It’s absurd that SF spends so much time arguing over the allocation of the ~2,000 we units we build a year while owners of the existing ~400K housing units generally see their assets appreciate by $130 *billion* a year. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/san-francisco-home-values-zillow.html …https://twitter.com/emilymbadger/status/1155817124541206528 …
-
Show this thread
-
That extra $130B in appreciation/year doesn’t reflect that that existing housing is becoming more productive or efficient at housing people. It’s just the same thing, but more expensive. Aggregate value of residential real estate in SF is now $1.6 trillionhttps://www.zillow.com/research/california-leads-housing-gains-22600/ …
3 replies 5 retweets 65 likesShow this thread -
Every time existing housing gets more expensive, it means new renters have to pay more per month on leases or new buyers have to pay more per month on mortgages and the city has to spend more per month on rapid re-housing subsidies or land to build affordable housing.
2 replies 5 retweets 75 likesShow this thread -
Against this backdrop of existing residential property owners seeing their assets appreciate by $100-130 billion a year, SF runs one $600 million affordable housing bond every five years to offset the impact for non-owning lower-income households? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/SF-voters-to-decide-600-million-affordable-14084026.php …
1 reply 6 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Anyway... Proooooop. 13 means the tax assessments on existing housing do not keep up with the costs of servicing residents with schools, fire and police so cities resort to a kludgy, ad-hoc process of extracting revenue from new housing and development. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3497#Did_Proposition.A013_Increase_Fees_on_Developers.3F_ …
9 replies 11 retweets 88 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
How would you answer the idea that it's six/half a dozen because, in places like SF, Prop. 13 keeps middle-income (if house-rich) hangers-on in town and thus slows wealth-washing—preserving more diversity of interests at the polls (and elsewhere) than you'd get post-reassessment?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nathanheller
There are many diverse, Blue states that don't have California's property tax system?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @nathanheller
it's a wealth transfer from newer entrants (be they the younger generation or domestic/intl immigrants) to longstanding property owners. The lack of diversity in who can afford to come to the Bay Area today is also a product of the system that protects who got here earlier.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @nathanheller
Because the existing non-reassessed residential lands of Bay Area cities can't financially sustain public services, cities generally try to cover the financial gap by approving uses of land that produce a net tax revenue bump like office.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Hence, San Jose attracting in Google w/ 20K workers because the city is 85% residential, 15% employment lands. Or SF approving the Central SOMA plan with 32K jobs/8K housing units. Or the Santa Clara Related project, or San Mateo Co. allowing 70K jobs/ 3K units in this cycle
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.