[ggreer]

Nobody is trying to take your grandmother's house away. She can keep her house until somebody offers her enough money for her want to sell it. What you want is for your grandmother to be able to control what everyone around her is allowed to do with their property. If others want to sell their homes for millions so that apartments can be built (bringing in more people and raising their quality of life), why should she be allowed to stop them? The whole point of property rights is to allow this sort of thing.

And free parking? It's city-funded parking. The city owns the roads and maintains them. Long ago, density and car usage was low enough that the city had more than enough parking spots to go around. Now it's different. You have to drive around for a while to find an open spot. You pay in time instead of money. For many of us, that's not a worthwhile trade.

Also, I do wonder what the property taxes are on that $2,000,000 home. If the owner hasn't changed, it could be ridiculously low. In most states, the outcome of property taxes is that they encourage more economically efficient use of land. This is very important because land is a scarce resource in cities. Sadly, prop 13 has made this not the case in California.

My grandfather fought in the Vietnam war. About a decade after he retired, two new families moved into the houses next door to him: a Vietnamese family on his left and a Russian family on his right. This caused him great distress. Should he have been allowed to stop those families from living next to him? I don't think so, and I think building apartments in the neighborhood causes far less distress than that.

[chimi]

> Nobody is trying to take your grandmother's house away.

Wrong, because of:

> the outcome of property taxes is that they encourage more economically efficient use of land

County assessors routinely change the valuations of real property and the taxes you pay are proportionate to that valuation -- not what you paid for it. If she bought the place for $20,000, which is likely in 1962, then she likely cannot even afford the taxes on the property anymore and would be forced to leave.

[ggreer]

Prop 13 means that property taxes on residences in California cannot increase more than 2% per year. It also mandates that reassessment cannot happen unless ownership changes hands or significant construction is done (such as tearing down the house and building something else).

Basically, the longer you own a house in California, the lower your effective property taxes are.

But your main point is correct: A more productive use of the land would be for grandma to sell her home to a developer who would then build apartments. Reassessing property taxes every few years is a great way to encourage such developments. Again, the end result isn't to take someone's home. It's to tax them commensurate with the value of the land (a scare resource in cities). If they don't think the taxes are worth it, they can sell their land (usually for millions of dollars) and move to a place where land isn't as expensive.

[souprock]

I don't think the neighbors want apartments either. That would instantly crater the desirability of the neighborhood. This matters both for the people concerned about finances and for the people who just want to live their lives in peace.

You can't just move a really old person without increasing the risk of death. She would lose her connections to church and family. She would lose the familiarity of her home, both inside and out. This would likely cause depression and might even cause confusion.

If we're going to be coveting land, what about the park? The land value of Golden Gate Park is immense. People wanting a park can go visit one where the land isn't as expensive.

[njarboe]

California has a law called Prop 13 which sets the valuation of a property, for tax purposes, to what you bought it at. It then can increase at a maximum of 2% per year. This started in 1976, so this person might only have to pay tax on a valuation of say $100k for the $2 million house.

[echelon]

> then she likely cannot even afford the taxes on the property anymore and would be forced to leave.

So you're saying she can't afford it. She can't afford to support the city that she now finds herself the beneficiary of? Perhaps because not enough people are paying property taxes? If there was more housing to go around, there would be more people to share that responsibilty.

If she sells she'll be well compensated. She can move somewhere more affordable and have plenty of money left over to give her kids.