• 11 Posts
  • 855 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2020

help-circle










  • I’m honestly shocked more states haven’t shot themselves in the foot like California has. In the 70s, property taxes in California were skyrocketing for a lot of reasons, but primarily they were one of the few ways for local governments to raise money and housing prices (and therefore assessments and taxes) were going up because of all the new people moving to California. Consequently, conservatives latched onto this resentment of increasing property taxes and passed Prop 13, which limits the amount your property tax can go up to about 2% a year (the number is actually indexed to inflation between the range of -2% and 2%, so some years property taxes have gone down!). And the value of a property is assessed at the most recent sale price.

    But there were a whole host of intentional side-effects to this bill. It had been sold as “keep grandma in her home!” the very same rhetoric you’re seeing today. However, it applied to all property in California, not just residential. So, for example, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco has a property tax basis from 1977, because it, and most commercial buildings in California, are owned by trusts, and the trust (which has ownership of the building) is sold instead of the building, so a reassessment never occurs. You can see for yourself. The assessed value of the Transamerica Pyramid, a 48-story skyscraper in the middle of downtown San Francisco, has an assessed value of under $6m. Its property tax bill is $70k/yr.

    The other built-in side-effect was that, fairly often, inflation is higher than 2%/year, so even if property values weren’t going up, or more people weren’t moving in, the growth of local governments’ personnel costs would outpace the growth of their tax base. So local governments have had to do a lot of two things: cut services and raise other taxes elsewhere. Most often they raise sales taxes. So a fairly progressive tax (property taxes are a form of wealth tax) have been backfilled with an incredibly regressive tax. On top of this, there is not a single local government in California whose tax revenue per capita has returned to the same level as before Prop 13, leading to chronically underfunded schools and services.

    And the last tiny wrinkle is that property tax collection shifted from the cities to the counties, who then disbursed the money to the cities according to a formula. What formula? Well they simply kept the funding splits the same as they were in 1977. What does that mean? Well it means that if your city was a wealthy one that had a high property tax rate in order to pay for high-quality services, that advantage you had over your neighboring cities is now locked in forever. Even if those other cities have added drastically more housing/residents. This is part of the insidious reason why even local governments in CA are so NIMBY: they don’t see extra revenue commensurate with the increases in population, it’s distributed based on a formula from 1977. So the town of Atherton, CA, which has zero commercial properties and zero apartment buildings (mostly just mansions) sees more benefit from Redwood City building 1000 new units of housing than Redwood City does.

    Anyway hope that doesn’t happen to you!

    Edit: Also forgot to add that inheriting a property also doesn’t trigger a re-assessment, so if your parents were landlords in 1977 and you inherit their rental properties your costs are fixed even if, for example, market rent rises 500% over 10 years. (This is no longer the case as of 2020, but it was until then. Now, you have to live in the property you inherited in order for the tax basis not to change.)