NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[woolfe9998]

Does Prop 13 fix the mileage too? I thought it only limited the maximum increase in valuation?

Not sure what you mean by "mileage" in this context. Oh wait, I think you might mean "millage" which is just the basic property tax rate?

What Prop 13 did was first, it lowered the tax rate from what was then IIRC about 3% down to 1.1%. But that isn't the most important part.

The most important part is that your property will never be reassessed so long as you own it. It only gets reassessed when there's a change in ownership. Which in turn not only increases property values directly, just because the taxes are lower, but also increases them by discouraging people from selling. If you bought a house here a long time ago, you're locked into a very low tax rate. This is why even those people who move often rent their house instead of selling it. Because it gives a positive cash flow with the high rents combined with negligible property tax.

 

[Moonbeam]

JFC

The problem as I see it is that laws passed to protect the quality of life for people who passed them are now under attack by those the laws were passed that were the target of that protection. It is people who destroy the environment, and especially when they are concentrated.

People flee from bad environments and try to prevent further destruction. Then, when they achieve something worth protecting everybody else wants to move in. That desire to move in to areas that want to protect themselves from high density then become monsters. They had no right to protect the environment they live on in and should welcome living like rats in a sardine can. And, if there is no land to build on, the only wat to go is to tear down and build up. Meanwhile any houses that do enter the market do so at exorbitant cost because of the desirability of that area. This means that no matter how many places get torn down the land value is astronomical. This assures that nothing but high end gets built leaving the homeless on the street.

The result there is that desirable areas will never be accesses except by the wealthy. Homelessness and desirable real estate markets are incompatible. There Isn’t enough resources in the states to build affordable housing where people want to live.

The answer to homelessness requires can’t be had under the current system. It requires a complete change of course.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem as I see it is that laws passed to protect the quality of life for people who passed them are now under attack by those the laws were passed that were the target of that protection. It is people who destroy the environment, and especially when they are concentrated.

People flee from bad environments and try to prevent further destruction. Then, when they achieve something worth protecting everybody else wants to move in. That desire to move in to areas that want to protect themselves from high density then become monsters. They had no right to protect the environment they live on in and should welcome living like rats in a sardine can. And, if there is no land to build on, the only wat to go is to tear down and build up. Meanwhile any houses that do enter the market do so at exorbitant cost because of the desirability of that area. This means that no matter how many places get torn down the land value is astronomical. This assures that nothing but high end gets built leaving the homeless on the street.

The result there is that desirable areas will never be accesses except by the wealthy. Homelessness and desirable real estate markets are incompatible. There Isn’t enough resources in the states to build affordable housing where people want to live.

The answer to homelessness requires can’t be had under the current system. It requires a complete change of course.

Funny how this wasn’t true until about the last 15 years or so. So sad that despite ample affordable housing being available in these same desirable areas for the majority of your life humanity suddenly ran out of resources all across the booming economic areas with a history of insufficient housing construction at the same time.

And remember, all we are asking is for you to leave other people alone and stop banning construction. You can live any way you want. Just come to our side and admit you don’t know what’s best for people and that they should make their own choices instead of trying to force them to live how you want.

 

[MrSquished]

You don't see how having public parks relates to quality housing?

A big development here had to put in massive detention ponds. There was adjacent city property. They worked a deal to the detention pond on the city property and build a very nice park and soccer fields at bottom. Works out for everyone, and the people that live in their apartments now have good green space to use.

Agreed. Around here for a few big developments on larger pieces of land, the developers are being required to use X amount of space as green space. Honestly sometimes they get away with too little of it being green space and sometimes it should be more. I think that is necessary and makes total sense. This is part of good planning. The issue is that NIMBY's want to keep that land that can be developed into well-planned mid to high density, wherever that may be, and just keep it all low density because they believe in the insanity that we can all have a single family home right where they want them to be and fuck society.

 

[Zorba]

Not sure what you mean by "mileage" in this context. Oh wait, I think you might mean "millage" which is just the basic property tax rate?

What Prop 13 did was first, it lowered the tax rate from what was then IIRC about 3% down to 1.1%. But that isn't the most important part.

The most important part is that your property will never be reassessed so long as you own it. It only gets reassessed when there's a change in ownership. Which in turn not only increases property values directly, just because the taxes are lower, but also increases them by discouraging people from selling. If you bought a house here a long time ago, you're locked into a very low tax rate. This is why even those people who move often rent their house instead of selling it. Because it gives a positive cash flow with the high rents combined with negligible property tax.

Yes, I meant Millage apparently Google keyboard doesn't know that word.

In Oklahoma your property value can only increase by 3% a year, but if the millage rate increases you pay the increase. Also if you ever do a significant improvement to the house it is reassessed, which is basically anything you have to pull a permit for. IIRC, Ohio had a similar system.

I don't have a massive problem with capping the rate of valuation increase, but that cap should only apply to primary residences.

Oklahoma also has pretty tight laws on what property taxes can be used for, which forbid use by cities at all or schools for operating expenses.

 

[IronWing]

How does Oklahoma fund its schools?

 

[Zorba]

How does Oklahoma fund its schools?

Sorry, need to clarify. Property taxes do go to the schools. The biggest chunk and the only chunk the schools can control the millage on goes to pay for capital improvements/expenses. Operation funding mostly comes from the state, but there are some fixed millage (fixed by the state) that can go into the general fund.

Rich areas always want to be able to increase the millage for operating expenses, but that never makes it through the state government.

 

[UNCjigga]

Just keep sending all your Biotech jobs to North Carolina. We’ll take all we can get!! Amgen just broke ground today on a new development bringing 350 jobs with an average salary of $120K and that’s after 3 other biotech companies have announced plans to move or expand here.

Apple and Google are shipping jobs here too—I guess with remote workforces they can keep hiring without having to compensate for California housing prices AND get people working east coast hours.

Sure, I’ll get more traffic and a higher cost of living, but it’ll be worth it to have a few more liberals in our state (no, not that Californians would be relocating here—but the Duke/UNC/NCSU grads that typically move to California would now stay put.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny how this wasn’t true until about the last 15 years or so. So sad that despite ample affordable housing being available in these same desirable areas for the majority of your life humanity suddenly ran out of resources all across the booming economic areas with a history of insufficient housing construction at the same time.

And remember, all we are asking is for you to leave other people alone and stop banning construction. You can live any way you want. Just come to our side and admit you don’t know what’s best for people and that they should make their own choices instead of trying to force them to live how you want.

There is nothing funny about it. I explained why this happens. There is a massive demand for something they aren't making any more of and that is land. Where urban sprawl reaches boundaries that limit further expansion, physical barriers like water or time lost in hours of commute. This is what destroys your supply theory. When that limit is reached the only solution a capitalistic competitive system can offer that is unregulated is to go up. We now have a building in San Francisco that is sinking and tipping over into the soft bay fill soil it was built on. The condos cost millions. No relief for the homeless up there. Then there is sea level rise and THE BIG ONE due any day. One of the reasons I don't like density is that I don't fancy digging out of millions of tons of rubble. I watched a tall structure build right next to the bay made of cinder block. The Big One will bring it down with the lose of countless lives. @woolfe9998 seems to want to turn the Hetch Hetchy reservoir that is built on the San Andreas fault itself into some sort of dense housing. What are going to drink. We are facing another drought. Supply can't satisfy demand if the supply isn't there.

You think you are telling me I should keep my wisdom to myself when my wisdom tells me you are on a suicide mission. You seek solutions within a system that is the source of the problems. I try to think outside the box because I want to try to be in the system but not of it. I sought the truth because the madness within me was too painful to survive. I found relief and in the process an understanding of what ails people. There is no force that I could use to make you see. Truth has its own sense of justice. The only force I have is the capacity to post what I believe. The only force at work that I can see is that perhaps when you read my point of view it creates some sort of personal discomfort you want to fix. As I see it, you want to fix the homelessness problem whereas I want to point to the possibility of a change in unconscious assumptions we are inculcated from childhood with that create the prison, the disaster we see everywhere on the planet.

We are not individual separate people. That is the delusion of self. We are the world and the world we create should be the Kingdom of Heaven. That is not a high rise.

Our future is societal collapse because of human greed, the product of a delusional sense of self identity. We are the system and a change the self creates a change in the system and a change in the system changes the self. We have on job and that is to apply consciousness to changing the system not dealing with the symptoms the system creates. Every bandage applied will create some new leak. It's a good thing, in my opinion, when conscious people also are gifted thinkers. Myself, I don't know much but I do know beauty when I see it. I feel best in a world of animals trees and plants and lots of soil to dig in. I grew up wild. I remember laying on the grass of my childhood home staring up at the clouds as they float by vacant of self awareness, just being there without a single care in the world. But a competitive world's first lesson is that you never ever relax. The world we create is based on PTSD. That is want we call common sense.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, I meant Millage apparently Google keyboard doesn't know that word.

In Oklahoma your property value can only increase by 3% a year, but if the millage rate increases you pay the increase. Also if you ever do a significant improvement to the house it is reassessed, which is basically anything you have to pull a permit for. IIRC, Ohio had a similar system.

I don't have a massive problem with capping the rate of valuation increase, but that cap should only apply to primary residences.

Oklahoma also has pretty tight laws on what property taxes can be used for, which forbid use by cities at all or schools for operating expenses.

Just to clarify, here in CA there is no capped yearly increase. There is no increase at all. Not ever, so long as the property stays with the same owner. Renovations will not trigger a reassessment either, unless you have replaced the foundation, in which case then it's considered a new building.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just keep sending all your Biotech jobs to North Carolina. We’ll take all we can get!! Amgen just broke ground today on a new development bringing 350 jobs with an average salary of $120K and that’s after 3 other biotech companies have announced plans to move or expand here.

Apple and Google are shipping jobs here too—I guess with remote workforces they can keep hiring without having to compensate for California housing prices AND get people working east coast hours.

Sure, I’ll get more traffic and a higher cost of living, but it’ll be worth it to have a few more liberals in our state (no, not that Californians would be relocating here—but the Duke/UNC/NCSU grads that typically move to California would now stay put.)

"The median home price in the North Carolina real estate market is the direct result of new indicators created in the wake of the Coronavirus. At the beginning of last year, right before COVID-19 was declared a global disaster, the median home value in North Carolina was somewhere in the neighborhood of $210,000. Since then, however, a lot has happened to change home prices. In particular, the Fed dropped interest rates to entice buyers in the face of COVID-19. At the same time, homeowners pulled their listings off the market for fear of catching the virus, effectively reducing already low inventory levels overnight. Last but certainly not least, government stimuli and decreased spending put more money in the pockets of prospective buyers. All of these indicators, and many more just like them, created a seller's market unlike North Carolina had ever seen before.

In no time at all, the Coronavirus had created more buyers in a market without enough inventory to satiate demand. In the last year alone, the median home value in the North Carolina real estate market increased 15.4%. With more people ready and willing to buy than ever before and not enough homes to keep up with demand, homeowners could increase their asking prices accordingly; if they didn't, the competition was going to do it for them. As a result, the median home value is now $248,950."

Welcome to the machine.

 

[sdifox]

Well in many ways I agree with them. I have no problem with requiring developers to pay for any expansion of infrastructure required to serve their project like new electric/water/gas lines or whatever but communities frequently abuse the development approval process to get them to pay for other infrastructure that's at best tangentially related to their project and that's wrong. NYC does this shit all the time - saying if you want to add another 10 floors to your town in midtown Manhattan you have to say, build a public park. Why?? What the fuck does that have to do with building housing?

It's another reason why I think permitting should be by-right - it gets the corruption of the approval process out of the way where cities make zoning more restrictive than they actually plan on using and then use variances to shake people down.

Green space to occupant ratio is a pretty common requirement on condo developments.

 

[sdifox]

Just to clarify, here in CA there is no capped yearly increase. There is no increase at all. Not ever, so long as the property stays with the same owner. Renovations will not trigger a reassessment either, unless you have replaced the foundation, in which case then it's considered a new building.

That's fucked up.

 

[fskimospy]

There is nothing funny about it. I explained why this happens. There is a massive demand for something they aren't making any more of and that is land. Where urban sprawl reaches boundaries that limit further expansion, physical barriers like water or time lost in hours of commute. This is what destroys your supply theory. When that limit is reached the only solution a capitalistic competitive system can offer that is unregulated is to go up. We now have a building in San Francisco that is sinking and tipping over into the soft bay fill soil it was built on. The condos cost millions. No relief for the homeless up there. Then there is sea level rise and THE BIG ONE due any day. One of the reasons I don't like density is that I don't fancy digging out of millions of tons of rubble. I watched a tall structure build right next to the bay made of cinder block. The Big One will bring it down with the lose of countless lives. @woolfe9998 seems to want to turn the Hetch Hetchy reservoir that is built on the San Andreas fault itself into some sort of dense housing. What are going to drink. We are facing another drought. Supply can't satisfy demand if the supply isn't there.

You think you are telling me I should keep my wisdom to myself when my wisdom tells me you are on a suicide mission. You seek solutions within a system that is the source of the problems. I try to think outside the box because I want to try to be in the system but not of it. I sought the truth because the madness within me was too painful to survive. I found relief and in the process an understanding of what ails people. There is no force that I could use to make you see. Truth has its own sense of justice. The only force I have is the capacity to post what I believe. The only force at work that I can see is that perhaps when you read my point of view it creates some sort of personal discomfort you want to fix. As I see it, you want to fix the homelessness problem whereas I want to point to the possibility of a change in unconscious assumptions we are inculcated from childhood with that create the prison, the disaster we see everywhere on the planet.

We are not individual separate people. That is the delusion of self. We are the world and the world we create should be the Kingdom of Heaven. That is not a high rise.

Our future is societal collapse because of human greed, the product of a delusional sense of self identity. We are the system and a change the self creates a change in the system and a change in the system changes the self. We have on job and that is to apply consciousness to changing the system not dealing with the symptoms the system creates. Every bandage applied will create some new leak. It's a good thing, in my opinion, when conscious people also are gifted thinkers. Myself, I don't know much but I do know beauty when I see it. I feel best in a world of animals trees and plants and lots of soil to dig in. I grew up wild. I remember laying on the grass of my childhood home staring up at the clouds as they float by vacant of self awareness, just being there without a single care in the world. But a competitive world's first lesson is that you never ever relax. The world we create is based on PTSD. That is want we call common sense.

‘New housing is expensive so it doesn’t help homelessness’ is really an emblematic statement of how NIMBYs don’t understand the problem or the solution.

Your argument is essentially that building new cars doesn’t help with car affordability for the poor because new cars are too expensive for them to afford. As mentioned earlier in the thread you would think the chip shortage that cut down the supply of new cars and therefore caused used car prices to skyrocket out of the affordability range of poor people might have a lesson here. Apparently not!

Still, I find it funny you’re trying to convince yourself that we ran out of land and building opportunity in all the desirable places at the same time right around 10 years ago or whatever. What a coincidence!

 

[Zorba]

Just to clarify, here in CA there is no capped yearly increase. There is no increase at all. Not ever, so long as the property stays with the same owner. Renovations will not trigger a reassessment either, unless you have replaced the foundation, in which case then it's considered a new building.

That is ridiculous. I think actual primary living locations should be protected against massive increases in valuation year over year, but should still increase at a reasonable rate.

I also think unlived in property (vacation homes, etc) should be taxed to the moon.

 

[mect]

That is ridiculous. I think actual primary living locations should be protected against massive increases in valuation year over year, but should still increase at a reasonable rate.

I also think unlived in property (vacation homes, etc) should be taxed to the moon.

I don't even agree with the protection against massive increases in valuation. It protects entrenched homeowners at the expense of people that are trying to enter the housing market. If you want to get the locals to really buy in to the concept of affordable housing, make their taxes reflect the actual housing market. Suddenly, I expect you'd find a lot more support for measures to bring real estate values back to reasonable levels, or at the very least adjust the tax rate for everyone.

 

[Moonbeam]

‘New housing is expensive so it doesn’t help homelessness’ is really an emblematic statement of how NIMBYs don’t understand the problem or the solution.

Your argument is essentially that building new cars doesn’t help with car affordability for the poor because new cars are too expensive for them to afford. As mentioned earlier in the thread you would think the chip shortage that cut down the supply of new cars and therefore caused used car prices to skyrocket out of the affordability range of poor people might have a lesson here. Apparently not!

Still, I find it funny you’re trying to convince yourself that we ran out of land and building opportunity in all the desirable places at the same time right around 10 years ago or whatever. What a coincidence!

This is curious. You seem to be making my argument for me. Building new cars like building new houses is not possible when there is a chip or land shortage so that drives all car and housing prices up. The only difference is that the chip shortage can be remedied. Where I am housing prices have been increasing beyond blue collar reach since Reagan, the fuck that threw the mentally ill out on the street.

 

[Zorba]

I don't even agree with the protection against massive increases in valuation. It protects entrenched homeowners at the expense of people that are trying to enter the housing market. If you want to get the locals to really buy in to the concept of affordable housing, make their taxes reflect the actual housing market. Suddenly, I expect you'd find a lot more support for measures to bring real estate values back to reasonable levels, or at the very least adjust the tax rate for everyone.

Well there is some merit to that, but there is also merit to allowing be to be secure in their housing situation. Taxes going up 20% YOY because the feds have kept interest rates at 0% would force many people to sell their homes and likely become renters or worse.

Capping the rate of increase and revaluing the property when improvements are made doesn't seem to create issues in other states. Prop 13 is just far too generous and easy to abuse.

 

[fskimospy]

This is curious. You seem to be making my argument for me. Building new cars like building new houses is not possible when there is a chip or land shortage so that drives all car and housing prices up. The only difference is that the chip shortage can be remedied. Where I am housing prices have been increasing beyond blue collar reach since Reagan, the fuck, and threw the mentally I’ll out on the street.

The land shortage can be remedied - this may be news to you but we have technology that can stack hundreds of dwellings on the same plot of land where only one was previously. When it comes to houses there is NO shortage of inputs at all, the only difference here is that instead of a genuine component shortage we have the government saying you can't build new cars.

I am glad that we appear to have moved past the 'building more of X will not decrease the price of X' however. So now that we all agree that making more homes is a way to make homes cheaper, let's get to it!

 

[fskimospy]

Well there is some merit to that, but there is also merit to allowing be to be secure in their housing situation. Taxes going up 20% YOY because the feds have kept interest rates at 0% would force many people to sell their homes and likely become renters or worse.

Capping the rate of increase and revaluing the property when improvements are made doesn't seem to create issues in other states. Prop 13 is just far too generous and easy to abuse.

To be clear it would mean 'force people to sell their homes at an enormous, tax free profit'.

I think a decent compromise would be to make sure everyone pays the same in property taxes but give people under a certain income the ability to defer the taxes until it is transferred to a new owner (any new owner, family included) or the current owner dies. At that point the taxes are recouped, up to and including the full sale price of the property after all mortgages/liens are satisfied. Then if people want stability in their housing situation, they have it.

What I've found though is NIMBYs reject that too because what they really want is to both gain the financial windfall of property values skyrocketing due to their misguided policies AND to be protected from any of the consequences of that. Pure entitlement.

 

[Zorba]

To be clear it would mean 'force people to sell their homes at an enormous, tax free profit'.

I think a decent compromise would be to make sure everyone pays the same in property taxes but give people under a certain income the ability to defer the taxes until it is transferred to a new owner (any new owner, family included) or the current owner dies. At that point the taxes are recouped, up to and including the full sale price of the property after all mortgages/liens are satisfied. Then if people want stability in their housing situation, they have it.

What I've found though is NIMBYs reject that too because what they really want is to both gain the financial windfall of property values skyrocketing due to their misguided policies AND to be protected from any of the consequences of that. Pure entitlement.

No other assest has a wealth tax. No one is forced to sell shares in a company to pay for the wealth tax.

Unlike other property, having stable homeownership has many external benefits to the community. Forcing people to continually sell their homes to pay property tax, just so they can buy another house that has just as high of taxes is beyond stupid and results in people having to continually move into cheaper and cheaper areas. That policy would effectively push middle class people into the cycle of poverty as their children are up rooted every couple years and moved into increasingly shitty schools while their parents have to have longer commutes.

If you are worried about the capital gains not getting taxed fix that but don't force people to continually downsize to pay a wealth tax on the middle class.

Further, there is a middle ground between Prop 13 and massively inflating property taxes, ignoring that middle ground solution will make it much harder to get rid of Prop 13.

 

[hal2kilo]

Just keep sending all your Biotech jobs to North Carolina. We’ll take all we can get!! Amgen just broke ground today on a new development bringing 350 jobs with an average salary of $120K and that’s after 3 other biotech companies have announced plans to move or expand here.

Apple and Google are shipping jobs here too—I guess with remote workforces they can keep hiring without having to compensate for California housing prices AND get people working east coast hours.

Sure, I’ll get more traffic and a higher cost of living, but it’ll be worth it to have a few more liberals in our state (no, not that Californians would be relocating here—but the Duke/UNC/NCSU grads that typically move to California would now stay put.)

Anything to get NC more purple is OK by me.

 

[Moonbeam]

The land shortage can be remedied - this may be news to you but we have technology that can stack hundreds of dwellings on the same plot of land where only one was previously. When it comes to houses there is NO shortage of inputs at all, the only difference here is that instead of a genuine component shortage we have the government saying you can't build new cars.

I am glad that we appear to have moved past the 'building more of X will not decrease the price of X' however. So now that we all agree that making more homes is a way to make homes cheaper, let's get to it!

The land shortage can be remedied - this may be news to you but we have technology that can stack hundreds of dwellings on the same plot of land where only one was previously. When it comes to houses there is NO shortage of inputs at all, the only difference here is that instead of a genuine component shortage we have the government saying you can't build new cars.

I am glad that we appear to have moved past the 'building more of X will not decrease the price of X' however. So now that we all agree that making more homes is a way to make homes cheaper, let's get to it!

That land shortages can be remedied kind of implies that land shortages are real, but what you have suggested is that I am unaware of that fact that there are technologies that can go up hundreds of dwellings where one once stood leaving me with nothing but your assurance. I am trying to imagine such a structure replacing my house but fail. And what about water and plumbing, cable, power and my neighbors solar cells, or them trying to get home past the line to exit and enter my garage. What about when the ground jumps twenty feet in its journey to LA.

 

[fskimospy]

That land shortages can be remedied kind of implies that land shortages are real, but what you have suggested is that I am unaware of that fact that there are technologies that can go up hundreds of dwellings where one once stood leaving me with nothing but your assurance. I am trying to imagine such a structure replacing my house but fail.

Yes, land shortages are real - that's the entire reason we need denser zoning!

And what about water and plumbing, cable, power and my neighbors solar cells, or them trying to get home past the line to exit and enter my garage. What about when the ground jumps twenty feet in its journey to LA.

Same way we've solved these problems all over the planet for your entire lifetime.

 

[mect]

Well there is some merit to that, but there is also merit to allowing be to be secure in their housing situation. Taxes going up 20% YOY because the feds have kept interest rates at 0% would force many people to sell their homes and likely become renters or worse.

Capping the rate of increase and revaluing the property when improvements are made doesn't seem to create issues in other states. Prop 13 is just far too generous and easy to abuse.

The local governments set the tax rate. They are free to drop the tax rate on the appraised value to whatever the local community wants. They should just have to tax all homes at the same rate of the appraised value. Why should one person pay a lower effective tax rate on their home simply because they've lived there longer? If real estate values are sky rocketing, they already benefited over a new person trying to afford to move into the neighborhood. Why should they get a lower effective tax rate in addition.