To me, it’s like saying, ok, everyone born before date X pays 2% sales tax, everyone after pays 5%. But that’s ok because you aren’t a victim of changes in expectations.

It sets up an anger that similarly situated people are freeloaders, because the criteria used to distinguish them has nothing to do with ability to pay.

One of the key elements of a fair society is that similarly situated people are treated in the same way.

You can argue that they aren’t similarly situated because of the purchase date, but that feels to me a little like saying that we aren’t similarly situated because we have different names.

While we don't have a prop 13 type of arrangement, Missoula does have property tax relief if you are over 60 and your household income falls below a certain level. Of course you have to live in the house to get this benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
While we don't have a prop 13 type of arrangement, Missoula does have property tax relief if you are over 60 and your household income falls below a certain level. Of course you have to live in the house to get this benefit.

That’s not uncommon. The rationale is that seniors aren’t using the school system, and may be on a fixed income.

I’m not crazy about this rationale. I don’t use libraries but I don’t mind paying for them. Ditto roads I’ll never drive on. The space program is in there somewhere.

OTOH I am in favor of whatever it takes to keep from driving old folks from their homes, and if this is the mechanism they use in MT I’ll support it.

Prop 13 works much the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
The real problem is scarcity. And the answer is to build more.

I don't understand that. Take my old neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Greenpoint. There's a ton of new construction ("luxury" dontcha know) and guess what? It's all unaffordable. So your smaller landlords see that there's a line of people waiting to move into the neighborhood, so the value of their apartments skyrockets forcing people out. It isn't only the value of new construction that skyrockets. Without some protection for existing renters, the scenario is one of doom. I've seen it happen over and over, and to some very close friends.

It seems like there's been a lot of construction in NYC if you live in your old neighborhood or mine, but there hasn't been. We get something like 15k new units a year, but that's on a base of 3.5MM units.

Since 2000, the number of adults in NYC has grown twice as fast as the number of housing units.



As for most new places being 'luxury' - government policy is a big driver of that, too. THere's a large fixed cost of bureaucratic overhead to do any construction in NYC - all those approval processes (buy-offs, really) that need to be done at the sub-local level. You need a high value per unit to make up for that. (edit: Steve Miller nailed this problem a page ago)

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
To me, it’s like saying, ok, everyone born before date X pays 2% sales tax, everyone after pays 5%. But that’s ok because you aren’t a victim of changes in expectations.

It sets up an anger that similarly situated people are freeloaders, because the criteria used to distinguish them has nothing to do with ability to pay.

One of the key elements of a fair society is that similarly situated people are treated in the same way.

You can argue that they aren’t similarly situated because of the purchase date, but that feels to me a little like saying that we aren’t similarly situated because we have different names.

Yep.

Prop 13 is rent control for homeowners. It doesn't change the underlying problem, it just shifts the burden from the politically powerful (current voters) to the politically weak (future voters).

I also think rent control is a short term fix that leads to long term problems. Typical scenario: rent control helps the folks who are currently renting. But as property values increase (and taxes increase) the property owners realize that their houses/apartments/whatever are no longer returning much profit, if any, because they can't increase the rent. So they sell the property. The new owners kick out the current renters, renovate, move in themselves or turn it into a short-term rental, and voila! Luxury digs at higher rents. It has happened over and over again.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
I’m not crazy about this rationale. I don’t use libraries but I don’t mind paying for them. Ditto roads I’ll never drive on. The space program is in there somewhere.

OTOH I am in favor of whatever it takes to keep from driving old folks from their homes, and if this is the mechanism they use in MT I’ll support it.

Prop 13 works much the same way.

Except that Prop 13 isn't targeted to senior citizens. Everyone gets the break. And seniors who change residence, for reasons avoidable or unavoidable, do not.

That's not strictly true.

You can move your Prop 13 exemption from house to hose if you do it within certain guidelines.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Except that Prop 13 isn't targeted to senior citizens. Everyone gets the break.

It's marketed as helping senior citizens though. Like eliminating the estate tax is marketed as saving family farms.