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 don't scream that the policy should be changed. I don't live in it- I see the policy negatively effect friends and family who live there- but I can't fathom any reason why they stay. I can recognized an unfair and troubled policy when I see one. It's the same argument people have FOR rent control- except at least with Prop 13, yes- everyone can still get in at some ground level. Rent Control is horrific unless it applies to 100% of residents in a city... but instead it just creates a bifurcated market and constricts housing.
1.3 Mil to 2 mil? What are you talking about? Boomer homes in the bay appreciated at 10X over their lifetime- That would mean today's 1.3 mil home would be 13 million in 2050 or so. Sure, it's a possibility- but an unlikely reality.
Fixing taxes can only come with fixed spending. Something California hasn't been capable of.
Older folks who bought in cheaper times with fixed cheaper taxes- like one of the posters rhetorically stated on here, lived off a Gov't salary. Why not fix that too? You know what you make and what you spend?
Rent Control and Tax freezes are political hotbeds because of the ugly truth.
Places fluxuate and change in price- and it's natural for people to get priced out and be forced to move from their homes.
I disagree that we should bend over or fix systems in place for people who are currently situated.
Everyone pays their fair share- and if they can no longer afford it, Sell-Downsize and pay your fair share in a new location.
Yawn. So much dancing (you're all over the freaking map). Do you know how to stay on topic or at least give a proper rebuttal to what was said to you? Obviously not. I get bored with hyperbole. Care to put some numbers to your outrageous claims?
Last edited by Independentthinking; 01-21-2018 at 01:41 PM..
Why would people want to repeal? Let's see, I know a family who lucked out a few years ago. They bought a 4 bed home here for 400k during the recession. Their home is worth the same or more than my home, which was purchased more recently. They pay less than half the amount of property taxes I do. Not only is their mortgage smaller because of one time recession, but despite their property being worth more now, they pay far less. Newer generation got screwed. It's far harder for us to afford our home- higher mortgage and higher property taxes. And that's what the future buyers in the Bay Area have to look forward to! As many of us have already stated, prop 13 is restricting supply, thus driving the prices even higher. Higher mortgages, higher taxes, vicious cycle.
Why would people want to repeal? Let's see, I know a family who lucked out a few years ago. They bought a 4 bed home here for 400k during the recession. Their home is worth the same or more than my home, which was purchased more recently. They pay less than half the amount of property taxes I do. Not only is their mortgage smaller because of one time recession, but despite their property being worth more now, they pay far less. Newer generation got screwed. It's far harder for us to afford our home- higher mortgage and higher property taxes. And that's what the future buyers in the Bay Area have to look forward to! As many of us have already stated, prop 13 is restricting supply, thus driving the prices even higher. Higher mortgages, higher taxes, vicious cycle.
Absolutely not. But I do get tired of posters with their ADD. First we're talking about Prop 13, then it's rent control. Seriously, they need to make up their mind what they want to talk about. These other 2 clowns were talking about how unfair Prop 13 was (they just can't seem to stay on point).
If their viewpoints were widely endorsed, I imagine they could get some kind of momentum going on getting it repealed. I'm not sure if it would be as simple as getting the signatures etc (maybe not...I think Ultrarunner would be better versed on talking about that). But the bottom line is, they don't have a convincing argument (it's not like the entire population of CA are homeowners...there are a lot of renters also).
And as far as the Baby Boomer hyperbole, that horsecrap also. My wife and I are baby boomers. We bought in 1994 for $280k. Our house would sell for roughly 3x right now. If you looked at an impounded mortgage payment, we would have been able to afford a home for about $480k at the time if we looked at apples and apples to where we are at now. That would mean the home slightly less than doubled in value. You'd have to cherry pick only the older Baby Boomers to make what the poster said accurate (apparently he doesn't realize that the Baby Boomer generation goes from 1946-1964). And it's not like you bought when you were a baby. Most people I know bought in their early 30s (like we did). So in all likelihood you'd be looking at home prices from about 1980-1998. Gee, what were interest rates like back then? My wife and I were at 9% (we would have loved to have gotten a 3.5% rate like people could get today). Some people's interest rates got as high as 16%. If you run the numbers on an impounded mortgage calculator, I don't think you'll have much of an argument. Not much difference at all. The last time I looked at a chart adjusted for inflation, you were looking at a home price jump of about 4 1/2x value from the mid to late 1980s (does the chart below tell you that homes went up 10x like the other poster erroneously pointed out?...Do you think I'm lying in looking at that chart that our home only went up by 3x over 20+ years?). Unfortunately, this was all written at the start of this thread and like I said, you simply have a bunch of posters that ignore everything you say and then go off on their little dissertations filled with hyperbole and conjecture that has nothing to do with what you said (nor will they talk about it because they can't refute it), so why bother?
Last edited by Independentthinking; 01-21-2018 at 06:37 PM..
I think more of an analysis would need to be done, to be honest. Okay interest rates were higher, but what was the purchase price? What was the typical salary back then? Did you have the outrageous student debt that many graduates have these days? Were you able to refinance when the rates dropped?
I think as a whole it's definitely harder to have the typical "American lifestyle" these days.
Absolutely not. But I do get tired of posters with their ADD. First we're talking about Prop 13, then it's rent control. Seriously, they need to make up their mind what they want to talk about. These other 2 clowns were talking about how unfair Prop 13 was (they just can't seem to stay on point).
If their viewpoints were widely endorsed, I imagine they could get some kind of momentum going on getting it repealed. I'm not sure if it would be as simple as getting the signatures etc (maybe not...I think Ultrarunner would be better versed on talking about that). But the bottom line is, they don't have a convincing argument (it's not like the entire population of CA are homeowners...there are a lot of renters also).
And as far as the Baby Boomer hyperbole, that horsecrap also. My wife and I are baby boomers. We bought in 1994 for $280k. Our house would sell for roughly 3x right now. If you looked at an impounded mortgage payment, we would have been able to afford a home for about $480k at the time if we looked at apples and apples to where we are at now. That would mean the home slightly less than doubled in value. You'd have to cherry pick only the older Baby Boomers to make what the poster said accurate (apparently he doesn't realize that the Baby Boomer generation goes from 1946-1964). And it's not like you bought when you were a baby. Most people I know bought in their early 30s (like we did). So in all likelihood you'd be looking at home prices from about 1980-1998. Gee, what were interest rates like back then? My wife and I were at 9% (we would have loved to have gotten a 3.5% rate like people could get today). Some people's interest rates got as high as 16%. If you run the numbers on an impounded mortgage calculator, I don't think you'll have much of an argument. Not much difference at all. The last time I looked at a chart adjusted for inflation, you were looking at a home price jump of about 4 1/2x value from the mid to late 1980s (does the chart below tell you that homes went up 10x like the other poster erroneously pointed out?...Do you think I'm lying in looking at that chart that our home only went up by 3x over 20+ years?). Unfortunately, this was all written at the start of this thread and like I said, you simply have a bunch of posters that ignore everything you say and then go off on their little dissertations filled with hyperbole and conjecture that has nothing to do with what you said (nor will they talk about it because they can't refute it), so why bother?
Interest rates haven't been very high since the early 80s. You're also missing the point -- Prop 13 creates an affordability problem independent of interest rates.
The fact that CA property values have still gone up or down doesn't refute that Prop 13 has an inflationary impact on housing prices. Over the past 40 years, CA property values have consistently grown at a much faster rate than the rest of the country. Here are some numbers: it went from 1.8X to 2.5X from 1980 to 2015. California (it's probably closer to 3X today in 2018).
Notice how states with Prop 13 -- e.g., Texas -- have had lower home prices and more success in attracting and growing the middle class than California, which has seen an exodus of middle class residents in recent years? Obviously there are other causes of this trend, but Prop 13 is one of them
I think more of an analysis would need to be done, to be honest. Okay interest rates were higher, but what was the purchase price? What was the typical salary back then?
Did you have the outrageous student debt that many graduates have these days? Were you able to refinance when the rates dropped?
I think as a whole it's definitely harder to have the typical "American lifestyle" these days.
I went through all of these things earlier, but again, I'm giving you apples to apples. Nothing I've commented on is hyperbole and can be easily proven with math. People still had to do the same thing back then, that you have to do now. You stayed at home for a bit to save up for a downpayment after graduating if you weren't lucky enough to have a parent to help you with a downpayment. You were basically debt free when you bought (we both paid our own tuition and went to SF State, and I think that would be possible even now). If someone has to go to a school with outrageous tuition costs and didn't have a scholarship, that's their gamble (if they don't make more when they get out then what we did, then perhaps they shouldn't have done it). If you weren't able to stay at home, you'd have to find other creative ways to buy (no different than now). I've known couples now that have bought a home with another couple and then sold when they had established enough equity to buy their own homes. There certainly are ways to do it, but it takes quite a bit of sacrifice.
How much money do you think people make now compared to when we were out of school? I recall our income being about 1/3 of what we make now back in 1994, and we probably have done better than most. How many six figure incomes are there in San Francisco right now? My wife and I made $140k last year. I suspect many of these families make at least 5x what we made in 1994. The mortgages aren't that much higher after tax.
And as Ultrarunner so aptly pointed out, not more than 7 years ago, you could have purchased a home at one of the best discounts this area has seen in years (and if you look at the chart I posted, there were certainly other entry points).
You seem like a reasonable person. Run the numbers with those type of interest rates and see for yourself.
Last edited by Independentthinking; 01-21-2018 at 07:19 PM..
If their viewpoints were widely endorsed, I imagine they could get some kind of momentum going on getting it repealed. I'm not sure if it would be as simple as getting the signatures etc (maybe not...I think Ultrarunner would be better versed on talking about that). But the bottom line is, they don't have a convincing argument (it's not like the entire population of CA are homeowners...there are a lot of renters also).
Prop 13 is hard to repeal because there are too many rich homeowners and businesses who would oppose its repeal. For them, Prop 13 is basically free money and a giant tax break. And you think all CA residents have an equal voice in the process? Those with money, clout, and more to lose (i.e., supporters of Prop 13) will be louder and more influential than those (i.e., renters, those who want to move into the state but can't) who do not. Plus, Prop 13's negative impacts aren't exactly obvious to everyday citizens.
Your suggestion that Prop 13 is good just because there hasn't been enough opposition to it is insane. There are many bad policies that haven't been rejected because of inertia or special interests. That's not the measure of whether a policy is good or bad.
Why would people want to repeal? Let's see, I know a family who lucked out a few years ago. They bought a 4 bed home here for 400k during the recession. Their home is worth the same or more than my home, which was purchased more recently. They pay less than half the amount of property taxes I do. Not only is their mortgage smaller because of one time recession, but despite their property being worth more now, they pay far less. Newer generation got screwed. It's far harder for us to afford our home- higher mortgage and higher property taxes. And that's what the future buyers in the Bay Area have to look forward to! As many of us have already stated, prop 13 is restricting supply, thus driving the prices even higher. Higher mortgages, higher taxes, vicious cycle.
I bought mid during the run up and pay a lot more for less house than my new new neighbors that bought in 2012...
How is this possible since I have owned half the house, it is 50 years older and I have owned TWICE the length of time they have.
Reading what has been written my taxes should be way less since I have owned much longer...
Interest rates haven't been very high since the early 80s. You're also missing the point -- Prop 13 creates an affordability problem independent of interest rates.
The fact that CA property values have still gone up or down doesn't refute that Prop 13 has an inflationary impact on housing prices. Over the past 40 years, CA property values have consistently grown at a much faster rate than the rest of the country. Here are some numbers: it went from 1.8X to 2.5X from 1980 to 2015. California (it's probably closer to 3X today in 2018).
Notice how states with Prop 13 -- e.g., Texas -- have had lower home prices and more success in attracting and growing the middle class than California, which has seen an exodus of middle class residents in recent years? Obviously there are other causes of this trend, but Prop 13 is one of them
Could it be because California is a job leader and home to many innovations... especially the SF Bay Area?
I get it... people can not afford what they want... it was the same throughout history.
Prop 13 makes for a convenient scapegoat as Sacramento, Unions, Public Sector, etc... all have a vested interest in soaking property owners because it is not like you can pick up you home and take it with you...
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.
