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.
I'm not involved in any of these processes. I own my own home. It's already zoned and it's zoned R-1. I could care less about whatever zoning other areas have. Not my problem. Not my business. I could care less.
People who live in freeway underpasses condemned themselves. I had nothing to do with it except not tossing them my spare change at the freeway off ramps and supermarket parking lots. Anyway most of them suffer mental illness and that's why they live the way they do.
Repeat, again, since you've already asked me before:
I AM NOT INTO ZONING AND I AM NOT INTO NOT ZONING! I HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT!
Zone away. Be my guest. My home is in a large area of R-1 and nothing is going to change that, not now, not 20 years from now, not in my lifetime.
Those two statements contradict each other.
If that R-1 zoning was removed, there could be more housing in your area and prices could go down. The permanence of R-1 zoning plays a role in pushing up overall housing costs. You obviously care about having that R-1 zoning.
Anyways I've pretty much said everything I need to say in this particular thread.
Anyways I've pretty much said everything I need to say in this particular thread.
Thanks for carrying the rational economic torch. It takes a community to push back on the illogical ideas here, like drinking from a fire hose sometimes. Lot of straight f you got mine attitudes.
I don't see stories of droves of old people on fixed income being pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods in Dallas or New York. Maybe someone should tell those Texans they're living in a crazy tax regime that could all of a sudden jack up their property taxes and they should consider moving to the property tax haven of California. Seems like property markets can function just fine in all those other states.
The tax burden gets disproportionately distributed to the people who aspire to be homeowners or commercial property owners. Its hard to develop a new commercial property when you have to pick up the slack of all the businesses before you paying in effect a subsidized rate. Why aren't more businesses starting up in California, or more housing developed? Prop 13 is a partial reason. Competitive disadvantage for new entrants.
I don't think you completely understand why Prop. 13 was passed. I had owned my home for 3 to 4 years when my property taxes went from $450 a year to $1200 a year overnight. This was in the mid 1970's. I was a young & new homeowner who would have lost my home if not for Prop. 13. I purchased that house in 1974 for $34,700. Because a house down the street sold for $119,000, the gov't decided my house was worth the same & so raised my property taxes. Great! I allegedly had quite a bit of equity in my house. But if I couldn't afford food for my kids due to suddenly greatly increased property taxes, equity did nothing for me. There was no guarantee my house would have sold for that same amount.
The government should not be able to increase your costs when you've had no way to plan for those increases, especially when those costs are so high. Prop. 13 allows for that planning. That California legislature overspends, is wasteful & irresponsible should not directly impact each & every homeowner to the point they have to sell their home. Not all voters are homeowners, yet Prop. 13 passed by a wide margin. Gov't actions pre-Prop. 13 were definitely an attempt for a money-grab.
As a side note, then Governor Jerry (moonbeam) Brown was against Prop. 13 prior to it's passing but did an about-face after it was passed.
Now, according to you I am an old zombie owner with one foot in the grave. Thank you for that. I have moved two times since I owned that house & you'll be happy to know my current property taxes are $10,000 per year & of course will continue to rise. There is so much turnover in Southern California and so much new home building, I really see no reason for the government to think they're losing out when it comes to property taxes.
This is a great post and sums up my feelings on the issue. The removal of prop 13 will only lead to more waste, nothing more, nothing less. It won't help the majority in any way, shape or form.
Increased taxes aren't the answer. Accountability, smart investment and targeted spending are.
If that R-1 zoning was removed, there could be more housing in your area and prices could go down.
If pigs had wings we'd have a whole new perspective on stuff that messes up your windshield and the rest of your car.
You are so out of touch with reality that I'm pretty sure you'd need a country code just to dial reality from wherever you are.
My HOA is R-1 and it's gonna be R-1 for many decades in the future, far longer than I'll live. My area is just as like to go multi-R as Beverly Hills.
Besides, if I didn't live in R-1 I'd get neighbors like you. That's why we have R-1, because we want to live in an area with single family homes, with single families living in them, not in an area that is all built up and all the traffic it brings.
Go ahead and live in R-zillion for all I care. I hope you enjoy it. Oh, wait, didn't you want your own house in an R-1 area? What are you going to do when you get a R-1 SFR and they decide to build an affordable section 8 apartment to house homeless people right next door to your house?
This is a great post and sums up my feelings on the issue. The removal of prop 13 will only lead to more waste, nothing more, nothing less. It won't help the majority in any way, shape or form.
Increased taxes aren't the answer. Accountability, smart investment and targeted spending are.
You got the right idea. More taxes is just feeding the beast. Unfortunately feed the beast makes it grow bigger, and the first thing the new, bigger beast wants is more food!
The solution to California's problems isn't more taxes. It's more efficient use of the tax money already being received. California has to go on a spending diet.
There's got to be limits on how much taxes the state can take. If no limits eventually we will all be strangled in taxes.
I've done some calculations regarding my career earnings now that I've retired, and as nearly as I can figure the combined taxation of CA and the feds including all taxes, income, property, sales, gasoline, everything--came up that I gave one or the other governments--the two together--about HALF of all the money I ever earned my entire life!
For every dollar I ever earned I gave 50 cents to either CA or US. Now is that reasonable? Half!!!
If that R-1 zoning was removed, there could be more housing in your area and prices could go down. The permanence of R-1 zoning plays a role in pushing up overall housing costs. You obviously care about having that R-1 zoning.
Anyways I've pretty much said everything I need to say in this particular thread.
No there would not be more housing. Several people would have to sell their homes next to each other, the County/City would have to change the zoning and builders would have tare down the old ones and build new ones to sell cheaper homes and the don't want to do that and the Counties and Cities do not want to see the income from property taxes go down if home prices drop. R-1 exists for a good reason and it ain't gonna change.
Prop 13 going away would not cause the prices to drop one dime. If a person could not afford the new taxes, they would either sell at current market rates or ... this would not help you, get a reverse mortgage to pay the increase. You would not see the market flooded with homes for sale cheap. You would not see so many people forced out that the market would change. You want, a home get a better job and save.
You think if Atherton or Palo Alto or Santa Monica had minimal zoning and development restrictions like Houston there wouldn't be an increase in the supply of housing?
Yes there would be a in increase in the supply of housing, would there be a decrease in cost of living or will it be like Manhattan? We differ in our view of what is considered artificial versus normal.
I'm too poor to owe income taxes, or will be when my investment properties are soon liquidated. I don't have a dog in that fight.
I can see some sense in taxes on goods or services that people can buy/use or not. Housing is not one of those things. I see no sense in taxing old people out of their homes they've scrimped and saved their whole lives to earn. You get that word? EARN! Those people paid for their properties, they retired and unless they have cushy government pensions their income dropped by maybe 90% when they went to Social Security.
And now you want to send the old people packing, so that young people can buy their properties on the cheap!
The big flaw in your argument is the properties won't be bought by people of low means. They will just be bought up by rich people.
There are NO houses for poor people. They call those apartments. They call those freeway overpasses.
You are not going to get your house on the cheap just by eliminating Prop 13. In fact I predict you will never own a house. You'll never be able to afford it, Prop 13 or no.
We already saw what happened here in SD during the 2000s. Renters moved into houses and more people moved into the apartments from out of the area. When the bottom fell out the former renters went back to renting expensive apartments and many others had no choice but to leave the area. They are building new housing here but it's not affordable. Affordable housing and beach property just don't mix. No one makes money off of rent controlled apartments on expensive land. The only way poor live by the beach is on the tax payer's wallet. Removing prop 13 won't make beach property cheaper.
I agree with you 1ATP. Not only will repealing Prop 13 not make beach property more affordable, but particularly in rent controlled areas like Santa Monica it will put the landlords in a financial pinch where they can't raise the rents (except within guidelines) but their expenses will rise due to increasing property taxes, and I see this causing severe problems with landlords being able to afford to stay in business.
The only way I see that part of Prop 13 could be repealed without harming either landlords or homeowners is if it were repealed only for commercial rentals (stores, etc.). This would of course raise the cost of their products or services, but at least consumers are free to buy elsewhere. I still see this as harming the economy, but at least landlords and long time property owners wouldn't be priced out of their properties due to onerous, runaway property tax increases.
In my opinion we are discussing another non-starter here (as is often the case at C-D), discussing something that some people wish for but in the real world is never gonna happen. With Prop 13 not any time soon for sure.
On a personal note, I can barely afford my current property taxes, and at present my only plans are either die sooner than I expect, reverse mortgage and deferred taxes if it looks like I might live actively in my current home, or relocate out of state and buy a much nicer house with the sale proceeds of my current house. Depending on my age and health at the time it would probably be relocating out of state, and let California go to hell. One thing for sure, CA is one of the more expensive states and unless the government changes (not likely) prices are going to continue going up, both housing prices and consumer prices.
You think if Atherton or Palo Alto or Santa Monica had minimal zoning and development restrictions like Houston there wouldn't be an increase in the supply of housing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelopez2
Yes there would be a in increase in the supply of housing, would there be a decrease in cost of living or will it be like Manhattan? We differ in our view of what is considered artificial versus normal.
Increases in supply tend to lower costs, yes. Manhattan couldn't be Manhattan without the skyscrapers. I doubt anyone wants to turn Palo Alto into Manhattan (although some more multifamily near the Caltrain stop would be nice) and I happen to like the Palo Altos and Greenwich Villages as areas of lowered development surrounded by denser areas.
I was using those places as some of the best examples of the effect NIMBYs have on housing supply, which is a much larger driver of costs than property taxes. I'm fine with those communities deciding to stay the same, it's their right as democratic citizens. But at least NIMBYs should have the decency to acknowledge that their attitudes effectively restrict the housing supply, raising costs for others.
Same with Prop 13. I'm a homeowner and I personally benefit from it, it's nice to have. But our spending obligations as a state determine the taxes we collect. The people benefiting from Prop 13 are having their extra slack paid for by the other taxpayers, the newcomers and non property owners. If someone wants the overall California tax burden to go down then go on your crusade to fire state employees or cut pensions or defer infrastructure maintenance or lower public services. But at least be honest and acknowledge that you have preferential tax treatment at the expense of others. It's a distortion, not a "free market" system.
Upton Sinclair quote:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
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.
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.
