, almost twice as big and I have owned my home much longer???

This is not unique... people that bought 2009-2012 often pay much less than someone that owned for many years...

I see where it can be confusing since length of ownership is often interjected... the fact is Prop 13 is silent to length of ownership... no matter if you owned 40 years or bought last week...

As for politicians being fair... they had plenty of opportunity prior to Prop 13... simply indexing the Home Owner Exemption would have stopped Prop 13 cold... but even this was too much...

Governor Brown has repeatedly said Prop 13 is settled law... and who should know better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 04:54 PM
 
25,801 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
No ones tax goes up unless their house appreciates. If their house appreciates and they can't afford the tax, then they can get a loan on equity to pay it.

Someone who has $1M in RE equity is not a charity case! I don't care how low their "fixed income" is.
It seems so many outside of California have strong opinions on California taxes...

Appreciation means nothing unless a home is sold...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 05:03 PM
 
25,801 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19248
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
I tend to believe it's a market failure in the sense that those in the market appear to forgo a "reasonable" return on their investment seeking a "high" return for their money.

We can argue all day on what's "reasonable" or "high", but when developers fail to provide adequate housing for large numbers of working wage people because, as is often cited, there's 'not enough money in it for them'. There's something very wrong with that.
Yes there is... the fees to build a single family home I Oakland are exorbitant... and on top of that it took 5 years from start to finish when I was helping a friend build a single family home for him and his family... several years in design review where even the color of the gutter had to be approved... then, built exactly to the approved plans the city came in and insisted on changes during construction...

He is hearing impaired so every communication was done with a TTY machine... full transcripts from start to finish... had he been dependent on a construction loan he would have been wiped out... simple fact.

Even a one day job to repair a sewer lateral come with $1000 in permit fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 05:07 PM
 
25,801 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19248
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
It already happens. There are plenty of cities that mandate a certain percentage of new multi-family developments be for low income residents. Nothing new about that. That's not to say they don't do so kicking and screaming all the way, yet the buildings still go up. Folks have either decided that they'll take a lesser rate of ROI, or they find something else to do for a living. I don't much care either way, but had they been responsive to market needs everyone would have been better served in the long run.
This is how it works in the SF Bay Area...

Plus, as mentioned it can take years for a project to be permit ready...

Several large projects with 4 to 7 years to get permit ready are now permit ready and the builders are pulling out or offering it for sale…

The cost has increased 50% in 7 years making the project no longer viable or too risky...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 05:16 PM
509
 
2,543 posts, read 3,745,734 times
Reputation: 2936
I live in a county with a severe housing shortage. Currently the rental vacancy rate is well below ZERO.

Forty percent of the homes in the county are owned by high tech workers and others on the OTHER side of the Cascades in the Seattle area.

The way to end the housing shortage in my county is simple. IF you live here you can own a home. IF you live in Seattle, move here or sell your home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,731,643 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
This is not unique... people that bought 2009-2012 often pay much less than someone that owned for many years...
You are making a fine case for why the law is silly. Why not base it on current value rather than some other irrelevant number?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Appreciation means nothing unless a home is sold...
It's capital and a bank will be happy to give you a cash loan if you are too poor to pay your bills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,672 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14930
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
I tend to believe it's a market failure in the sense that those in the market appear to forgo a "reasonable" return on their investment seeking a "high" return for their money.
That's sometimes referred to as "The Streetwalker's Dilemma." Should she take the offer in hand, or wait for something better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 06:57 PM
 
25,801 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
You are making a fine case for why the law is silly. Why not base it on current value rather than some other irrelevant number?
The law isn't silly unless all other tax is silly?

Every and anything a person buys is taxed based on the purchase price... why should a home be different?

And more so... why subject yourself to the "Opinion" of the Assessor which is at best an "Educated" guess?

Quote:
It's capital and a bank will be happy to give you a cash loan if you are too poor to pay your bills.
A bank is only happy when it can make money...

I feel too many have lost sense that the government works for the people and not the other way around...

The real issue is why should my taxes be affected by the actions of another?

Maybe you don't know how it use to work?

Property use to be taxed at highest and best use... so if you happened to own a farm but the best use was housing or a business park you were taxed as what it could be instead of what it is.

If your home happened to be in an area that has transitioned to commercial... the taxes would be based on a commercial use instead of residential...


Thankfully, Prop 13 treats each and every transfer as a Stand Alone transaction... if your neighbor sells his home to someone willing to pay double what is worth and make it a grow operation... without a Prop 13 there is nothing to prevent the Assessor from increasing your taxes based on a single neighborhood sale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top