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

How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 170 posts

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#71

Post by helen___keller »

g2ah5z wrote: post #51

This is the great irony of government intervention in the economy. When they try to make housing more affordable, it becomes dramatically less affordable. When they try to make college more accessible, it ends up raising the cost of tuition to astronomical levels. When they try to correct a perceived injustice, it ends up creating real injustice by picking winners and losers. When they raise the minimum wage, they pu…

> When they try to make housing more affordable, it becomes dramatically less affordable.

Zoning law (the biggest factor in restricting new housing growth) was never about making housing more affordable, it was supposed to be about quality of life (and many times was actually about racism, see redlining era)

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#73

Post by ranDOMscripts »

This article is remiss in not mentioning how Jarvis et al. also got commercial property included in Prop 13. With many commercial properties held in trusts and corporations, the ownership never "changes" and generations of beneficiaries pay a pittance in taxes on incredibly valuable real estate. San Francisco, in particular, strikes me as a city awash in properties that haven't changed hands in generations because even a crappy old warehouse practically mints income.

Thankfully, Californians have the opportunity to correct this giveaway with a vote for a split-roll in 2020[0].

[0]https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Change-in-Calif...

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#74

Post by helen___keller »

Fainsan wrote: post #56

Why should California be allowed to have the same percentage based property tax to begin with? Assessed values that skyrocketed due to Silicon Valley and Corrupted Mortgages and Appraisals shouldn't mean California gets to give itself a humongous raise at the expense of it's constituents. More so due to the bail out and them artificially keeping interest rates down re-enabling these high values. The economy as a whol…

> The economy as a whole would be better off by managing housing values to not be out of line with median incomes of any given area.

I don't think anyone serious about this topic can disagree the economy would be hugely benefitted if the bay area built a massive amount of housing, particularly around transit corridors.

Despite this, it continues to not happen.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#75

Post by pound »

almost_usual wrote: post #43
FreakyT wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative is that we basically force people out of houses they've bought by gouging them with taxes. I would argue that being able to afford a place in the 1970s does not endow one with an inalienable right to remain there forever. Locking the property taxes creates an artificial incentive to hold onto property forever, thus creating market stagnation.

I honestly think it has less to do with money than the younger HN community realizes. Older people don't like change, especially significant changes like moving. Most of the people who have been here for decades stay because it's their home and they have no where else to go. Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home.

non-primary residences as well as commercial properties are also covered by it. It's about wealth, not about keeping someone in their home.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#76

Post by outerspace »

I think there is a straightforward solution to the housing crisis, and it’s not building more houses and squeezing more and more people into the same limited space. At least for Big Tech, which seems to be the focus of the problem, the solution would be telecommuting. As a software engineer, there is no reason whatsoever for me to go to an office. I can do whatever I do from anywhere in the world as long as I have a decent internet connection. Yet I’m forced to live in an expensive place just because of some old pre-hitech mentality that expects me to be in an office.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#77

Post by akavi »

malvosenior wrote: post #70
nerfhammer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying that taxes on a 2 million dollar windfall is unfair.

It's not a windfall if you live there for 35 years and don't sell. It's just your home.

Make the back taxes due on sale then. Simple.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#78

Post by ericmay »

cactus2093 wrote: post #38
malvosenior wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

> Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? Well why would someone who bought a 2M house today be expected to pay taxes on it? Because the community has a lot of expenses - fire fighters and police will protect their valuable asset, the school system needs to pay its teachers to live somewhere in the vicinity of this expensive neighborhood, the lawmakers (who these home…

A question I have here is are we asking for people to pay taxes on the value of the home because it is at some dollar amount, or are we asking to pay taxes for the cost of services?

If my modest home (really it’s modest) doubled in value, I’m not using “double the services”. Why would my property taxes increase? What if it’s an entire neighborhood? Maybe salaries go up for firefighters and teachers... ok? What if they don’t live in my neighborhood?

Let’s say we want higher property taxes to subsidize/provide services for other areas. Why not just raise their property taxes as well? This would offset the price of the homes and make them cheaper.

I’m getting the feeling part of the issue lies in people realizing the true costs for things. I don’t have the first clue how much it costs to have a fire department, or a school. They always just want more money (which I basically always vote to give them - maybe I shouldn’t ?).

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#79

Post by helen___keller »

outerspace wrote: post #76

I think there is a straightforward solution to the housing crisis, and it’s not building more houses and squeezing more and more people into the same limited space. At least for Big Tech, which seems to be the focus of the problem, the solution would be telecommuting. As a software engineer, there is no reason whatsoever for me to go to an office. I can do whatever I do from anywhere in the world as long as I have a…

> At least for Big Tech, which seems to be the focus of the problem, the solution would be telecommuting.

I like to call this the "thoughts and prayers" solution - we offer thoughts and prayers that big tech will suddenly de-prioritize having butts in their HQ and that demand will greatly drop as a result.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#80

Post by kec »

malvosenior wrote: post #7
rcpt wrote: post #2

> California also has a distinct burden: Proposition 13, a measure approved by voters in 1978 that limits property-tax increases on homes until they’re sold. That’s been a boon for Baby Boomers who’ve lived in their houses for decades and aren’t assessed at anything close to their property’s market value. But it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation. yup

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

"oh no, this asset appreciated too much, woe is me! Now I'll have to sell and become a homeless millionaire"
Post reply on HN