This is a such a good point. And, I take it, a really good argument for a land-value tax.
-
-
-
Love this point. What about neighbor, a low-income 50-year home owner on Natoma Street? Are they expected to take out a second mortgage to pay for their land value tax? Many low-income residents who have been able to remain in the Mission own their home.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is the “homeowners oppose development to protect their property values” narrative actually true? Or is opposition primarily about aesthetics and convenience? Generally, more intense dev raises all adjacent property values. (BMR dev may be an exception.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Parcel tax, business tax,sales tax, income tax...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As soon as you have a couple of kids, you should get working on entitlements for their adult accommodations.... 18 years flies by in both instances... raising children and obtaining project approvals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Both groups get a windfall, but one group is corporate and stands to reap more windfall over time unless you aggregate the homeowners, who are pretty sacrosanct under property law. How do you recapture value from individual homeowners?
-
Politically it almost seems more expedient to offer individual homeowners tax rebates or other incentives not to be NIMBYs.
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.