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
A major potential downside of repealing prop 13 now would be landlords passing the tax increases onto renters of older apartments and single family homes. Could lead to massive rent hikes and displacement. A statewide annual rent increase cap would need to be implemented first
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SF_Transit_News @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler Have you heard of any talk to mitigate this? If my landlords annual property tax doubles from $12k to $24k, they are going to want to increase my rent by $1000/mo to maintain their profit margin. An example of how once a policy is in place, hard to ever repeal.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SF_Transit_News
The discussion isn’t really about repealing Prop. 13. What’s on the table right for next year is split roll, which pulls it for office buildings, golf courses, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Split roll makes most sense, increases govt tax revenue without potential fallout on rental market. Have heard little discussion of how prop 13 actually keeps rentals cheaper by keeping landlord overhead costs down.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It was a lie, which is how rent control got passed in 1979 and in the immediate ensuing years after P13 passed
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @SF_Transit_News
I do think that whatever circuit breaker is used for the statewide rent control should also apply for whatever replaces Prop 13. In the most recent bill it's CPI + 5% and I think that's fair to smooth out spikes and help avoid gentrifying long time business owners.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @calwatch @kimmaicutler
Agreed, this is what I was suggesting. Theory doesn't always match reality. Just mentioning that many people have lower than market rent because their landlords have owned the property for a long time and have low taxes locked in.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.