SB 51: the California politics thread

there would definitely need to be a phase in for residential (and probably a lot of commercial property too)

Here's the other side of the argument:

the thing is, it isn't that real property isn't being taxed based on its value -- it's that people have locked in rates based on how long they have held the property. It's basically rent control for property owners. Should the state abolish rent control for tenants?

And, another thing is, real property values are also volatile in CA (some areas less so than others). So, the technical issue would be, to be equitable, property values would need to be regularly reassessed, and how would this be done? Taxing income and investments held in cash (or cash equivalents) is fairly simple to quantify -- you already have a dollar value. But buildings and land?

Then, you have the issue of double taxation (this also comes up if you are proposing to tax accrued income) -- if someone has made improvements to their real property, in many areas, they are paying permit fees to local agencies based on the estimated value of those improvements -- so now, they are gonna be taxed by the state on the improvements they were already taxed by their city/county on, and they paid to make them! "No wonder everything here is so fucking expensive! Why would anyone in their right mind want to build anything here?!"

No, but thanks to Costa-Hawkins we currently have very little rent control at the state level anyway. And the topic of rent control is a total non-sequitur.

not really a non-sequitur -- if a tenant in a rental property has rent control, and the property is reassessed at a much higher tax rate, could the owner pass that on to the tenants?

There's a lot more rent control in northern CA cities btw

if a tenant in a rental property has rent control, and the property is reassessed at a much higher tax rate, could the owner pass that on to the tenants?

so... apply rent control so that doesn't happen? i don't get what you're saying here. are you saying that eliminating prop 13 would be hard or that it would be unfair? or something else?

I am basically reiterating arguments that I hear from other people.

Here's one example:
A rental property that is subject to rent control provisions and is the primary income stream for "fixed income grandma." Grandma has owned this property for 40 years. The property taxes are low because of Prop 13. Grandma's tenants have been there a long time, too, and are also low income. If Prop 13 is eliminated and her rental property is reassessed at a much higher rate, what should she do?

1. eat dog food because she now has to pay a lot more in property taxes
2. pass the property tax onto the tenants (which is legal in many jurisdictions) so the tenants end up homeless and/or eating dog food

eliminating proposition 13 does not equate to increasing property taxes. it means you introduce reassessment on some reasonable frequency (year, decade, whatever) and you remove the hard upper limit of 1% or whatever it is. you could (and we should!) repeal prop 13 and at the same time reduce the rate such that the state revenue is unchanged (something like a state 0.1% rate would do this, given how much values have gone up since prop 13 passed). if you do this then, by definition, the average property owner's bill would not change (and about half of bills would go down!)

the goal of repealing prop 13 is not to increase total revenue. it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax. you can quibble about the proportions here, but even the principle of *attempting* to do this is *illegal* right now because of prop 13.

the people whose bills would go up to unnafordable levels if you eliminate prop 13 while reducing the state property tax to keep income constant are *incredibly wealthy*! if "grandma" owns a $2m bay area home that she is renting (i.e. she is a millionaire running a dang business!), and the property tax is high, she can sell up and get out of the business! the state does not owe millionaires a tax code that makes running a profitable business easy. now she has $2m in her savings account. she can live of the interest for the rest of her life. a 25 year old can live of the interest from that for the rest of their life, for that matter!

obviously if grandma *lives* in the house, that's a different issue (solved very easily by, for example, grandfathering (ha!) all property tax to be limited by prop 13 for current residents in their current home, or any one of dozens of other ways, e.g. incremental increase, age limits, etc., etc.)

it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax.

flat in what sense? CA state income tax is not a flat tax, it is a progressive tax.

obviously if grandma *lives* in the house, that's a different issue (solved very easily by, for example, grandfathering (ha!) all property tax to be limited by prop 13 for current residents in their current home, or any one of dozens of other ways, e.g. incremental increase, age limits, etc., etc.)

Yeah, that is along the lines of what I would argue against the Pro-Prop 13-ers I encounter. Even something as simple as a larger homeowner exemption for the property. Instead of $7000, you can say $100,000 and potentially increase that based on years owned/lived in -- like an extra $100k for each 10 years.

So that -- let's say grandma has had her house for 40 years. Let's say she bought it for $50k and it is now worth $750k. And let's say that the taxable assessed value is $67k.

So: currently -- her tax is based on $67,000 - $7,000 = $60,000

With my proposal of $100k base exemption with an extra $10k exemption for each year owned, she would have: $750,000 - $400,000 = $350,000 -- which would be an increase, but her taxes would be way lower than Jerry Gentrifier who paid $750,000 for a similar house across the street last year.

Jerry Gentrifier, if he and his family lived in their house, would be taxed on $750,000 - $100,000 = $650,000, whereas Greedy Speculators Investment Trust who also bought a house in the neighborhood last year for $750,000 and operates it as a rental (or is holding it vacant) would pay tax on the entire $750k

/it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax./

flat in what sense? CA state income tax is not a flat tax, it is a progressive tax.

A wealth tax is de facto progressive in that the tax bill of people who earn more tends to be a larger proportion of their income (possibly more than 100% for the idle rich).

why does being younger than your grandmother make jerry a gentrifier?

"I've not sourced [Nunes] for advice on pretty much any issue — I say that as respectfully as I can — but particularly on public health issues," Newsom said. "He's made some statements in the past that were not consistent with the advice from the experts. We’ll continue to listen to the experts, try to avoid some elected officials that frankly may not have the benefit of the insight many of us do here."

Newsom added that at the Emergency Operations Center, he and the state's health officials are constantly getting new information from around the world and anticipating trend lines.

"Not everyone has that benefit," Newsome continued, "so I’ll forgive him."

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/newsom-the-view-nunes-coronavirus-schools-15177436.php

Still not a wholehearted fan of Newsom but this is a pretty great takedown of an ignorant clod.

did they really misspell his name like that in the article?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans

this is one of the simpler financial jobs in CA local government, and this guy is tapping out before it gets real. this is going to be a bad year ...

This is a very tough news. One of the very best people in California local government says it's too tough under these circumstances. https://t.co/yvliw2qkaZ

— Joe Mathews (@joemmathews) April 19, 2020

This is fine

Oh my god. This is horrifying. The US HUD affordable housing income limits for San Francisco County shot up $10,000 in ONE YEAR. According to the federal government, a low-income family of four in San Francisco is now any such family making $140,000 per year. pic.twitter.com/7Pt9OQVwdb

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) April 23, 2020

wait, so it was $130K before? equally as horrifying.

yup. fucked up.

it means that they can charge higher rents on "affordable housing" and price out even lower income people

-- Athletics
-- Badminton (singles)
-- Throwing a baseball or softball
-- BMX biking
-- Canoeing (singles)
-- Crabbing
-- Cycling
-- Exploring rock pools
-- Gardening (not in groups)
-- Golf (singles, walking – no cart)
-- Hiking (on trails and paths allowing distancing)
-- Horseback riding (singles)
-- Jogging and running
-- Kite boarding and kitesurfing
-- Meditation
-- Outdoor photography
-- Picnics (with your stay-home household members only)
-- Quad Biking
-- Rock Climbing
-- Roller Skating and Roller Blading
-- Rowing (singles)
-- Scootering (not in groups)
-- Skateboarding (not in groups)
-- Soft martial arts – Tai Chi, Chi Kung (not in groups)
-- Table tennis (singles)
-- Throw and catch an American mini football, Frisbee or Frisbee golf (not in groups)
-- Trail running
-- Trampolining
-- Tree climbing
-- Volleyball (singles)
-- Walk the dog
-- Wash the car
-- Watch the sunrise or sunset
-- Yoga

lol

That CA 25th special election has gotten me down. wtf is wrong with democratic voters? I thought everyone was sent an absentee ballot. How hard is it to connect the two sides of ONE arrow with a pen and walk it to a mailbox?

Is that the district that will be re-run in 6 months?

I wouldn't put too much stock into it, esp. considering that's prime Rodney-King-juror country. There's always a bigger turnout in tandem with the Presidential election.

democrats outnumber republicans in that district. I guess I can’t get over how much democratic voters really don’t give a shit. it doesn’t bode well for november imo

"Democrat" seems to be the default now (slowly being overtaken by "Independent"). When you register Republican in California you are a true believer.

by all means worry about november, but until 2018 that district has been republican since 1993. katie hill probably won thanks to state races on the ballot to pull in low information voters. and obviously the "scandal" was bullshit, but it didn't exactly tee the next democrat running for that seat up for success. democrats lose in CA plenty despite their registration advantage.

you want to be depressed, be depressed about lundquist losing the council seat up there back in march (also with a registration advantage). an LA council member has way more power than a freshman congressman (and represents more people iirc!) and the republican was credibly implicated in bribery days before the election. people don't vote!

Simi Valley aside (only 17.6% of the district) this was a 21 point republican shift from Katie Hill’s win in 2018, in a swing district where registered democrats outnumber republicans and where the election was considered a toss-up

the republican share of the vote increased by about 10 points, not 21 (which is the change in margin, and not the right way to think about it imo)

And it won’t be 10 points when the vote is in. It might be as small as 5.

And turnout was so low that Katie hill got like 100,000 more votes than García.

It sucks the democrat lost but it doesn’t mean anything apart from that people don’t vote in special elections.

I didn’t check any of the numbers in that post btw haha

well republicans apparently do vote in special elections

I don’t know about vote totals, I was was just going by Hill winning by 9% and so far then Garcia winning by 12%, maybe his lead will decrease as more votes are counted

but this is suburban LA, Santa Clarita is just over the hill from the San Fernando Valley

in the midst of this republican shit show

well republicans apparently do vote in special elections

yeah -- I am guessing that a lot of the republicans skew older -- and it's also one of those "old people vote more than younger people" things -- like a lot of them are probably retired and voting in a special election is up there with senior discount day at IHOP in terms of things that give their dwindling days on this earth some meaning.

agree with that, but don’t see that seat going back to the democrats in november

Well it was the high water mark of a wave so probably not. Did the democrats flip a redder seat in California?

here we go

New details on the arrest of L.A. Councilman Jose Huizar in an ongoing corruption probe: https://t.co/kspBK4Cbyv

— Emily Alpert Reyes (@AlpertReyes) June 23, 2020

he tried to have his wife replace him so he could continue doing crimes according to today's indictment, but she withdrew when he was first searched, so he's being replaced by kevin de leon. there's at least a couple more council people who might be implicated, along with the mayor's office. good times.

Just came to post the ABC story (but on the LA thread).

#BREAKING Photos from the complaint show some of the cash prosecutors allege Councilman Jose Huizar and his associates received from developers to help push their projects through the city planning process. @SpecNews1SoCal pic.twitter.com/5WATbJtNef

— Natalie Brunell (@natbrunell) June 23, 2020

yeah maybe LA thread. what a world.

I love when there's photographs of big bundles of money

And they literally found the money (~$130,000) in a closet at his house.

His office and home were raided by the FBI 19 months ago, **everyone** in LA government knew he was guilty, but the culture of incumbency protection is so powerful nobody said a word until multiple guilty pleas came in. So now a sitting Councilman is in lockup. Nice work gang https://t.co/TWhi5IzWSA

— Hayes Davenport (@hayesdavenport) June 23, 2020

an extremely good point!

There is absolutely nothing that warms my heart more than $3M homes that pay about 1 to 2 iPhone Pros in property taxes per year, for an effective property tax rate of 0.03%.

1 to 2 iPhone Pros per year!

All hail #Prop13! pic.twitter.com/2Ya1ZBied8

— Next door in Silicon Valley (@nextdoorsv) May 27, 2020

caek, you seem to know what you're talking about, and I'm certainly not paying much attention to Sacramento these days - do you know if the state legislature has any momentum or likelihood or whatever to repeal or reform Prop 13 anytime soon? does Gavin have a position on it?

meanwhile I wish we could retire the prop number like a hall of famer's jersey (or just rename it the Howard Jarvis Arbitrary Assessment Initiative) so there's no more potential for ambiguity leading to things like the first failed school bond proposal in two decades (2020's Prop 13)

There’s a ballot measure this year to repeal is for commercial property! Tactically this is supposed to be the thin end of the wedge to repeal the whole thing https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020).

I haven’t seen any polling but a measure that seemed like a fairly easy sell a year ago when they started seems like a tougher sell in a recession, so I’m not optimistic.

ah very cool! I didn't know this was on deck for November. you're probably right about any momentum being spoiled though.

Lmao this thread rules

Jaw on the floor listening to SD planning commissioner @mcboomhower light up a neighborhood group opposing a new duplex. "When you say 'pride of ownership' that means 'we don't want renters. If you can't afford to buy in our lovely little neighborhood, we don't want you here.'"

— Kenneth Stahl 🌇 (@kookie13) July 31, 2020

awesome

need more of this

they are opposing -- a duplex -- good grief.

meanwhile, I get fb ads for houses and real estate a lot, and I got one yesterday advertising a duplex that is "planned to be vacant" at 9th and Wood in West Oakland. ... Later that evening I had to drop stuff in the mail at the main post office a few blocks away from said address, so I ended up driving by this spot. ... I had forgotten the exact character of 9th and Wood and the few blocks up/down from it ... but when I drove by, I was like, OH SHIIIT YEAH the corner of 8th and Wood is where the liquor store is where everyone hangs out across the street -- some hanging, some slinging ... and the block of 9th and Wood is the frequent site of stuffed animal infused altars to victims of "gun violence" ... and I forget what my point is here, but, yeah, duplexes ... does the neighborhood group in SD believe that the inherent nature of "the duplex" will transplant the people and problems of 9th and Wood in West Oakland to their neighborhood??

booming comment from boomhower! stickin it to the NIMBYs in the name of strict municipal code interpretation

as it happens I'm working on a fancy mile-long grade-separated bike lane construction project that will be going to that very same La Jolla community planning group for approval in about six months. by the sound of it he may not be as supportive as he is for this duplex, since the construction of the bike lane involves multiple deviations from the municipal code for the construction of a retaining wall and a quarter acre of wetland impacts resulting from having to widen the road itself to meet Caltrans code for the installation of a bike lane!

no big deal if the community planning group rejects it, we've only spent a few years/millions designing it already

Regarding Prop 13:

Prior to 1978, corporate landowners paid about two-thirds of statewide property tax revenues; homeowners paid about one-third. Proposition 13 flipped that equation to where homeowners paid two-thirds and corporations one-third.

Read more here: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article156302674.html#storylink=cpy