|
|
|
|
|
|
by bobthepanda
482 days ago
|
|
|
If we wanted to keep old people in homes we could've written a tailored program for old people. As it stands, Prop 13 was sold as that, but also essentially used a sledgehammer on a thumbtack, because it applies to any property regardless of the age of the property owner, and also to commercial and industrial property. Not to mention, old people who want to downsize (say, into a home without stairs to fall down) can't afford to because of the massive jump in property taxes that would entail. |
|
|
Often, anything that is not a starter office or retail, the renter pays the taxes. This is usually called triple net but lots of time it’s true even when not NNN.
So you raise the costs on the renter.
Take a 60yr old retail center owned by the same family and the rents are likely lower than market due to the buildings age (not necessarily true everywhere).
Positives:
lower costs across the board. Some businesses that just don’t seem like they can make enough do just fine.
No forced gentrification. If you raise taxes above rents, well no use having that building even exist. Tearing it down would be cheaper than open and charging rent. Or tear down and rebuild. Often with national tenants. No mom and pop in new construction last few decades.
Apartments rent on old building will go up… unless rent controlled. In which case, maybe no longer be a landlord. Remove those units.
Negatives:
long term owners benefit vs short term flippers.
General feeling of unfairness. I find this stronger in residential than commercial though.
Some commercial should be torn down. Very much an opinion though. Some call stuff blight and others character.
ADA and lots of stuff is grandfathered in so lots of stuff with character is not ADA compliant. There are reasons why stuff built today all looks the same and somewhat soulless.
BTW: new buildings, etc, get imitate hike to todays taxes even if the land does not.