How did the right get it so wrong? CA booming instead of dooming!

[fskimospy]

Your likely new mayor is not getting off to a good start.

Eric Adams Chooses McDonald’s Over Housing Density in Prospect Heights

The presumptive mayor is already backing away from campaign promises.

www.curbed.com

Sigh. Well, Adams is a real piece of shit for many reasons.

People here are so dumb about housing. All they ever do is complain about how expensive housing is and then turn around and try to block it at every turn. Even worse, they often see no connection between the two.

 

[brycejones]

And you like to accuse liberals of being elitist... lol.

He's just a troll, the position doesn't matter.

 

[Brainonska511]

Sigh. Well, Adams is a real piece of shit for many reasons.

People here are so dumb about housing. All they ever do is complain about how expensive housing is and then turn around and try to block it at every turn. Even worse, they often see no connection between the two.

Same up here in the Boston metro area. So now we just have lots of old, crappy, and expensive housing.

Edit:
I should add, it's even better in Boston-proper, where it's basically impossible to build anything by right under current zoning laws, so the whole variance system has turned into a giant political grifting operation for the connected and the moneyed.

 

[Vic]

Sigh. Well, Adams is a real piece of shit for many reasons.

People here are so dumb about housing. All they ever do is complain about how expensive housing is and then turn around and try to block it at every turn. Even worse, they often see no connection between the two.

People are, generally speaking, resistant to change. So they want their neighborhoods to stay as they are forever. Which is of course silly. Change is not only inevitable, but desired. If new residents don't move into a neighborhood, it will decline and possibly even collapse. If new housing isn't built, those new residents will drive up home values, possibly leading to homelessness.
With regards to density, a big failure there is how many people, particularly many existing homeowners, don't realize that their property value has the market-based density built in. For example, suppose a detached SFR on a typical 0.25 acre lot in a market that would support 4 townhomes on that exact same lot. And that homeowner will say, "It's crazy, my house is worth over a million dollars! Homes are so unaffordable!" And not see that the obvious reason that their house worth > $1mm is because they could tear it down, subdivide it, build and sell those townhomes, and still net that amount after development and construction costs.
Or maybe they do see that, and that's precisely why they're NIMBYs. They want their cake and eat it too. But God forbid they ever see that they're then the cause of the homelessness in their area.

Edit: just an anecdote, but here in Portland near my daughter's school is an old abandoned house, long vacant and condemned. An eyesore. And good news, they're finally going to re-develop it. But right there on the notice of action sign, someone spraypainted "no thank you!" in big letters. You gotta wonder how or why, in a city plagued by homelessness, that anyone would actually want to stop the redevelopment of an abandoned house into new housing where people can live. It's just mindboggling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Remember, all we are asking of you is two things:

1) pay the same tax rate as anyone else who might move into your house.
2) stop banning other people from building houses on their own property.

Is it really so much to ask that you pay the same rate as new, struggling families? Is it really so much to ask that you allow people to build a house on their own property? If you can just find the humanity to allow these two very modest things you could alleviate mass human suffering. Wouldn’t that make you feel good?

It looks like my neighbors pay 20,000 a year if I am reading Zillo properly. I could not pay that. I am not politically situated to prevent anybody from building houses on their own property. I was hoping to open a gun shop in mine, but apparently zoning laws won't allow it. I need more income to pay higher taxes.

I'm getting a bit hard of hearing too and was hoping to install a ship horn on my roof for an alarm clock.

I'm thinking of moving to the city, however, as I have a plan to end homelessness. Every rental in the city must be occupied by a minimum of ten people. Density is the answer to homelessness. And I am sure all those liberal minds in the cities will welcome this idea.

 

[fskimospy]

It looks like my neighbors pay 20,000 a year if I am reading Zillo properly. I could not pay that.

Imagine how people who lack assets worth many hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions feel. Now do you understand?

I am not politically situated to prevent anybody from building houses on their own property. I was hoping to open a gun shop in mine, but apparently zoning laws won't allow it. I need more income to pay higher taxes.

I'm getting a bit hard of hearing too and was hoping to install a ship horn on my roof for an alarm clock.

Your attempt to claim that because I want to end zoning restrictions on density that I want to remove all regulations is a sign that you realize you have no argument on the merits.

On that at least we agree, haha. Your position is bankrupt both intellectually and morally.

I'm thinking of moving to the city, however, as I have a plan to end homelessness. Every rental in the city must be occupied by a minimum of ten people. Density is the answer to homelessness. And I am sure all those liberal minds in the cities will welcome this idea.

Even when you’re joking you’re unable to get away from poisoned thinking that the right way to solve the housing problem is to force other people to live the way you want them to.

You should consider that this urge to force people to live in housing that you deem acceptable is causing mass human suffering. Acknowledging you’ve made a mistake is the first step.

 

[woolfe9998]

You were expecting someone who works a minimum wage job to be able to afford a 2 bedroom?

Are you high? That's absurdly stupid to even think is reasonable lol.

Why not, you could afford a 2 BR apartment for minimum wage when I was in college. This was late 80's and early 90's, near Sacramento. The minimum wage was $5 an hour then, which sounds bad until you realize that a 2 BR apartment rented for about $200/month. In the bay area, rents were about 2.5x higher.

So what happened since then? Housing prices went up about about 10x while the minimum wage increased by about 3x.

So you're right, being able to afford a 2BR on minimum wage is a joke now, which is exactly what the article said. Wasn't always the case though, and that's a problem.

 

[Vic]

Why not, you could afford a 2 BR apartment for minimum wage when I was in college. This was late 80's and early 90's, near Sacramento. The minimum wage was $5 an hour then, which sounds bad until you realize that a 2 BR apartment rented for about $200/month. In the bay area, rents were about 2.5x higher.

So what happened since then? Housing prices went up about about 10x while the minimum wage increased by about 3x.

So you're right, being able to afford a 2BR on minimum wage is a joke now, which is exactly what the article said. Wasn't always the case though, and that's a problem.

Where in Sacramento was this 2bd apt you could rent for $200/mo in the early 90s? That is just BS. Was it a crackhouse in Del Paso Heights?

 

[Moonbeam]

Imagine how people who lack assets worth many hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions feel. Now do you understand?

Not really. I am just like those millions because the fact I would only sell my house if property tax forces me into bankruptcy means that whatever its market value all it does is costs me money to maintain and from which I get nothing but a place of my own. If it were worth a dollar nothing would be any different for me.

Your attempt to claim that because I want to end zoning restrictions on density that I want to remove all regulations is a sign that you realize you have no argument on the merits.

You are doubtless better at reading signs than I am. I don't see a thing.

On that at least we agree, haha. Your position is bankrupt both intellectually and morally.

I think your moral judgments here lack dept of perspective, intellectually consistent but spiritually weak. Your notions of morality would force me out of my home and you see no crime in that.

Even when you’re joking you’re unable to get away from poisoned thinking that the right way to solve the housing problem is to force other people to live the way you want them to.

All I hope to do is continue to life in my house.

You should consider that this urge to force people to live in housing that you deem acceptable is causing mass human suffering. Acknowledging you’ve made a mistake is the first step.

Right. Years ago watching rents rise I managed to buy a house I could barely afford and which I spent great effort to pay for to escape the human suffering I saw coming and got partial help from a property tax revolt. Not really sure how you would turn a single family house into high density but the only way it will happen on my property is if I am first forced to move by people who revoke my prop 13 relief.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Where in Sacramento was this 2bd apt you could rent for $200/mo in the early 90s? That is just BS. Was it a crackhouse in Del Paso Heights?

With all due respect, you might want to re-read what he said. He did not say IN Sacramento, he said NEAR Sacramento. He also said late 80's early 90's, not just early 90's. So he is talking about an earlier time frame, and a completely different location than what you are trying to call him out for. The cost of living, which includes housing, drops significantly outside the dense populated cities like Sacramento.

 

[Muse]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I wouldn't take any economist or pundit who predicted California's doom seriously until they do some self reflection and admit their career was a miserable failure until this point.

We've got so much money in our General Fund here in CA it isn't funny (I think I heard $60 billion a few weeks ago). Gov. Newsom's wondering WTH to do with it, has some ideas. Tesla fled to Austin. Good luck with that. Sometimes I think Musk has a few loose screws in his head.

 

[Muse]

interesting that you have chose to use pictures instead of giving a link, which shows Texas at 6.7%.

Where you took your info:

Unemployment Rates for States

www.bls.gov

CA is only 1.5% higher than Texas, yet CA has 39.5 Million people vs Texas with 29.5 Million people. (s) Not like population has any effect on controlling unemployment. (/s).

The weather in CA is way way better than that in TX. This accounts for a lot of unemployment. People would rather live here poor than in TX because it isn't miserable.

 

[Muse]

People that have never lived the CA experience just love to bash the CA experience, that is... until they too experience for themselves the CA experience. It takes a republican to screw things up and a democrat to clean it up, so maybe that is why CA tends to get it right? No? When a Californian rather be homeless living on the street compared to moving back to the South or back to the Midwest, well... that says a lot for being a Californian. If one is going to fail and forced into a tent, old CA is the best place to do that. Come-on, everyone wants the CA experience. Living on the street as an Californian is far better than living in Georgia. Or Tennessee. Or iOwa.

This isn't said a much, but I think it's pretty accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. I am just like those millions because the fact I would only sell my house if property tax forces me into bankruptcy means that whatever its market value all it does is costs me money to maintain and from which I get nothing but a place of my own. If it were worth a dollar nothing would be any different for me.

Just like those millions except of course for the many hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars you would have if you sold it.

You should try telling someone living in their car that you guys are the same. I’m sure they will take it well, haha.

You are doubtless better at reading signs than I am. I don't see a thing.

I think your moral judgments here lack dept of perspective, intellectually consistent but spiritually weak. Your notions of morality would force me out of my home and you see no crime in that.

Moral policies do not mean that everyone gets exactly what they want. That’s not morality, that’s entitlement.

All I hope to do is continue to life in my house.

Yes, and in order to do so you’re willing to inflict massive human suffering. I think that’s bad!

Right. Years ago watching rents rise I managed to buy a house I could barely afford and which I spent great effort to pay for to escape the human suffering I saw coming and got partial help from a property tax revolt. Not really sure how you would turn a single family house into high density but the only way it will happen on my property is if I am first forced to move by people who revoke my prop 13 relief.

Right, you want to pay special lower taxes on your enormously valuable property while other struggling people are forced to pay far more. You get to reap all the benefits of the skyrocketing prices your NIMBYism has inflicted on the state while everyone else shoulders the costs. I believe you are of the boomer generation, right? If so, that’s basically the epitome of that generation. Me, me, me.

I think we all understand this is your position, it’s just selfish, entitled, and immoral.

 

[K1052]

Proposition 13 and local zoning control is a generation setting the ladder they climbed up on fire so nobody else can use it. They got theirs so fuck everybody else.

 

[ivwshane]

Proposition 13 and local zoning control is a generation setting the ladder they climbed up on fire so nobody else can use it. They got theirs so fuck everybody else.

Maybe the zoning part is correct but you’ll have to explain how prop 13 is setting the ladder on fire.

The value of my house is immaterial until I sell it. What other objects increase in value that people pay taxes on the current value? None. So why would a house be different? If I buy stocks and they increase 1000% do I pay taxes based on their current worth? No, not unless I sell them.

What prop 13 did was give fanciful stability to anyone buying a house and that’s a good thing.

No ladders have been burned, it’s still there and available to all.

 

[fskimospy]

Proposition 13 and local zoning control is a generation setting the ladder they climbed up on fire so nobody else can use it. They got theirs so fuck everybody else.

To be fair, when boomers were confronted with house prices increasing tenfold they saw a problem - now their taxes were too high!

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe the zoning part is correct but you’ll have to explain how prop 13 is setting the ladder on fire.

1) Prop 13 places the tax burden disproportionately on younger and newer families, those who can least afford it.

2) Prop 13 encourages turtling in houses that are now too large due to tax advantages, decreasing housing stock. (When your kids move out in most parts of the country people may downsize. That is often counterproductive in CA due to prop 13)

3) these flaws only compound over time as you can pass property between generations, creating a generational tax entitlement.

The value of my house is immaterial until I sell it. What other objects increase in value that people pay taxes on the current value? None. So why would a house be different? If I buy stocks and they increase 1000% do I pay taxes based on their current worth? No, not unless I sell them.

This is an argument against property taxes as a concept, not an argument for giving special tax exemptions to people.

What prop 13 did was give fanciful stability to anyone buying a house and that’s a good thing.

No ladders have been burned, it’s still there and available to all.

In the same sense that Lamborghinis are available to all, yes.

 

[ivwshane]

1) Prop 13 places the tax burden disproportionately on younger and newer families, those who can least afford it.

No it doesn’t. Under your proposal their taxes not only would start off the same but then they would dramatically go up as their house increases in value. That’s much worse.

2) Prop 13 encourages turtling in houses that are now too large due to tax advantages, decreasing housing stock. (When your kids move out in most parts of the country people may downsize. That is often counterproductive in CA due to prop 13)

I’ll need actual data on this as one of the provisions of prop 13 offers older people the ability to keep their tax rate when they move into an equal or lessor valued house (formally it was limited in where they could go, that restriction has been removed and they now can move to anywhere in California).

3) these flaws only compound over time as you can pass property between generations, creating a generational tax entitlement.

Again I’ll need data on that as I suspect the amount of people who take advantage of this is probably low.

This is an argument against property taxes as a concept, not an argument for giving special tax exemptions to people.

Not really. I explained why having a property tax that isn’t predictable is a bad idea and I haven’t heard you counter the argument.

In the same sense that Lamborghinis are available to all, yes.

As for your last point; like lamborghinis they are other vehicles that are cheaper available to purchase.
No one is essentially locked out of the housing market because some people pay a lower property tax.

 

[fskimospy]

As for your last point; like lamborghinis they are other vehicles that are cheaper available to purchase.
No one is essentially locked out of the housing market because some people pay a lower property tax.

Housing is more expensive in CA due to prop 13, so just like zoning it has contributed to a situation where large parts of the middle class can no longer afford to buy a house in most of coastal CA. The benefits of prop 13 are available to all so long as you have sufficient means to buy a house, something that prop 13 has done a lot to make more difficult. Additionally, taxes are higher in other ways in CA due to lower property tax paid by select homeowners so it makes everything less affordable, not just housing. It's really just absolute shit policy from every possible perspective. Imagine proposing a bill where older, high net worth individuals got a giant tax break financed by raising taxes on younger, low net worth people. Nobody would ever support that in CA these days but that's exactly what Prop 13 does. It should have been repealed years ago.

Again it's darkly funny that the response of boomers to skyrocketing house prices due to their NIMBY attitudes wasn't to try and get house prices under control, it was to make sure they could cash in while leaving everyone else with the bag.

 

[K1052]

Again I’ll need data on that as I suspect the amount of people who take advantage of this is probably low.

Re: prop 58's impact when overlaid on prop 13

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3706/property-tax-inheritance-exclusion-100917.pdf?pdf=3706






Why is this a problem? Well a couple reasons 1) affordability for people trying to by homes 2) tax revenue forgone that has to be replaced













And finally heirs converting these residences into rentals causes yet more supply problems

 

[Greenman]

I own a home in CA. Lived in it for 30 years. During that time many of my neighbors have sold their homes for a lot of money and that justifies my taxes increasing? That increased value hasn't put a cent into my pocket, it hasn't increased my income, it hasn't improved my quality of life.
When I purchased my home I knew what I was paying for the house and the taxes, and I could just afford it. The idea that the state is entitled to tax based perceived value is insane.

Taxing people out of their homes so they can be sold to wealthy people is absurd. And what happens to folks who's homes have decreased in value? Does the state refund all of the overpaid taxes? Is the state going to guarantee the value of my home?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This isn't said a much, but I think it's pretty accurate.

Lol are you a complete moron or just ignorant as shit?

Record unemployment.
Record homelessness.
Drug problems galore.
Iphone apps for people to mark on maps where hobo turds are on sidewalks
Ever increasing state taxation to "address" the problems I mentioned - yet it only gets worse. Likely because those services depend on it continuing in order for them to get a paycheck.
Housing crisis galore from NIMBY libtards and FYGM tax policies.


It's the absolute opposite spectrum of what any sane and rational person would call a success.

 

[dank69]

I own a home in CA. Lived in it for 30 years. During that time many of my neighbors have sold their homes for a lot of money and that justifies my taxes increasing? That increased value hasn't put a cent into my pocket, it hasn't increased my income, it hasn't improved my quality of life.
When I purchased my home I knew what I was paying for the house and the taxes, and I could just afford it. The idea that the state is entitled to tax based perceived value is insane.

Pretty sure this is the way it works in most other places with property taxes, but keep telling yourself it's insane. If you don't like it, you should be arguing against all property taxes, not arguing for special exemptions for yourself while fucking over everyone else.

Taxing people out of their homes so they can be sold to wealthy people is absurd.

The premise is that combined with zoning changes, taxing people on the current value of their homes will help drive prices down so that normal people can afford the homes...

And what happens to folks who's homes have decreased in value? Does the state refund all of the overpaid taxes? Is the state going to guarantee the value of my home?

Speaking of insanity, wut? You pay based on the current value. If it goes down the next year, you pay less. If it goes up, you pay more. There are no refunds. There are no retroactive increases or decreases. This is a really bad attempt at debate.

 

[fskimospy]

I own a home in CA. Lived in it for 30 years. During that time many of my neighbors have sold their homes for a lot of money and that justifies my taxes increasing? That increased value hasn't put a cent into my pocket, it hasn't increased my income, it hasn't improved my quality of life.
When I purchased my home I knew what I was paying for the house and the taxes, and I could just afford it.

You are welcome to sell your home whenever you want and reap an enormous financial windfall. The idea that this hasn't put a cent in your pocket is a CHOICE as you could cash in on the equity in your home today if you wanted. The idea that tax policy might change is something that anyone who is making a large investment in an illiquid asset assumes as a cost of doing business.

What you're saying is you want huge profits on your property purchase when you choose to sell it and low taxes while you choose to keep it while everyone else gets huge costs to purchase a home and high taxes when they do. As I've offered before there's a good compromise to be had here - end the inheritance exemption and defer taxes until people die or move out. Then take all back property taxes owed at the full rate out of the estate or sale. Oddly enough, the people who say their only goal is to stay in their home never want to do this for reasons that are obvious.

The idea that the state is entitled to tax based perceived value is insane.

This is an argument against property taxes in general, not an argument for special property tax exemptions. If you want to abolish property taxes that's fine, but then you must identify what taxes you will raise to make up for it.

Taxing people out of their homes so they can be sold to wealthy people is absurd. And what happens to folks who's homes have decreased in value? Does the state refund all of the overpaid taxes? Is the state going to guarantee the value of my home?

1) The taxes are based on the value of the home in the year it was taxed, not future value, so of course not.
2) Why would the state guarantee the value of this investment or any other? I have a lot of money invested in stocks, does the state guarantee that?

Finally, this is exactly the sort of absurd entitlement I'm talking about. You are demanding to be protected from the entirely foreseeable consequences of your own preferred policies.

1) Buy a house.
2) Use the government to prevent adequate housing from being built from that point forward.
3) Watch prices skyrocket.
4) Say it's not fair that you are being taxed out of your home due to the price increase YOUR PREFERRED POLICIES CAUSED.

This is like the age old example of where a kid kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.