NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[fskimospy]

No, they're not. Under your plan, people would have to move every time someone decided to dump a building project next door. You conveniently dismiss the externalities that drove people to adopting zoning in the first place. It didn't occur in a vacuum.

No, they wouldn’t. They would be free to do whatever they wanted, including staying in their current home.

As for where zoning laws came from the primary initial motivations were to keep minorities and the less affluent out, something they continue to do to this day. That’s why I’m on the side of regular people and you’re on the side of the rich.

 

[fskimospy]

If they have no growth in any other expenses, pay no taxes on that money, and have no desire to gain standard of living as their income increases.

$500/month = $6k a year, which is roughly what people get for $10k after taxes and various other deductions.

You’re right this presupposes no other increases in expenses but the raise I’m talking about here for a family is $1k/year. That is an extremely modest raise, one that the vast majority of homeowners should be able to exceed.

Regardless, now we have gone from ‘they will be taxed out of their home’ to ‘but what if they wanted to become even wealthier and they can’t’? I have to say your case is collapsing.

Gotta say, you are way too smart for that simplistic of an analysis.

Funny how yet again people on here always think I’m smart until I disagree with them.

 

[IronWing]

No, they wouldn’t. They would be free to do whatever they wanted, including staying in their current home.

As for where zoning laws came from the primary initial motivations were to keep minorities and the less affluent out, something they continue to do to this day. That’s why I’m on the side of regular people and you’re on the side of the rich.

Again, nonsense. Even in your earthly paradise of Manhattan, the concept of air rights and setbacks were invented to allow people to see the sky once in awhile. You support the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy developers and speculators at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

After all this you still mischaracterize my opinion, presumably because you have no answer. If people like to live in low density under my plan they are free to do so!

Remember, all I’m asking you to do is support people living in whatever kind of house they prefer - your position is they must be forced to live in a way you approve of. I don’t think it’s selfishness so much as a desire to control and dominate others. For their own good of course

That must then be what you would do to stop a teen suicide. The solution you pursue is because you have no answer because you won't admit to the cause. What you call freedom is being forced to move rather that protect what is had. You move instead. All I have to do is wait for some hungry homeless person to steal something and get housed by the state. That will fix the homeless problem. jail surely is better than life on the street. I propose they be housed decently elsewhere by changing the area of land deemed desirable. The competitive failures are failures because people will not change the game they are winning at. That's you and you project that on me. I didn't characterize your position improperly so much as you don't understand what your position really is, a hopeless attempt to make people environmentally sick. Rather than make the effort to create a better world you are only too happy to try to add to the disaster of the current one by putting bandages on it.

Brevity is the sound of one hand clapping. Let me know when you get that. In the mean time I'll stick with the clearest explanation I can manage regardless of how long it is. Nothing I say is said only for you. Note too that I have never commented on how you express yourself to work in a dig.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, nonsense. Even in your earthly paradise of Manhattan, the concept of air rights and setbacks were invented to allow people to see the sky once in awhile. You support the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy developers and speculators at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, Manhattan has zoning and zoning is bad. Thanks for reminding me.

Regardless, the history of zoning is one of racism and classism and that continues to this day. If you’re comfortable being a useful idiot for the rich then knock yourself out.

 

[Zorba]

$500/month = $6k a year, which is roughly what people get for $10k after taxes and various other deductions.

You’re right this presupposes no other increases in expenses but the raise I’m talking about here for a family is $1k/year. That is an extremely modest raise, one that the vast majority of homeowners should be able to exceed.

Regardless, now we have gone from ‘they will be taxed out of their home’ to ‘but what if they wanted to become even wealthier and they can’t’? I have to say your case is collapsing.


Funny how yet again people on here always think I’m smart until I disagree with them.

I still said you were smart. I said youryyour analysis was simplistic.

Most families have increasing expenses besides property tax and most people don't want all of their increases going to just keep even. You know, most want real wage increases.

There are also many professionals who don't get the benefit of increasing wages annually.

 

[JD50]

Does the rest of the country double property value in 10 years? I seriously doubt most people's salaries doubled in that time frame. Most seniors have very little to no real income growth.

35 states and DC has some sort of limit on property tax growth. I'm assuming not having any type of limit in California is what directly lead to the passage of Prop 13, which like most legislation through state wide question has terrible flaws.

Can you expand on the bold?

 

[Zorba]

Can you expand on the bold?

? Not many people's salaries have inflated at the same rate as California real estate...

 

[MrSquished]

Again, nonsense. Even in your earthly paradise of Manhattan, the concept of air rights and setbacks were invented to allow people to see the sky once in awhile. You support the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy developers and speculators at the expense of everyone else.

Actually the American suburban single-family home Paradise was definitely born out of racism. This is a known fact.

Again you provide zero solutions for providing housing solutions where people need to live.

I mean you're hyper focus on Manhattan is just insane. Not everything is going to turn into Manhattan, it's a special place due to its geography being on an island where you can only go up.

It's just not feasible to build skyscrapers everywhere, but it's just not feasible to keep so much land as single family zoning either with just shooting down any type of other development. That's just as insane too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Again, nonsense. Even in your earthly paradise of Manhattan, the concept of air rights and setbacks were invented to allow people to see the sky once in awhile. You support the insatiable greed of the ultra wealthy developers and speculators at the expense of everyone else.

But he does know what other people should be able to afford and would vote to help them spend it but when people take initiative and tell the government no way we are spending it that right to refuse the should be taken away.

 

[JD50]

? Not many people's salaries have inflated at the same rate as California real estate...

Ok but we're talking about people being able to afford the increased property tax on their home. You don't need to double your salary to pay double the property tax.

 

[Zorba]

Ok but we're talking about people being able to afford the increased property tax on their home. You don't need to double your salary to pay double the property tax.

See my replies to eskimospy. Assuming the only increase in expenses is property tax is a pretty poor assumption.

 

[JD50]

See my replies to eskimospy. Assuming the only increase in expenses is property tax is a pretty poor assumption.

Well the discussion is about property taxes, obviously there's other expenses too that are going to happen regardless. No one has suggested otherwise. Yes it sucks that everything get's more expensive, but taxes aren't special. Seems like a bit of an unintentional diversion tbqh.

I'm still confused why you thought people's salaries needed to double. I think it's clear you made an error in your calculations but whatever.

 

[fskimospy]

See my replies to eskimospy. Assuming the only increase in expenses is property tax is a pretty poor assumption.

Right but my point was the actual increase in wages required to cover those increased property taxes is very small, not to mention the owner has the enormous financial windfall of that increased equity.

Contrast this with the consequences of prop 13 turtling on everyone else - now the mortgage payment for your preferred home has doubled AND you're paying those higher property taxes. Oh, and you get no additional equity.

The real crime here is the effects on people who don't own homes, not those who do.

 

[Paratus]

No, they wouldn’t. They would be free to do whatever they wanted, including staying in their current home.

As for where zoning laws came from the primary initial motivations were to keep minorities and the less affluent out, something they continue to do to this day. That’s why I’m on the side of regular people and you’re on the side of the rich.

Yup you can stay in your current home. It just might not be the neighborhood you bought into.

 

[Zorba]

Well the discussion is about property taxes, obviously there's other expenses too that are going to happen regardless. No one has suggested otherwise. Yes it sucks that everything get's more expensive, but taxes aren't special. Seems like a bit of an unintentional diversion tbqh.

I'm still confused why you thought people's salaries needed to double. I think it's clear you made an error in your calculations but whatever.

So property taxes will become a larger and larger percentage of your income. If your income is barely increasing like many Americans it is a pretty big deal when the wealth tax doubles on you.

Sure they could decide to forgo other expenses or move. The or move is my point, people shouldn't be pushed into moving because of extremely high growth of property taxes.

 

[Zorba]

Right but my point was the actual increase in wages required to cover those increased property taxes is very small, not to mention the owner has the enormous financial windfall of that increased equity.

Contrast this with the consequences of prop 13 turtling on everyone else - now the mortgage payment for your preferred home has doubled AND you're paying those higher property taxes. Oh, and you get no additional equity.

The real crime here is the effects on people who don't own homes, not those who do.

I've already said I don't agree with Prop 13 many times in this thread. But there are 34 other states that limit the rate of growth in property taxes, without causing the issues of
Prop 13.

Also how exactly is it a windfall if anywhere you'd move in the community costs just as much and you lose 6-10% of the value by moving? It's only a windfall if you move to a lower cost of living area or state. Which, again, severes roots to community.

Fundamentally, I believe people should be secure in their housing and have predictable costs for keeping it. You obviously don't believe housing stability is all that important and don't have a problem with people constantly having their land rent raised exponentially year after year by the government. While at the same time you think they should have unlimited rights to how they use the land, as long as they can keep up with their lease payments.

 

[fskimospy]

I've already said I don't agree with Prop 13 many times in this thread. But there are 34 other states that limit the rate of growth in property taxes, without causing the issues of
Prop 13.

I've already said I don't agree with Prop 13 many times in this thread. But there are 34 other states that limit the rate of growth in property taxes, without causing the issues of
Prop 13.

I'm sure there are, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea. I'm sorry but I showed you how you're talking about an increase that's around 1% of the median household's annual income - this is simply not some crushing financial burden, and that's in cases of extreme upwards movement in valuation. For most people it's going to be less than that.

So seriously, I don't see the big deal here, certainly not a problem worthy of wasting so much money in tax subsidies by keeping taxes artificially low for select homeowners.

Also how exactly is it a windfall if anywhere you'd move in the community costs just as much and you lose 6-10% of the value by moving? It's only a windfall if you move to a lower cost of living area or state. Which, again, severes roots to community.

Fundamentally, I believe people should be secure in their housing and have predictable costs for keeping it. You obviously don't believe housing stability is all that important and don't have a problem with people constantly having their land rent raised exponentially year after year by the government. While at the same time you think they should have unlimited rights to how they use the land, as long as they can keep up with their lease payments.

You just showed how it's a windfall. Why do you think so many people from New York move to Florida? Sure it's warm but it's also cheaper and people cash out giant paychecks from their houses. I guess since that's not a real windfall they should have to give it back?

As far as housing stability goes 1) I don't think limiting these taxes does much for that and is a waste of money. 2) I find it weird that we would want to create these absolutely massive tax subsidies that often go to very wealthy people in order to ensure someone doesn't move out of their community. How about they just move wherever they want and we don't subsidize it either way?

I feel like the case that 'you will need a 1% annual raise to afford additional property taxes' as some sort of exponential growth hurling people out of their homes is not tenable.

 

[Zorba]

I'm sure there are, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea. I'm sorry but I showed you how you're talking about an increase that's around 1% of the median household's annual income - this is simply not some crushing financial burden, and that's in cases of extreme upwards movement in valuation. For most people it's going to be less than that.

So seriously, I don't see the big deal here, certainly not a problem worthy of wasting so much money in tax subsidies by keeping taxes artificially low for select homeowners.



You just showed how it's a windfall. Why do you think so many people from New York move to Florida? Sure it's warm but it's also cheaper and people cash out giant paychecks from their houses. I guess since that's not a real windfall they should have to give it back?

As far as housing stability goes 1) I don't think limiting these taxes does much for that and is a waste of money. 2) I find it weird that we would want to create these absolutely massive tax subsidies that often go to very wealthy people in order to ensure someone doesn't move out of their community. How about they just move wherever they want and we don't subsidize it either way?

I feel like the case that 'you will need a 1% annual raise to afford additional property taxes' as some sort of exponential growth hurling people out of their homes is not tenable.

You pulled a number out of your ass, you showed nothing. Property tax for the median house in SFO is about 8K if there was no Pro 13. I doubt the median income is 800k.

It's only a windfall if you move away. Like I've said 20+ times in this thread it's about housing stability. Telling people "Sorry you can afford to live in your house any more, but you can move to Odessa, TX and have some profit" is not housing stability.

You have some data showing that most current homeowners are "very wealthy?" Most homeowners I know are squarely in the middle class and if you removed housing worth have very low networths. Sure they have house value, but they have to live somewhere, and if they don't live in a high cost area telling them to move to a low cost place won't help them either.

Again, it's clear you think incumbents should have no extra rights to their house than some future possible owner. I just fundamentally disagree with that. I believe there is value in people being secure in their housing situation. I have also never suggested there should be no increase in taxes, just that there should be a cap on the rate of growth. As @mech has said, that could be done on the total revenue side vs the valuation side as well.

 

[fskimospy]

You pulled a number out of your ass, you showed nothing. Property tax for the median house in SFO is about 8K if there was no Pro 13. I doubt the median income is 800k.

I assume you mean annual tax rate and if so you're making the same math mistake you made earlier. If they doubled over the last 10 years that means they went from ~$4k to $8k today, which is an increase of $4k over that period or approximately $333 a month. This would require about an $8k income increase over a 10 year period to cover it. A quick check says median household income in the bay area is ~$120,000, meaning the median household there would require a 0.65% annual raise to keep pace.

So even using your own numbers this is simply not a problem, definitely not a problem worth subsidizing people over. If you disagree I feel like you need to explain why a 0.65% annual income increase is an insurmountable obstacle.

It's only a windfall if you move away. Like I've said 20+ times in this thread it's about housing stability. Telling people "Sorry you can afford to live in your house any more, but you can move to Odessa, TX and have some profit" is not housing stability.

This idea we need to shovel out massive subsidies to wealthy people so they don't move makes zero sense to me. How about instead we cancel those exact subsidies and put them into rental assistance, an area where stability is an actual problem.

You have some data showing that most current homeowners are "very wealthy?" Most homeowners I know are squarely in the middle class and if you removed housing worth have very low networths. Sure they have house value, but they have to live someone, and if they don't already live in a high cost area telling them to move to a low cost place won't help them either.

If your house price has doubled since you bought it in any coastal metro area you have just made several hundred thousand dollars, tax free.

Again, it's clear you think incumbents should have no extra rights to their house than done future possible owner. I just fundamentally disagree with that. I believe there is value in people being secure in their housing situation. I have also never suggested there should be no increase in taxes, just that there should be a cap on the rate of growth. As @mech has said, that could be done on the total revenue side vs the valuation side as well.

Right, I think this is common sense and basic fairness that if two people own identical properties they should have the same rights and obligations. No special treatment.

 

[Zorba]

I assume you mean annual tax rate and if so you're making the same math mistake you made earlier. If they doubled over the last 10 years that means they went from ~$4k to $8k today, which is an increase of $4k over that period or approximately $333 a month. This would require about an $8k income increase over a 10 year period to cover it. A quick check says median household income in the bay area is ~$120,000, meaning the median household there would require a 0.65% annual raise to keep pace.

So even using your own numbers this is simply not a problem, definitely not a problem worth subsidizing people over. If you disagree I feel like you need to explain why a 0.65% annual income increase is an insurmountable obstacle.



This idea we need to shovel out massive subsidies to wealthy people so they don't move makes zero sense to me. How about instead we cancel those exact subsidies and put them into rental assistance, an area where stability is an actual problem.



If your house price has doubled since you bought it in any coastal metro area you have just made several hundred thousand dollars, tax free.


Right, I think this is common sense and basic fairness that if two people own identical properties they should have the same rights and obligations. No special treatment.

Okay, I concede to your numbers.

Maybe you've won me over. I'll think about it more.

There are several expenses that increase at rates far higher than wages that really hurt middle class people, though, and property taxes are just one of those.

Ultimately the fix is to create more housing, punish under utilized housing, and increase the desirability of other areas.

As I've said all along Prop 13 is crazy. I don't think what Oklahoma and Ohio does creates nearly the issues you see in California, though.

 

[Maxima1]

There are several expenses that increase at rates far higher than wages that really hurt middle class people, though, and property taxes are just one of those.

So how do people who rent get by? Rent increased much faster than household income in a lot of markets.

 

[Moonbeam]

I assume you mean annual tax rate and if so you're making the same math mistake you made earlier. If they doubled over the last 10 years that means they went from ~$4k to $8k today, which is an increase of $4k over that period or approximately $333 a month. This would require about an $8k income increase over a 10 year period to cover it. A quick check says median household income in the bay area is ~$120,000, meaning the median household there would require a 0.65% annual raise to keep pace.

So even using your own numbers this is simply not a problem, definitely not a problem worth subsidizing people over. If you disagree I feel like you need to explain why a 0.65% annual income increase is an insurmountable obstacle.



This idea we need to shovel out massive subsidies to wealthy people so they don't move makes zero sense to me. How about instead we cancel those exact subsidies and put them into rental assistance, an area where stability is an actual problem.



If your house price has doubled since you bought it in any coastal metro area you have just made several hundred thousand dollars, tax free.


Right, I think this is common sense and basic fairness that if two people own identical properties they should have the same rights and obligations. No special treatment.

If there is no special treatment then only the wealthy will ever live in highly desirable neighborhoods. To achieve a broader mix of people and mix of political priorities would not basing property tax on income make more sense. That way to keep the rich from owning everything. You could set the rate so high that the tax bill on the poor could be non existent and the disposable income of the rich reduced to say upper middle class. Voila better equity between all and all could even better live where they chose.

A fact you seem to overlook is that after potentially a near lifetime in one house called home, when people retire their income can drop, potentially precipitously. And all the while all other bills are going up. Seems to me you have Republican capacity to rationalize why this doesn’t matter.

 

[Moonbeam]

If there is no special treatment then only the wealthy will ever live in highly desirable neighborhoods. To achieve a broader mix of people and mix of political priorities would not basing property tax on income make more sense. That way to keep the rich from owning everything. You could set the rate so high that the tax bill on the poor could be non existent and the disposable income of the rich reduced to say upper middle class. Voila better equity between all and all could even better live where they chose.

A fact you seem to overlook is that after potentially a near lifetime in one house called home, when people retire their income can drop, potentially precipitously. And all the while all other bills are going up. Seems to me you have Republican capacity to rationalize why this doesn’t matter.

So how do people who rent get by? Rent increased much faster than household income in a lot of markets.

People who live on the rising value of real estate buy properties to rent knowing that by raising rents and driving off those who can’t pay and filling the vacancies with those who can, they will make a killing.

There are whole industries devoted to raising housing prices. That could be fixed by making renting illegal. It could also be fixed by setting a limit to how often a home buyer can flip a home to one per period of time with possible hardship exceptions.

 

[fskimospy]

If there is no special treatment then only the wealthy will ever live in highly desirable neighborhoods. To achieve a broader mix of people and mix of political priorities would not basing property tax on income make more sense. That way to keep the rich from owning everything. You could set the rate so high that the tax bill on the poor could be non existent and the disposable income of the rich reduced to say upper middle class. Voila better equity between all and all could even better live where they chose.

A fact you seem to overlook is that after potentially a near lifetime in one house called home, when people retire their income can drop, potentially precipitously. And all the while all other bills are going up. Seems to me you have Republican capacity to rationalize why this doesn’t matter.

Step 1: Endorse policies that make housing prices skyrocket.

Step 2: say you need special tax preferences to save you from skyrocketing house prices.