[mylons]

CA’s booms and busts now, for the state and city governments, is almost purely centered around Prop 13. The NIMBYs won. Unless you have owned a home for decades and have insanely low property taxes it’s extremely hard to weather these cycles. NIMBYs gain from the booms, and relax during the busts.

And as a result of Prop 13 the state relies heavily on income taxes, when people leave or lose their jobs there goes the state income.

[kurthr]

I agree there is a cyclical taxation problem, especially since most of those store fronts are rented. High rents are only part of the problem with Prop13... which is that property owners don't care if their land is profitable or even occupied. In some cases that means a little mom&pop store (or a farm) stays open for a lifetime, but in many others it means that a giant mall is shuttered for decades in the middle of relatively vibrant economy in a sub-urban neighborhood. The owners see enough appreciation in value they see no reason to rent or even maintain it. Eventually homeless move in, because "housing costs are too high", and often there is fire damage. The use of prop13 by multi-generational trusts and perpetual tax avoidance by sale of company rather than transfer of title has led to significant blight in an economic boom lasting decades.

The solution to affordablity of property taxes could have been limited to humans (not trusts or corporations) with deferred taxes (lien) until probate. Instead, it will likely be with local municipalities fining ever larger amounts for unoccupied/rented properties based on market value (rather than assessed). Of course the risk that you would need to pay even 0.5%/yr to keep property would drive prices down, which would encourage people to sell or at least rent.

[thorwasdfasdf]

And, while new residents and the next generation are paying insanely high property taxes, the NIMBYs pay a small fraction of the real property taxes. And, big businesses like Stanford and all the countless farms that fill up much of the land across CA, are paying a tiny fraction of the property taxes that any resident would pay.

[eanzenberg]

Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility. Repeal it and watch as existing homeowners are forced out of their homes onto God knows where, for factors out of their control, and in the hands of government officials who decide how much something is worth.

Also, I’m not sure how many funds this would ultimately raise. Houses will flood the market as existing homeowners can’t afford their taxes, putting downward pressure on housing costs and ultimately decrease tax revenue.

[firloop]

> Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility.

This argument doesn’t hold up when you consider that Prop 13 applies to much more than single family homes; commercial property is included and wealthy land developers benefit greatly from the measure.

[mc32]

You could apply it to new sales —grandfather current owners to minimize that effect.

[0xffff2]

Isn't that what prop 13 already is? Nominally property taxes reset to market rate at each sale. (Nominally because there are loopholes you could drive a big rig carrying a Falcon 9 through.)

[ashtonkem]

One of the loopholes has been transfers to children and grandchildren. There are residents in our town who pay 1970s property tax rates just because of who their parents or grandparents are. It’s a perversion of the nominal American dream.

[cobookman]

You just made buying a home that much more expensive. You think California's elected officials will keep property tax to 1% of assessed home value?

It'd be a double whammy, re-assesment to higher home values coupled with a larger % of home value being taxed.

I'd rather say starting today homes are re-assesed every 25 years to market value, or something of the sort.

[ashtonkem]

You don’t know what prop 13 does.

How is children and grand children inheriting their parents property tax rates “fiscal responsibility”?