U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:24 PM
 
26,859 posts, read 53,699,711 times
Reputation: 20938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Nowhere I've ever lived; tax bills are based upon regular assessments of property value, not purchase price.

Although I must say my current house hasn't been reassessed in the time I've lived here ...
Thank goodness for California Prop 13... did away with all the nonsense of having Tax Assessor guessing at value.

Prop 13 has been law of the land in California since 1978... In a nutshell property tax is fixed at 1% of fair market value at the time of transfer plus a 2% annual inflation cap... any other property tax measures require up to a 2/3 voter approval or they don't happen.

If my neighbor paid 50k 25 years ago and I paid 300k this year... I can expect my property tax to be 6 times higher than my neighbor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:27 PM
 
26,859 posts, read 53,699,711 times
Reputation: 20938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
This is true. I have a landlord who really tries to keep the rents down here in very expensive Portland. He wants to keep his good tenants but he has his expenses. As perfectly good buildings get torn down, pocket parks, yards between structures and other breathing spaces get filled up with large expensive apartment buildings and other multihousing units, expenses increase for him and the other landlords in the area who own apartment buildings and rental houses. Property taxes, utilities, repairs and all other operating all increase. So along with the notices of rent increases, he sends along an itemized written account of these increases to his tenants so we can see where our money is going.

They have to push these increases onto their tenants. Eventually it reaches the point in which a tenant reaches their limit and has to move.

In Portland this has happened very rapidly in our neighborhoods over a relatively short period of time especially as real estate speculators have come into the city and taken advantage of lax building codes, few zoning laws with teeth and indifferent attitudes towards those who live here.

It isn't that people object to new construction per se, it's that this construction crowds the area. There isn't room for giant buildings in neighborhoods with not enough parking or a sewer system that is already taxed and the city is already asking millions to repair. And tearing down something that doesn't need to be torn down just to build something larger to make a profit for a few people is not really gentrification, it's greed. But that's where you get those who used the old argument "You just don't like change" to justify that greed. And they call it "gentrification."

The choices in this city are very limited. People either can move to the suburbs, the farther reaches of East Portland which is not a very good area or out of the city. Many opt to just move away from Portland. Some friends and I were just discussing this recently as to how many other friends we have recently lost from Portland because of this.

The interesting thing is now I see some people who were in the first wave of renters who could afford the rent increases are now moving out because the rents are becoming so high they can no longer afford them and the next wave who can afford the new higher rents are replacing them. Who knows where this will end?

So your comment is spot on as to how people are being driven out by gentrification. I can see it happening where I live all the time.
Yes Oregon is particularly susceptible to this... your neighbor sells for a big price and you had better hold on tax wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,050 posts, read 30,284,564 times
Reputation: 7845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
This is true. I have a landlord who really tries to keep the rents down here in very expensive Portland. He wants to keep his good tenants but he has his expenses. As perfectly good buildings get torn down, pocket parks, yards between structures and other breathing spaces get filled up with large expensive apartment buildings and other multihousing units, expenses increase for him and the other landlords in the area who own apartment buildings and rental houses. Property taxes, utilities, repairs and all other operating all increase. So along with the notices of rent increases, he sends along an itemized written account of these increases to his tenants so we can see where our money is going.

They have to push these increases onto their tenants. Eventually it reaches the point in which a tenant reaches their limit and has to move.

In Portland this has happened very rapidly in our neighborhoods over a relatively short period of time especially as real estate speculators have come into the city and taken advantage of lax building codes, few zoning laws with teeth and indifferent attitudes towards those who live here.

It isn't that people object to new construction per se, it's that this construction crowds the area. There isn't room for giant buildings in neighborhoods with not enough parking or a sewer system that is already taxed and the city is already asking millions to repair. And tearing down something that doesn't need to be torn down just to build something larger to make a profit for a few people is not really gentrification, it's greed. But that's where you get those who used the old argument "You just don't like change" to justify that greed. And they call it "gentrification."

The choices in this city are very limited. People either can move to the suburbs, the farther reaches of East Portland which is not a very good area or out of the city. Many opt to just move away from Portland. Some friends and I were just discussing this recently as to how many other friends we have recently lost from Portland because of this.

The interesting thing is now I see some people who were in the first wave of renters who could afford the rent increases are now moving out because the rents are becoming so high they can no longer afford them and the next wave who can afford the new higher rents are replacing them. Who knows where this will end?

So your comment is spot on as to how people are being driven out by gentrification. I can see it happening where I live all the time.
I have a problem with this contradiction, if you don't think inner Portland is the right place for more urban developments, yet there are very limited choices in inner Portland, then what type of developments should be happening in inner Portland or do you think the only developments that should happen are on the outside areas of the metro?

One would think the best place for an urban apartment building would be in the inner Portland area where it is more urban. You can't keep inner Portland as nothing but single family homes and not expect the cost of those homes to go up drastically as demand for housing increases.

I do think Portland should to something with East Portland seeing that area is taking a huge growth in the housing in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 06:59 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: NYC
46,042 posts, read 43,316,955 times
Reputation: 14865
I'm a bit confused on how a residential building boom should lead to increased rents for current residents. Just because the rents are increasing with new constructions doesn't mean the rents wouldn't increase without any construction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 07:01 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: NYC
46,042 posts, read 43,316,955 times
Reputation: 14865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post

If my neighbor paid 50k 25 years ago and I paid 300k this year... I can expect my property tax to be 6 times higher than my neighbor.
That sounds a bit absurd, and would result in taxing older homeowners far less than newer, younger homeowners. As well discourage people from selling your house and moving. Although it California property taxes are low enough they aren't a large portion of a homeowner's budget, unlike some eastern states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 07:08 PM
 
26,859 posts, read 53,699,711 times
Reputation: 20938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That sounds a bit absurd, and would result in taxing older homeowners far less than newer, younger homeowners. As well discourage people from selling your house and moving. Although it California property taxes are low enough they aren't a large portion of a homeowner's budget, unlike some eastern states.
It's not about age of the owner... it's only about the purchase price. I pay more because I bought in 2004 than the family with newer and bigger house that bought in 2011 when the market hit bottom.

The voters back in the 70's had enough of double digit year to year property tax increases plus several high profile scandals involving sweetheart deals from local Assessors to those of influence... more than one Assessor committed suicide and others went to prison.

Anyway, Prop 13 enjoyed overwhelming grassroots support and became law and survived challenges all the way to the US Supreme Court on grounds it violated the equal protection clause of the constitution.

My only point is increasing values does not force anyone property owner out unless they want to cash out.

I bought my 1725 1950's rancher in Oakland CA from the original owners that were moving to a retirement facility... they paid $1200 total property tax the year they sold, which went to $9,000 for me... or $750 a month.

All assessed property in California is based on the value at the time of transfer... and thank goodness because I fully intend to be one of the seasoned citizens someday that has the low assessment in my neighborhood.

Note there is also another proposition that lets seniors downsize and take their assessment with them... so nothing to fear about losing by selling to downsize.

http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 07:13 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: NYC
46,042 posts, read 43,316,955 times
Reputation: 14865
Yes, but older people are more likely to homeowners for much longer than obvious reasons, and therefore pay less taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 07:21 PM
 
26,859 posts, read 53,699,711 times
Reputation: 20938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Yes, but older people are more likely to homeowners for much longer than obvious reasons, and therefore pay less taxes.
In reality this could be the case... however, it's nowhere to be found in the tax code.

I bought my first home at age 22 and still have it and my taxes on this little cottage are quite reasonable by today's standard.

I bought my last home in 2004 and have the distinction of having the highest property tax for the smallest and oldest home in the area... still have formica counters and lino floors...

It's all based on purchase price (value) which as everyone knows fluctuates.

My 598k home in 2004 dropped to about 380k in 2011 and now it's about 620k... doesn't matter because my assessment will always be tracked to the 598k price I paid.

Made an offer on a better and only 10 year old home next door... too many bidders and it went for a little over 600k... so my new neighbor with a lovely custom home at double the square footage and 10 years old versus 60 years old has the same tax bill that I do...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,050 posts, read 30,284,564 times
Reputation: 7845
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm a bit confused on how a residential building boom should lead to increased rents for current residents. Just because the rents are increasing with new constructions doesn't mean the rents wouldn't increase without any construction.
If there was no construction going on in Portland to add new units to where people are wanting to move to, you would see rents take off. While they have been on the rise there, it is by no means "astronomical" by any means, but it is no longer that cheap city you could live in inner Portland and work part time, but you can still do good there making $30K a year for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2014, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 6,443,327 times
Reputation: 8318
I live in a metropolitan area barely touched by the economic woes other parts of the country has seen save for foreclosures.
Gentrification in this area = new people moving here from all parts of the country and wanting to recreate the town they moved from. Since most people are in the high 5 figure salary range that can be some pretty crazy stuff, most of it the chain eateries they are familiar with. Lots want amenities that never existed in the area because they were not needed. The new transplants demand them so it looks like where they came from. I am retired and my house paid for. I have lived here for 26 years. I am really tired of the concept of gentrification for the purpose of appeasing transplants - who should have looked into where they were moving before doing so - and then we have a bunch of chain crap you see across the entire country. There is affordable housing all over my county but most think there are too many 'shady' areas and want to gentrify....tear down and rebuild.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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