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/ …
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I agree and completely get the end ideal; the question is about how you keep the transition period from spinning out of control. Reassess, and you rich-shift the demographics of several districts overnight. (Well, within two tax years.) Then that's the city you're working with.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nathanheller
Multi-decade phaseout? Multi-decade phaseout with proceeds largely going to a statewide deed-restricted affordable housing program? Deferment until point of sale? Low-income & senior deferrals and exclusions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted Liam Dillon
At some point climate change might force the issue. A smaller and smaller land footprint is going to be insurable going forward, putting additional pressure on climate defensible land.https://twitter.com/dillonliam/status/1155871987912171520 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Deferment seems reasonable, and most politically viable, too. Climate—yes. Urbanization pressure is coming from all directions.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.