Live data from Hacker News

The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

citylab.com

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?

This might well be a good thing to do, but it should be noted that income qualifications come with their own entire bag of tricky problems and potential perverse incentives.

What income level do you set it at? Is it a cliff or phased out? If the latter, what does the curve look like? How does it change with inflation? Are these questions set up front or negotiated by politicians at some frequency? How is wage vs. capital-based income handled? These are the kinds of tricky questions that come up (and are usually not answered very well) with any program that attempts to inject some income-based fairness into some government system.

So I think the answer to your "why not?" is that it will be hard to get it right and is likely to become a political football that may end up making things worse in some way. But the argument for doing it may still be stronger (it seems so to me, without knowing much about it), I'm just saying that there is also a fairly strong counterargument to this sort of thing.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#72
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would selectively drive out productive members of community. Adding more rules to an already broken legislation would not work in the long run.

What are "productive members of the community"? People who seek profit, hide their wealth, and flip houses to make more money?

... I think they meant people who work, who make more income than retired people.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#73
post #36
post #12

The principal issue, full stop, in the Bay Area and most of California is housing. There are two solutions to this: 1) Build more. But this is outrageously difficult due to a well-meaning political view of safety / fairness / etc. These restrictions employ an awful lot of bureaucrats for enforcement but add $10s of thousands in fees and delays for builders, that are IRR driven and would rather concentrate their effor…

Forget older Californians, you can get priced out of your house just from property value increases in the last decade! Also keep in mind that there's no great system for appraising houses. As someone who has bought two houses and sold one, the appraisal system comes down to "can I find a few houses in this neighborhood that have roughly equivalent room count and square footage that have sold in the last 6 months." So…

Locking in the property tax rate is a reasonable policy for reasons you explain. But it should not have been extended to non-residential, non-owner-occupied properties, and also it should not have been transferrable.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#74
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this also means that without prop 13 or something like it local homeowners would have every reason to try to keep housing prices at sane levels rather than trying to get them as high as possible, would it not?

Short answer: no.

Why?

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#75
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this also means that without prop 13 or something like it local homeowners would have every reason to try to keep housing prices at sane levels rather than trying to get them as high as possible, would it not?

Short answer: no.

Why's that?

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would selectively drive out productive members of community. Adding more rules to an already broken legislation would not work in the long run.

What are "productive members of the community"? People who seek profit, hide their wealth, and flip houses to make more money?

Oh be serious...is this the new reasoning, homeowners are mustache-twirling villains?

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just SV that has similiar stuff to Prop 13, most places do so. If not, the locals will simply have to pack up and move just because their property value went up which can be quite disruptive. I personally think it's fair. You shouldn't be forced to move out of a city you are rooted in where you have family and friends. Imagine getting old and deciding you wish to downsize to a smaller house because all the k…

> It's not just SV that has similiar stuff to Prop 13, most places do so. I do not know of any place that caps the property taxes of commercial or rental property.

new york used to do it but it's mostly phased out now

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#78
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prob 13 is meant to address the first issue. Repealing prob 13 would cause the existing housing to be redistributed in a new way, but it wouldn't address the underlying need for more housing. All it would do is speed up gentrification.

Barriers to movement causes an inefficient use of housing with respect to commutes and job sites. Someone locked in to a house in Mountain View with a job in SF cannot trade houses with someone locked in to a house in SF with a job in Mountain View - not without a huge increase in property taxes. The redistribution gets rid of a deadweight loss in commuting, easing traffic and transit congestion and allowing more hou…

Sure, but that is just a symptom of the overall problem. We aren't going to get anywhere by just treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause of the problem that there are more people than there are places for them to live.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't force people to move this way, there is no way Prop 13 will change with this stance. It's essentially the same sentiment as "Don't like the laws and don't want to pay more than natives? Leave the Bay Area then, you have the whole rest of the country to move to." Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through.

>You can't force people to move this way There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too? >Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through. This is just a false equivalence. Prop 13 is the extreme here. There's nothing even remotely comparable anywhere else in the country. Asking people to pay their…

>There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too?

So there's 49 other states __you__ can move to and not deal with Prop 13?

That's reality right now and if you're going to be headstrong that's how the community will respond to your reasoning.

Re: The Bay Area’s tech boom in historical and social context

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" b…

How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold, at which point the deferred taxes are paid from the home's appreciation? We could even add a provision capping the maximum tax bill to the actual amount of appreciation since the home was bought. That way nobody is priced out of their home, but the taxes to pay for services that everybo…

I think that would be an essential part of a comprehensive solution but on it's own wouldn't incentivize efficient land use in the interim.
Post reply on HN