Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 461 posts

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#361

Post by harryh »

scarface74 wrote: post #353
harryh wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted..... Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.

How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.

Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#362

Post by pdonis »

kortilla wrote: post #321
arrosenberg wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the common factor enforcing the monopoly is high capital cost as a barrier to entry. That moat allows monopolizing companies to focus their resources on capturing the state to maintain their monopoly status. The remedy would seem to be for more decisive government action - to regulate or nationalize the infrastructure, break up the incumbents as necessary, and create a robust market for services that ut…

Or strip the government of its power to enable monopolies in the first place.

Exactly.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#363

Post by jnordwick »

refurb wrote: post #236
rcpt wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think Michigan does this) might be okay. Low income seniors have https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html so Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.

Jesus Christ. I didn’t know CA already had that law. As you said Prop 13 is absolutely not required. That law basically says if you can’t afford the increases, we’ll bank it. If you can, pay up.

That isn't nearly enough. It only applies to 65+ or with disability who make $35k or less.

This is part of the problem is that people are unwilling to compromise. On one side you have those who view even the risk of a single person being displaced by gentrification and rising housing prices as unacceptable.

On the other side you have those will accept nothing less than displacing everything. I make enough that I don't care, and I don't really want to live in CA long term (from NYC).

But I think a primary residence carve-out that applies to everybody would be a good compromise, but that seems to be a dirty word in CA politics.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#364

Post by scarface74 »

harryh wrote: post #357
scarface74 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people are always willing to tax other people's wealth.

Property taxes aren't wealth taxes, they're consumption taxes. This is obvious when you consider the fact that a person who owns a piece of property outright pays the same property tax as someone who owns a similar piece of property but carries a mortgage.

Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#365

Post by harryh »

scarface74 wrote: post #364
harryh wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes aren't wealth taxes, they're consumption taxes. This is obvious when you consider the fact that a person who owns a piece of property outright pays the same property tax as someone who owns a similar piece of property but carries a mortgage.

Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?

Yes.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#366

Post by scarface74 »

harryh wrote: post #361
scarface74 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.

Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.

Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#367

Post by harryh »

scarface74 wrote: post #366
harryh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.

Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?

No.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#368

Post by BurningFrog »

njarboe wrote: post #352
BurningFrog wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you h…

Yeah, the lock-in effect of both Prop 13 and rent control deserve a lot more awareness!

Reminds me of what I've heard about working in the academic world: Since people often have a job for life, workplace conflict can't be resolved as everywhere else, where someone switches job or gets fired. Instead people make each other's life hell forever.

Just a story I've heard, I have no personal experience. But I've heard it several times.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#369

Post by kelp »

alasdair_ wrote: post #95
exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts. Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.

Look at the track record of the SF Group of the Sierra Club. They consistent try to block dense urban development in the name is environmentalism. I went to their executive committee meetings for months, and even ran a failed campaign to unseat half the committee. They are very much part of the “preserve neighborhood character” and anti-density collation in SF politics.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#370

Post by dragonwriter »

newguy1234 wrote: post #327
dragonwriter wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.

One solution I almost never hear talked about is on the employment side. How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? I've seen some employers offer "remote working" as an option. Quite literally, there is a remote office opened up so the employee doesn't have to either commute into work or they can relocate to a place with affordable housing. I've seen it where a bay area company opened up a…

> How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities?

You mean, what if big cities had higher commercial/industrial rents, higher taxes, higher minimum wages,and more regulation, while less crowded places give massive abatements of their already lower taxes in desperate bids to attract employers?

I think that's been tried.

Post reply on HN