Why the rents in San Francisco were so dirt cheap in the 1960's? (Novato: apartment, house)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Others have emulated it... Washington voters approved I-747 and when a King County judge tossed it my property tax increased by 80% over what I had paid for the place 2 years prior.

I was waiting for someone to say this. WA State did emulate CA's Prop 13, but it could never work in a state with no state income tax. The state is too dependent on property taxes as a main source of income. I just missed the repeal of it, having sold my property before then, and moved out of state. I'd always had rental income to cover mortgage and property taxes; it's the only way home ownership is affordable for ordinary people in Seattle.

[Ultrarunner]

When my taxes went from 6800 to almost 12k after the appeal it was sobering.

Thing is the 6800 was based on the almost exact purchase price I paid the prior year.

The extra tax of $400 a month meant property tax now totaled $1,000 per month on a $1600 monthly rental...

I've seen what happens when Property Tax remains unchecked.

[bmw335xi]

Wasnt the median income in SF like $6-7k per year?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Wasnt the median income in SF like $6-7k per year?

Exactly and to the point.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Just, wow. You think it "worked" to "keep communities together". Uh, so it's all about keeping communities together? If people can't afford to live someplace, they should just penalize families who send their kids to the schools ('cause your kids are done, who cares about the newcomers.) I figured you would supported the free market and personal responsibility. Oh, that's right, only when it's convenient for you.

Prop 13 played and plays to selfishness and cynicism. It drastically affects housing in CA today, and is a major driver in excessive housing costs.

If Prop 13 was a good thing, you'd see others emulate it. Crickets.

Re: taxes. and the nonsense about a "good thing" So, what is your explanation for what just happened in Kansas? Yeah, I thought so.

Only 18 states allow the innitiative process when changing the States Constitution. Of those 18 only two others are states that have high property tax problems.

It took Howard Jarvis twenty years to get Proposition 13 on the ballet, spending his and many other peoples money and even when it was voted in it was taken to court. The Supreme Court found in 1980 that it was not unconstitutional.

So tell me again why you are wondering why other states have not voted for something similar.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Supply and demand drive the rental and real estate market...

One only need go back to 2012 when every block in my SF Bay Area city of Oakland had at least one foreclosure... Oakland was very hard hit with some homes that I personally know dropping 80%.

Chalk it up to jobs, services or restrictions and/or the cost to build and the upward pressure on prices makes sense.

One of my friends has spent 3 years and over 100k just trying to get a single family building permit for his lot in Oakland's Montclair district...

The 100k does not include construction or the land... simply design and permit fees.

The reasons for Prop 13 are many and I was too young to have voted for it but most thankful for those that did...

Volumes of tax code replaced by a few simple paragraphs that anyone can understand.

Prop 13 benefits all that pay property tax without exception and the US Supreme Court acknowledged this.

Prop 13 is a tax based on acquisition just like the tax paid when buying a flat screen or a car...

Two people can walk into the same car Dealership and buy identical Ford Trucks... one pays 10k less than the other and the one that pays 10k less also pays tax on 10k less and going forward pays less tax each year because the price paid was less.

Prop 13 adds stability and predictability to property taxes... no more double digit tax increases that happened in the 70's when the economy was in the tank, inflation was crazy and energy crisis was in full swing with gas lines... etc.

Prop 13 does not prevent new assessments... Prop 13 only requires voter approval and in the case for a new school... only 55% voter approval needed.

Often overlooked was the corruption in county assessment offices which led to prison and even suicides of Assessors for manipulating assessments for friends and those of influence.

Another point is California has just about every tax known... Income, Sales and Property round up the big three.

Oregon to the north has NO state Sales Tax and several neighboring States have NO State Income Tax.

I own the oldest and smallest home in my neighborhood and have the largest tax bill...

When I bought the property tax went from $1200 to $8800 for my 1957 rancher of 1725 square feet.

I don't begrudge my elderly neighbors one bit... they all built their homes, paid for the roads, drainage, school assessments long ago... all things I enjoy by simply buying.

The real equalizer is I fully intend to be one with the low taxes in 40 to 50 years and willing to put in my time.

Most of my neighbors are 80 and older with one passing at 104 a few years back.

Prop 13 does not prevent seniors from selling and downsizing... other voter approved Props allow seniors to downsize and transfer their assessment...

I think those that understand the why of Prop 13 will come to see how it came into existence.

SF had lots of manufacturing and trades back in the 60's... it was more of a blue collar town... these jobs for the most part are long...

If there was not money to afford high rents/real estate, prices would fall.

Perfectly stared. Not to mention, it was approved by a 2 to 1 margin (so clearly it wasn't just home owners). And considering that after every recession since 1970, housing prices have had new highs, those that purchase today will see the benefit of that in 20 years (just like many of us that purchased 20 years ago). I'm always amazed when people come to an area and expect to pay prices from 20 years ago. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There was a perfect opportunity just some 6 to 7 years ago for people to get incredible buys in the Bay Area. For those that didn't take advantage of it, that's the way it goes. Ultimately, as long as jobs are here, prices are going to be high for real estate. In the first 5 years of this decade, we have matched the population of the last decade. Prop 13 or not, prices are going to be high. I would submit that taking away Prop 13 would guarantee that the only ones living in San Francisco would be the 1 percenters ( F that!). With that said. I have little patience for those heartless people who think people shouldn't be able to have a certain degree of consistency on their tax base and who couldn't care less about people having to sell just because the government can't manage finances and is inundated with waste. It's 2017. If you want to buy a house here, you'll need to pay 2017 prices and the same percentage as a basis that people paid 20 years ago. In turn, those of us that bought 20 years ago won't begrudge those that bought 20 years before us. Sounds fair to me.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Perfectly stared. Not to mention, it was approved by a 2 to 1 margin (so clearly it wasn't just home owners). And considering that after every recession since 1970, housing prices have had new highs, those that purchase today will see the benefit of that in 20 years (just like many of us that purchased 20 years ago). I'm always amazed when people come to an area and expect to pay prices from 20 years ago. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There was a perfect opportunity just some 6 to 7 years ago for people to get incredible buys in the Bay Area. For those that didn't take advantage of it, that's the way it goes. Ultimately, as long as jobs are here, prices are going to be high for real estate. In the first 5 years of this decade, we have matched the population of the last decade. Prop 13 or not, prices are going to be high. I would submit that taking away Prop 13 would guarantee that the only ones living in San Francisco would be the 1 percenters ( F that!). With that said. I have little patience for those heartless people who think people shouldn't be able to have a certain degree of consistency on their tax base and who couldn't care less about people having to sell just because the government can't manage finances and is inundated with waste. It's 2017. If you want to buy a house here, you'll need to pay 2017 prices and the same percentage as a basis that people paid 20 years ago. In turn, those of us that bought 20 years ago won't begrudge those that bought 20 years before us. Sounds fair to me.

Tldr; I got mine.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

IAnother problem is the "exurbs" such as Vallejo, Tracy, Antioch, and Los banos are way too expensive for what they are.

That's true. But the reason for that keeps going back to the same thing--too many hurdles to build new housing means the supply is constrained. Constrained supply = jacked up rents and home prices.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Tldr; I got mine.

Can't say I'm the least bit concerned about someone that can't read a paragraph. That's not exactly the type of person I'd be interested in conversing with.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Huh?

Illegal immigration has LITERALLY.. LITERALLY... Zero to do with why housing in SF is expensive now vs the 1960s.

Zero? I don't think so. Adding new people of any kind is going to put pressure on housing prices if supply doesn't keep up with demand (and it hasn't).

I think people are right to object to our immigration laws being flouted.

Of course, massive immigration, legal and illegal, is one important piece of the agenda of globalization. The global elite want every country to look like every other. It reduces resistance for the world government (dictatorship) they've been building brick by brick.