> It’s a policy perfectly designed to entrench the advantages of whoever got here first, and it’s been untouched for nearly fifty years.
I don’t live in California, but my state has a similar policy where property tax increases are capped.
As far as it was explained to me, this isn’t designed as a finders-keepers law, the way it’s framed here. It’s designed to allow people to age in-place. So those who move to an area don’t end up priced out of their own neighborhoods due to excessive property tax increases.
There is an old lady who lives down the street from me, she’s probably in her 80s or 90s. She’s always outside slowly picking up the small branches that fall from her trees. She’s been in the house so long that Zillow doesn’t have a record of it. Had property taxes risen unchecked, she would likely have been forced out of the home she lived in for decades.
People without a house will shake their fists at these policies, but if they didn’t exist, fists would be shaken to fight against the problem these policies looked to solve.
Not to mention, they still benefit new homeowners today. I just bought a home a few years ago. It gives me some peace of mind knowing that my property taxes won’t randomly double sometime in the future. I spent 16 years renting, and moved almost every year when they tried to raise my rent. Maybe it’s the rental market that’s broken, not the model for capping property taxes.
The outcome depends on the perspective of the person being talked about.
For the people looking to buy a home, do they really want to buy a home where property taxes can be raised without a limit? One of the benefits to home ownership is locking in housing expenses. A home becomes a lot less appealing when property taxes go unchecked.
You’re assuming all homeowners are rich. The whole point of capping property taxes increases is to not price normal people out of their homes. Home prices in California went up a lot over the past several decades. It is possible that someone is “rich” when it comes to net worth, because their home appreciated in value a lot, but that doesn’t help cash flow, which is what would be required to pay the property taxes. Because their home went up in value, should they be expected to sell the house, just to pay the taxes, and get pushed back to a rental? That sounds rather dystopian.
I’m all for rent control. If home owners can lock in rates, so should renters. We should encourage long-term stable rentals, instead of forcing people to move constantly. I would think landlords would want long-term stable renters, but my experience doesn’t align with that (except for one place).
The sales tax is high, but it’s not so far off other states that it looks egregious.
Income tax is only mentioned once in the article and it says it’s progressive, which is what the author seems to want. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take issue with there?
I rose an issue with the property taxes, because I think there is another side to the coin that is important.
>Because their home went up in value, should they be expected to sell the house, just to pay the taxes, and get pushed back to a rental?
Not that it's always necessarily ideal, but presumably they could sell the house and buy one in a cheaper community, that's sorta the natural flow of neighborhoods. People buy into a neighborhood and raise their families and then sell to new families after their kids move out and then they move on to smaller retirement sized homes.
You’re ignoring several decades of a person’s life. People don’t tend to downsize until they retire, when the kids might be out of the house by the time they’re 45. My mom has been in her home alone for 25 years, it’s 900sqft… what is she supposed to downsize to? It’s also nice to have a place to stay when I’m in town, and she enjoys that as well, in addition to having the grandkids over.
Also, downsizing in retirement is usually due to a failure to accumulate enough retirement savings during their working years. Leaving property taxes unchecked exacerbates that problem. That’s assuming they bought a big house to begin with.
Most people in my extended family never bought big homes. There is no downsizing, as the home is already very modest, like my mom’s place.
I also bought a modest home. If property taxes were to grow unchecked and I had to downsize… there isn’t anywhere to go, other than moving to the middle of nowhere, a trailer park, or a high crime area. My place is about the size of a single-wide trailer… how am I supposed to downsize without going to a studio apartment?
I’m kind of shocked people are trying to defend the idea of raising taxes at rates that outpace inflation. Why would anyone want this? People buy homes based on the current tax rate, because they can afford it. They can’t control if property values go up, yet you want them to be punished for it? Do you want this to happen to you if/when you buy a home?
A home is supposed to create some stability in a person’s life. Leaving property taxes unchecked erodes that stability, as the city could rug pull them at any moment.
Where I’m at, a lot of people are knocking down homes from the 1940s and building big new homes. I still have a 1940s home. The trend going on here is pushing up property values, and that’s not my fault. I don’t know what it costs to rebuild a home on existing property, but some homes a block away from me were going for $1m, almost 4x what I paid just a few years ago. I don’t know what prices will be like in 20 years, but it gives me some peace of mind knowing property taxes won’t run away on me. I’ve moved 24 times in my life… I need a break.
Exactly—and that’s the normal, healthy function of a housing market.
Prop 13 distorts that by making it financially irrational to ever move, which contributes directly to the lock-in and underutilization the article describes
You have choice, something people in other states don't have. I bought a 3 bedroom like-new home in the Sierra foothills for less than half the state median home price. Backup power, my own well. It's a prepper's (and photographer's) paradise, though I am not a prepper.
People work from home here at jobs elsewhere.
If things are bad, take action. Fight regulatory capture by utilities and (ahem) Giant tech companies. Fight billionaires' campaigns against the average homeowner and renter. Prop 13 was meant to keep taxes down for businesses that never move. Citizens move often, except for a handful. Don't trust tech execs. Many of them are on powerful drugs. The wealthy can never have enough. Any solution is extremely difficult due to the extreme concentration of wealth.
There are large cities with everything you need ... airport, Amtrak, medical facilities and ta-da universities, at half the state median price.
I see new home developments replacing farm land. People love the multicultural and energetic, high tech and old redwood bay and coastal areas. Having lived in the bay some 30 years and in the woods some 10 years, here's a clue. The state and your community is its PEOPLE.
Very often, the price of cheap is a monoculture. The hell with that.
> It’s a policy perfectly designed to entrench the advantages of whoever got here first, and it’s been untouched for nearly fifty years.
I don’t live in California, but my state has a similar policy where property tax increases are capped.
As far as it was explained to me, this isn’t designed as a finders-keepers law, the way it’s framed here. It’s designed to allow people to age in-place. So those who move to an area don’t end up priced out of their own neighborhoods due to excessive property tax increases.
There is an old lady who lives down the street from me, she’s probably in her 80s or 90s. She’s always outside slowly picking up the small branches that fall from her trees. She’s been in the house so long that Zillow doesn’t have a record of it. Had property taxes risen unchecked, she would likely have been forced out of the home she lived in for decades.
People without a house will shake their fists at these policies, but if they didn’t exist, fists would be shaken to fight against the problem these policies looked to solve.
Not to mention, they still benefit new homeowners today. I just bought a home a few years ago. It gives me some peace of mind knowing that my property taxes won’t randomly double sometime in the future. I spent 16 years renting, and moved almost every year when they tried to raise my rent. Maybe it’s the rental market that’s broken, not the model for capping property taxes.
How it is framed and what the outcomes are are two different things entirely.
The outcome depends on the perspective of the person being talked about.
For the people looking to buy a home, do they really want to buy a home where property taxes can be raised without a limit? One of the benefits to home ownership is locking in housing expenses. A home becomes a lot less appealing when property taxes go unchecked.
It is interesting how you raise that yardstick on housing and not on income tax or sales tax.
Frozen property tax assessments benefit homeowners who are already rich, and disproportionately benefit the literal richest.
It is not entirely clear at all whether you’ve read the article
You’re assuming all homeowners are rich. The whole point of capping property taxes increases is to not price normal people out of their homes. Home prices in California went up a lot over the past several decades. It is possible that someone is “rich” when it comes to net worth, because their home appreciated in value a lot, but that doesn’t help cash flow, which is what would be required to pay the property taxes. Because their home went up in value, should they be expected to sell the house, just to pay the taxes, and get pushed back to a rental? That sounds rather dystopian.
I’m all for rent control. If home owners can lock in rates, so should renters. We should encourage long-term stable rentals, instead of forcing people to move constantly. I would think landlords would want long-term stable renters, but my experience doesn’t align with that (except for one place).
The sales tax is high, but it’s not so far off other states that it looks egregious.
Income tax is only mentioned once in the article and it says it’s progressive, which is what the author seems to want. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take issue with there?
I rose an issue with the property taxes, because I think there is another side to the coin that is important.
>Because their home went up in value, should they be expected to sell the house, just to pay the taxes, and get pushed back to a rental?
Not that it's always necessarily ideal, but presumably they could sell the house and buy one in a cheaper community, that's sorta the natural flow of neighborhoods. People buy into a neighborhood and raise their families and then sell to new families after their kids move out and then they move on to smaller retirement sized homes.
You’re ignoring several decades of a person’s life. People don’t tend to downsize until they retire, when the kids might be out of the house by the time they’re 45. My mom has been in her home alone for 25 years, it’s 900sqft… what is she supposed to downsize to? It’s also nice to have a place to stay when I’m in town, and she enjoys that as well, in addition to having the grandkids over.
Also, downsizing in retirement is usually due to a failure to accumulate enough retirement savings during their working years. Leaving property taxes unchecked exacerbates that problem. That’s assuming they bought a big house to begin with.
Most people in my extended family never bought big homes. There is no downsizing, as the home is already very modest, like my mom’s place.
I also bought a modest home. If property taxes were to grow unchecked and I had to downsize… there isn’t anywhere to go, other than moving to the middle of nowhere, a trailer park, or a high crime area. My place is about the size of a single-wide trailer… how am I supposed to downsize without going to a studio apartment?
I’m kind of shocked people are trying to defend the idea of raising taxes at rates that outpace inflation. Why would anyone want this? People buy homes based on the current tax rate, because they can afford it. They can’t control if property values go up, yet you want them to be punished for it? Do you want this to happen to you if/when you buy a home?
A home is supposed to create some stability in a person’s life. Leaving property taxes unchecked erodes that stability, as the city could rug pull them at any moment.
Where I’m at, a lot of people are knocking down homes from the 1940s and building big new homes. I still have a 1940s home. The trend going on here is pushing up property values, and that’s not my fault. I don’t know what it costs to rebuild a home on existing property, but some homes a block away from me were going for $1m, almost 4x what I paid just a few years ago. I don’t know what prices will be like in 20 years, but it gives me some peace of mind knowing property taxes won’t run away on me. I’ve moved 24 times in my life… I need a break.
[dead]
Exactly—and that’s the normal, healthy function of a housing market.
Prop 13 distorts that by making it financially irrational to ever move, which contributes directly to the lock-in and underutilization the article describes
I think we’re talking past each other on this one. The article is about outcomes, not intentions
Here in Washington, we solve that problem with a property tax exemption for senior citizens.
You have choice, something people in other states don't have. I bought a 3 bedroom like-new home in the Sierra foothills for less than half the state median home price. Backup power, my own well. It's a prepper's (and photographer's) paradise, though I am not a prepper.
People work from home here at jobs elsewhere.
If things are bad, take action. Fight regulatory capture by utilities and (ahem) Giant tech companies. Fight billionaires' campaigns against the average homeowner and renter. Prop 13 was meant to keep taxes down for businesses that never move. Citizens move often, except for a handful. Don't trust tech execs. Many of them are on powerful drugs. The wealthy can never have enough. Any solution is extremely difficult due to the extreme concentration of wealth.
There are large cities with everything you need ... airport, Amtrak, medical facilities and ta-da universities, at half the state median price.
I see new home developments replacing farm land. People love the multicultural and energetic, high tech and old redwood bay and coastal areas. Having lived in the bay some 30 years and in the woods some 10 years, here's a clue. The state and your community is its PEOPLE.
Very often, the price of cheap is a monoculture. The hell with that.