6 ms·

I completely agree with the sentiment to build more, much more housing. But, in order to make that happen, we also need to: - get rid of or modify zoning laws

I completely agree with the sentiment to build more, much more housing. But, in order to make that happen, we also need to: - get rid of or modify zoning laws (at least in places where growth will happen) - reduce regulations on builders - ensure that there are plenty of builders for health competition (so that consumers don't get ripped off) - provide protections for builders from Sue happy NIMBYs (some kind of legal protection that prevents builders from being sued and penalizes NIMBYs that try to stand in their way). The benefits of building more are so numerous: - every house that gets built reduces costs for everyone else as well, as the stress of under supply lessens - it's easier for people to get to work and find work - easier for companies to higher people - more jobs getting created, not just from people able to get to work but new jobs getting created from all that construction - It'll help the environment immensly! Everyday, I see the 580 - 5 lane highway clogged up with cars crawling by at 10mpg, probably getting very low MPG over a very long distance (this is where most of the CO2 pollution is coming from, at least in the US!) - over the long term even people with houses already will pay lower property taxes (decreasing values reduce prop taxes) - as the number of average miles driven per commute comes down, there will be less and less traffic.

quotemstr 7y ago
Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shift land use to higher-density housing.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one". Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.
  - davidw 7y ago
    I think your point is an important one to consider and mitigate if property tax reform ever comes to the west coast (Oregon has a similar system). However: giving people an incentive to make sure their neighborhood doesn't get too pricey (build more!) is probably not bad, either.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
    There are reasonable ways to protect people from property-tax shocks. Prop 13 is about as dumb a mechanism you could design.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
      >There are reasonable ways to protect people from property-tax shocks. Such as?
      - rcpt 7y ago
        This is the best summary I know https://taxfoundation.org/property-tax-limitation-regimes-primer/ https://taxfoundation.org/property-tax-limitation-regimes-pr...
  - myvoiceismypass 7y ago
    How does one “lose their home” if the value (to resell to others) goes down, but they aren’t moving & still living there?
    - panopticon 7y ago
      > it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey This would imply that the value goes up (location, location, location). That would cause property taxes to increase and may drive people out that can't afford to stay.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      They're saying that if the value goes up you can have to pay increased property taxes that you now can't afford.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Prop 13 also has the perverse incentive that once you are in you should vote for tax increases and high spend policies - you won't have to pay for them. I'm surprised Republicans have not latch onto this as a reason to repeal it - they already like to point out it is easy to spend other people's money as an argument against socialism.
  - prewett 7y ago
    Republicans are also against more taxes, so increasing property taxes isn't very appealing. Plus, the Republican area of northern California (the "State of Jefferson" area) isn't very wealthy, so I think people fear they won't be able to afford paying any more money.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    There are no republicans in california. Like, the CA republican party is completely defunct at this point, and I am a (former) California republican; now a republican in another liberal state.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      I am a registered republican, and I live in 94087
      - tathougies 7y ago
        I'm not saying individual republicans dont exist (I was one), but the party organization is non existent. In many local races theres not even a republican candidate or if there is, they're off their rocker (in marin, one had a whole section on the dangers of radio waves).
      - masonic 7y ago
        So you're the one!
        fortran77 7y ago
- danans 7y ago
  There is an upcoming ballot initiative to repeal the commercial side of prop 13: https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-tax-for-california-schools-in-2020/616860 https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-t...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Yeah, but I feel like any removal or reduction of prop 13 should be used to help reduce California income taxes, which is abnormally high due to prop 13, not spend more money on stuff.
    - danans 7y ago
      This repeal effort is specifically motivated by the desire to increase education funding, not to reduce income taxes. It may also have the Georgist side effect of pushing more expensive commercial property into productive uses vs idling as financial instruments. I'm not saying you have to agree with that cause, but if lowering state income taxes is your goal, then there are plenty of groups in CA advocating for that whose cause you can join. However, I'd guess that due to political realities, most of them also oppose repeal of proposition 13 also, so you might have some challenges building a movement around that.
      - bcrosby95 7y ago
        My goal is for California to have a more stable revenue story so the state doesn't enter crisis mode every 10 years. California revenue is volatile because of the heavy reliance on income taxes, which are volatile due to the stock market. Property taxes are a much more stable source of revenue to rely upon. Backing out prop 13 to fund certain ventures is just going to create even more problems down the road. Revenue will still be volatile. Then in the next downturn education will get screwed again, like what happened in the last recession. And you won't have prop 13 to back out anymore. It will be permanently fucked. Maybe the state will bump income taxes even more to fund things. So more volatile revenue for the state to rely on. More fun times ahead!
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  So the existing homeowners on retirement income/stuck in a job that pays a certain rate who can't afford the raised tax rates get kicked out to the street?
christiansakai 7y ago
Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.
- riantogo 7y ago
  You know why, right?
  - christiansakai 7y ago
    Yeah. I will do the same thing.
  - Fauntleroy 7y ago
    Yeah, we know why. Maybe a basic necessity like housing shouldn't be treated like the damn stock market.
    - riantogo 7y ago
      That is correct. So people who got into the "stock market" are being protective about their investment. Unless there is a path to offer them relief they will always vote against diluting their hard earned money. Most of the people who didn't get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, make it good for me", and then act surprised as to why they don't get the votes. But it seems like you understand the issue.
      - istjohn 7y ago
        And the people who did get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, I got mine." So we have two groups who have countervailing interests. But of course the property owners have more money--and also time, education, social capital, and so on--so they are the ones who usually win this fight.
        Baeocystin 7y ago
samatman 7y ago
Not that this detracts from your points, but transportation is responsible for 29% of CO2 emissions[0]. It's the single largest sector, but not a majority contributor. [0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- thedance 7y ago
  In California, transportation by itself is 41% of GHG emissions and oil production and refining are another 11% so it is a supportable statement that transportation is the majority of this state's CO2 production. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/g...
  - Denvercoder9 7y ago
    The highest figure I could find for oil usage by sector gives ~60% for transport, so even that gives only ~47% of GHG emissions for transport in total. Then start to discount for all non-local transport, and you won't get anywhere close to a majority.
rndmize 7y ago
Ahead of most of this, you probably need to remove or heavily adjust Prop 13. The primary problem, as detailed in the article, is that homeowners have every incentive to be against new construction and no incentives to be for it. If property taxes rose appropriately with property values, homeowners would have an interest in maintaining housing prices rather than doing everything they can to keep them rising. There's also a range of beneficial secondary effects. For example, I've talked to retired folks that have considered leaving the bay due to the increased cost of living. But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd be paying _more_ in property taxes, to the point of the move not being worth the cost. (I believe there's been talk of transferable tax rates to fix this specific problem, or maybe something was even passed, but it just goes to show the distortions P13 has beyond the obvious). Aligning incentives (where possible) is, imo, almost always a better way to do things than creating a new batch of regulations/laws to deal with a problem.
- jdhn 7y ago
  >But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd be paying _more_ in property taxes, California homeowners who are 55 or older get a one time chance to sell their existing primary residence, and transfer its property tax assessment to another house[0]. Only catch is that the valuation of the new property has to be equal or less than the property that you sold, but if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification. [0] https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-to-transfer-property-tax-from-old-home-to-new-3643095.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-to-tran...
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    "if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification" Only if you are leaving the Bay Area. Often, these older houses have a lot of deferred maintenance and the retired seller wants to downsize into something in the Bay Area that is newer build/renovated.
    - 7y ago

quotemstr 7y ago

Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shift land use to higher-density housing.

RangerScience 7y ago
There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one". Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.
- davidw 7y ago
  I think your point is an important one to consider and mitigate if property tax reform ever comes to the west coast (Oregon has a similar system). However: giving people an incentive to make sure their neighborhood doesn't get too pricey (build more!) is probably not bad, either.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
  There are reasonable ways to protect people from property-tax shocks. Prop 13 is about as dumb a mechanism you could design.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    >There are reasonable ways to protect people from property-tax shocks. Such as?
    - rcpt 7y ago
      This is the best summary I know https://taxfoundation.org/property-tax-limitation-regimes-primer/ https://taxfoundation.org/property-tax-limitation-regimes-pr...
- myvoiceismypass 7y ago
  How does one “lose their home” if the value (to resell to others) goes down, but they aren’t moving & still living there?
  - panopticon 7y ago
    > it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey This would imply that the value goes up (location, location, location). That would cause property taxes to increase and may drive people out that can't afford to stay.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    They're saying that if the value goes up you can have to pay increased property taxes that you now can't afford.
bluGill 7y ago
Prop 13 also has the perverse incentive that once you are in you should vote for tax increases and high spend policies - you won't have to pay for them. I'm surprised Republicans have not latch onto this as a reason to repeal it - they already like to point out it is easy to spend other people's money as an argument against socialism.
- prewett 7y ago
  Republicans are also against more taxes, so increasing property taxes isn't very appealing. Plus, the Republican area of northern California (the "State of Jefferson" area) isn't very wealthy, so I think people fear they won't be able to afford paying any more money.
- tathougies 7y ago
  There are no republicans in california. Like, the CA republican party is completely defunct at this point, and I am a (former) California republican; now a republican in another liberal state.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    I am a registered republican, and I live in 94087
    - tathougies 7y ago
      I'm not saying individual republicans dont exist (I was one), but the party organization is non existent. In many local races theres not even a republican candidate or if there is, they're off their rocker (in marin, one had a whole section on the dangers of radio waves).
    - masonic 7y ago
      So you're the one!
      - fortran77 7y ago
danans 7y ago
There is an upcoming ballot initiative to repeal the commercial side of prop 13: https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-tax-for-california-schools-in-2020/616860 https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-t...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Yeah, but I feel like any removal or reduction of prop 13 should be used to help reduce California income taxes, which is abnormally high due to prop 13, not spend more money on stuff.
  - danans 7y ago
    This repeal effort is specifically motivated by the desire to increase education funding, not to reduce income taxes. It may also have the Georgist side effect of pushing more expensive commercial property into productive uses vs idling as financial instruments. I'm not saying you have to agree with that cause, but if lowering state income taxes is your goal, then there are plenty of groups in CA advocating for that whose cause you can join. However, I'd guess that due to political realities, most of them also oppose repeal of proposition 13 also, so you might have some challenges building a movement around that.
    - bcrosby95 7y ago
      My goal is for California to have a more stable revenue story so the state doesn't enter crisis mode every 10 years. California revenue is volatile because of the heavy reliance on income taxes, which are volatile due to the stock market. Property taxes are a much more stable source of revenue to rely upon. Backing out prop 13 to fund certain ventures is just going to create even more problems down the road. Revenue will still be volatile. Then in the next downturn education will get screwed again, like what happened in the last recession. And you won't have prop 13 to back out anymore. It will be permanently fucked. Maybe the state will bump income taxes even more to fund things. So more volatile revenue for the state to rely on. More fun times ahead!
jimmaswell 7y ago
So the existing homeowners on retirement income/stuck in a job that pays a certain rate who can't afford the raised tax rates get kicked out to the street?

christiansakai 7y ago

Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.

riantogo 7y ago
You know why, right?
- christiansakai 7y ago
  Yeah. I will do the same thing.
- Fauntleroy 7y ago
  Yeah, we know why. Maybe a basic necessity like housing shouldn't be treated like the damn stock market.
  - riantogo 7y ago
    That is correct. So people who got into the "stock market" are being protective about their investment. Unless there is a path to offer them relief they will always vote against diluting their hard earned money. Most of the people who didn't get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, make it good for me", and then act surprised as to why they don't get the votes. But it seems like you understand the issue.
    - istjohn 7y ago
      And the people who did get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, I got mine." So we have two groups who have countervailing interests. But of course the property owners have more money--and also time, education, social capital, and so on--so they are the ones who usually win this fight.
      - Baeocystin 7y ago

samatman 7y ago

Not that this detracts from your points, but transportation is responsible for 29% of CO2 emissions[0]. It's the single largest sector, but not a majority contributor. [0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

thedance 7y ago
In California, transportation by itself is 41% of GHG emissions and oil production and refining are another 11% so it is a supportable statement that transportation is the majority of this state's CO2 production. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/g...
- Denvercoder9 7y ago
  The highest figure I could find for oil usage by sector gives ~60% for transport, so even that gives only ~47% of GHG emissions for transport in total. Then start to discount for all non-local transport, and you won't get anywhere close to a majority.

rndmize 7y ago

Ahead of most of this, you probably need to remove or heavily adjust Prop 13. The primary problem, as detailed in the article, is that homeowners have every incentive to be against new construction and no incentives to be for it. If property taxes rose appropriately with property values, homeowners would have an interest in maintaining housing prices rather than doing everything they can to keep them rising. There's also a range of beneficial secondary effects. For example, I've talked to retired folks that have considered leaving the bay due to the increased cost of living. But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd be paying _more_ in property taxes, to the point of the move not being worth the cost. (I believe there's been talk of transferable tax rates to fix this specific problem, or maybe something was even passed, but it just goes to show the distortions P13 has beyond the obvious). Aligning incentives (where possible) is, imo, almost always a better way to do things than creating a new batch of regulations/laws to deal with a problem.

jdhn 7y ago
>But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd be paying _more_ in property taxes, California homeowners who are 55 or older get a one time chance to sell their existing primary residence, and transfer its property tax assessment to another house[0]. Only catch is that the valuation of the new property has to be equal or less than the property that you sold, but if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification. [0] https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-to-transfer-property-tax-from-old-home-to-new-3643095.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-to-tran...
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  "if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification" Only if you are leaving the Bay Area. Often, these older houses have a lot of deferred maintenance and the retired seller wants to downsize into something in the Bay Area that is newer build/renovated.
  - 7y ago