Median price of a single family home in San Diego: $612,750 (Oakland: flat fee, apartment)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by metoque

At least you admit it's not fair.

I said do you think it was easy?

As with most things in life the simple knee jerk reaction is simply that.

Once the thought process kicks in and an understanding of the how and why things happen you become enlightened.

It is good you are asking questions... it shows you are thinking... not everyone can grasp concepts right out of the box...

Let me say it another way... I would never want to go back to a pre-Prop 13 system... where values are assigned arbitrarily and contesting takes years meanwhile you pay the amount due in full... and hope for a refund 2 to 3 years down the road if successful... plus appeals require the tax payer pay a filing fee... simply to discourage appeals...

Post have been pretty clear... if granny can't afford to live in her home due to property tax... too bad.

I simply don't agree and don't share your vision where money trumps all...

In all fairness.... I see similar thinking all the time... typically it is with first time home buyers... they simply do not have the experience to process...

I mentioned Washington State of what can happen... but in fairness... Washington has no Income Tax... so great if you have money... just as Nevada has no Income Tax and Oregon has no Sales Tax.

California has just about every tax known and it still isn't enough... go figure.

[ndindy]

I get this argument. You can have two people on the same street in the same house. One bought a year ago and one bought 20 years ago. The newest neighbor may be paying double the property taxes.

There are areas where people bought their homes in the 60s and 70s and are paying tax bills that look like that era. California's real estate market is unique in that prices have risen so dramatically that taxing the house at the current market value could force people out of their homes unless their incomes have kept pace. Statistics do not prove that.
It is true that there are people who are contributing significantly less that others, and this puts a drain on schools and infrastructure. California does have prop 13 to help keep taxes more affordable.

The state I relocated from attempted to redo their property tax structure and it raised taxes so much ono those that had been in their historical, older homes so much that the state passed a constitutional amendment to cap the amount of tax the homeowner could be charged. I don't think there is a fair was to drastically increase property taxes in a short period of time.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by metoque

But Prop 13 doesn't solve the problem. If you have a problem with property taxes, then really solve the issue. Don't favor the NIMBY folks and screw over new families trying to buy a home and make a life.

How about this? Why not make property taxes a flat dollar amount based on the acreage that one owns, and not on the value of the property? Each city can set that rate, but it's the same rate regardless of the value of your property. Wouldn't that be a more fair way to equally tax homeowners to support city services rendered?

Developed or Undeveloped... residential or commercial, mixed use or open space... timber or farm land?

The way most taxes work are as a percentage of value... Prop 13 provides a 1% Statewide Rate... there are hundreds of taxing agencies in this state... my tax rate is 1.7%... the .7 is comprised of assessments that are flat rate almost all based on parcel but a few on size of parcel.

So Prop 13 already blends both...

[metoque]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Developed or Undeveloped... residential or commercial, mixed use or open space... timber or farm land?

Well, we'd have to figure out those details. Value of the land shouldn't drive property tax rates. It should be driven by the burden on city services.

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The way most taxes work is as a percentage of value... Prop 13 provides a 1% Statewide Rate... there are hundreds of taxing agencies in this state... my tax rate is 1.7%... the .7 is comprised of assessments that are flat rate...

So Prop 13 already blends both...

But Prop 13 still doesn't solve the issue of vast inequity. I understand that you're in a great position having owned for a long time, so it's hard to give up that monetary advantage. You get city services at a fraction of the cost of your neighbors, so I understand why you feel the way you do. However, we need to look at an approach that is fair to everyone, not just to those who were lucky enough to buy before the late 90s. Otherwise, give me a time machine and I'll go back and buy up property all day long.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by ndindy

I get this argument. You can have two people on the same street in the same house. One bought a year ago and one bought 20 years ago. The newest neighbor may be paying double the property taxes.

There are areas where people bought their homes in the 60s and 70s and are paying tax bills that look like that era. California's real estate market is unique in that prices have risen so dramatically that taxing the house at the current market value could force people out of their homes unless their incomes have kept pace. Statistics do not prove that.
It is true that there are people who are contributing significantly less that others, and this puts a drain on schools and infrastructure. California does have prop 13 to help keep taxes more affordable.

The state I relocated from attempted to redo their property tax structure and it raised taxes so much ono those that had been in their historical, older homes so much that the state passed a constitutional amendment to cap the amount of tax the homeowner could be charged. I don't think there is a fair was to drastically increase property taxes in a short period of time.

Prop 13 became law in 1978... the double digit property tax increases... fraud/corruption in the Assessor Offices and the State taking local school tax money of the Serrano Decision all factored.

Prior to Prop 13... farms and ranch lands were often taxed out of existence... farm land cannot remain farm land if it is taxed as residential for commercial.

Taxes paid on highest and best use as deemed by the Assessor put an end to many small farms... so much so that open space became a new concept as farm land was being paved over.

Since Prop 13 inception... there have been several market reversals... where prices dropped significantly.

In my city... the bottom dropped... homes that had sold for 500k were now selling for 100k... East Oakland California.

Just how fair would it have been to homeowners and renters would it have been to jack up values between 2004 and 2008 because fools were falling all over themselves with lier loans sending prices into the stratosphere?

We all know how that ended... thankfully Prop 13 provided a little sanity to the ciaos...

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by metoque

Well, we'd have to figure out those details. Value of the land shouldn't drive property tax rates. It should be driven by the burden on city services.

But Prop 13 still doesn't solve the issue of vast inequity. I understand that you're in a great position having owned for a long time, so it's hard to give up that monetary advantage. You get city services at a fraction of the cost of your neighbors, so I understand why you feel the way you do. However, we need to look at an approach that is fair to everyone, not just to those who were lucky enough to buy before the late 90s. Otherwise, give me a time machine and I'll go back and buy up property all day long.

Like you said, life's not fair and that young family is not entitled any more than the old lady to owning a home here. I also don't see how an acre plot a few miles from the beach should be paying more than the little postage stamp sized ones right on the water.


2012 or so was a great time too buy but many sat on their hands. It's also probably fair to say that old lady had a family at one time too and she did indeed pay her taxes.

If home ownership is the end all then one can still buy a home for less than 50 grand all over the US. It's just not here.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by metoque

But Prop 13 still doesn't solve the issue of vast inequity. I understand that you're in a great position having owned for a long time, so it's hard to give up that monetary advantage. You get city services at a fraction of the cost of your neighbors, so I understand why you feel the way you do. However, we need to look at an approach that is fair to everyone, not just to those who were lucky enough to buy before the late 90s. Otherwise, give me a time machine and I'll go back and buy up property all day long.

I think you have me confused with someone else...

I pay the absolute highest Property Tax in my neighborhood for the oldest and smallest home... it is all 1950's down to the Formica Counters and Linoleum Floor.

My neighbors pay a fraction of what I pay... except for the family that bought the foreclosure down the block.

That family pays about what I do for my 1725 square foot home built in 1958... their home is 3000 square feet and built in 2002... they just happened to get a great deal in 2012...

No need to go back to the 90s... just go back to 2012 and to find the deals of a generation... low interest rates and rock bottom prices even for fairly new construction.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Like you said, life's not fair and that young family is not entitled any more than the old lady to owning a home here. I also don't see how an acre plot a few miles from the beach should be paying more than the little postage stamp sized ones right on the water.


2012 or so was a great time to buy but many sat on their hands. It's also probably fair to say that old lady had a family at one time too and she did indeed pay her taxes.

The old people in my neighborhood and there are almost all old paid the assessments for decades to put in the drainage, park and local school... things I get simply for buying my home.

It can be argued that +/- half of property tax goes to education... none of my neighbors have had a child in school in 50 years... and I am not exaggerating.

They are the ones that are always home... bring over vegetables from their garden... keep an eye on things, sign for packages and out everyday tending to their gardens...

They really are treasures...

[RosieSD]

Originally Posted by metoque

How about this? Why not make property taxes a flat dollar amount based on the acreage that one owns, and not on the value of the property? Each city can set that rate, but it's the same rate regardless of the value of your property. Wouldn't that be a more fair way to equally tax homeowners to support city services rendered?

You'd still have the same problem you're complaining about. As long as their lot sizes were the same, someone living in a fancy oceanfront house in Pacific Beach would pay the same as someone living in a shack in Barrio Logan.

How is that fair to the person in Barrio Logan?

And do you really want to give the city control over determining your tax rate every year?

[metoque]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Prop 13 became law in 1978...

I understand that there's history for why they implemented it, but it needs to change.

It's because property tax is "value based" that we're in this predicament in the first place. You don't discriminate against one class of homeowner in order to protect another. Take away the value based component of the tax, make it equally apportioned, and the issue goes away...unless of course you're the one who pays $1200/year in property tax when it should be more like $6000/year, but that was clear inequity that needs to be remedied.