<story><title>L.A.&apos;s crisis: High rents, low pay, and $2k doesn&apos;t buy much</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-renters-struggle-06042017-story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dv_dt</author><text>I support Prop 13 for primary homes that owners are actually living in, but commercial rent deriving properties should have never been covered by it.&lt;p&gt;I take this position because I&amp;#x27;m really not interested in kicking little old ladies out of their homes of multiple decades just because some property price bubble has driven real estate to crazy levels. Basically without prop 13, every bubble is going to drive the poorest and most vulnerable home owners out of their homes, and that is a pretty ugly side effect. That is the original intended protection of prop 13, but commercial properties were somehow rolled under that same umbrella.</text></item><item><author>jly</author><text>I would look also at the seriously distorted property and land taxation system in California as an additional contributor along with zoning.&lt;p&gt;A few decades of Prop 13 have done an amazing amount of damage to the housing markets all over the state, by disincentivizing  the sale of property.  This has contributed heavily to reducing the supply of housing and distorting the market, among other problems.&lt;p&gt;If California made some modifications to it&amp;#x27;s taxation policy - perhaps lowering income and sales taxes while leveling the playing field on land taxation - home owners could come out paying a similar total tax bill while adding needed fluidity to the market.</text></item><item><author>jseliger</author><text>This is also really a zoning story. L.A. used to be zoned for 10 million people in the late 60s and decreased that tremendously in the early 70s: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;la.curbed.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;9972362&amp;#x2F;everything-wrong-with-los-angeles-housing-in-one-graph&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;la.curbed.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;9972362&amp;#x2F;everything-wrong-with...&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Today we have improved technology along almost every dimension yet the city is zoned for less than half as many people.&lt;p&gt;We are paying zoning&amp;#x27;s steep price: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;object.cato.org&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;cato.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;serials&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;regulation&amp;#x2F;2002&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;v25n3-7.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;object.cato.org&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;cato.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;serials&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;r...&lt;/a&gt; (that&amp;#x27;s a link to a PDF).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kcorbitt</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not convinced that Prop 13 is the best or only solution to the &amp;quot;we don&amp;#x27;t want to kick senior citizens out of their communities&amp;quot; issue. Prop 13 only helps you if your property has appreciated in value anyway. So by definition, all of its beneficiaries are sitting on assets that have appreciated, sometimes enormously.&lt;p&gt;Currently, Prop 13 caps property taxes as a percent of the last sale price. What if instead we allowed property taxes to increase with home value, but deferred collection of the incremental tax increase until the sale of the home? The back taxes owed could even be capped as a percent of appreciation. Given that the property&amp;#x27;s price has by definition increased, even after paying the back taxes the seller still gets much of their money back, the government comes out whole, we don&amp;#x27;t force old people to sell prematurely and the tax burden is shared more equitably between old and new owners.</text></comment>
<story><title>L.A.&apos;s crisis: High rents, low pay, and $2k doesn&apos;t buy much</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-renters-struggle-06042017-story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dv_dt</author><text>I support Prop 13 for primary homes that owners are actually living in, but commercial rent deriving properties should have never been covered by it.&lt;p&gt;I take this position because I&amp;#x27;m really not interested in kicking little old ladies out of their homes of multiple decades just because some property price bubble has driven real estate to crazy levels. Basically without prop 13, every bubble is going to drive the poorest and most vulnerable home owners out of their homes, and that is a pretty ugly side effect. That is the original intended protection of prop 13, but commercial properties were somehow rolled under that same umbrella.</text></item><item><author>jly</author><text>I would look also at the seriously distorted property and land taxation system in California as an additional contributor along with zoning.&lt;p&gt;A few decades of Prop 13 have done an amazing amount of damage to the housing markets all over the state, by disincentivizing  the sale of property.  This has contributed heavily to reducing the supply of housing and distorting the market, among other problems.&lt;p&gt;If California made some modifications to it&amp;#x27;s taxation policy - perhaps lowering income and sales taxes while leveling the playing field on land taxation - home owners could come out paying a similar total tax bill while adding needed fluidity to the market.</text></item><item><author>jseliger</author><text>This is also really a zoning story. L.A. used to be zoned for 10 million people in the late 60s and decreased that tremendously in the early 70s: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;la.curbed.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;9972362&amp;#x2F;everything-wrong-with-los-angeles-housing-in-one-graph&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;la.curbed.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;9972362&amp;#x2F;everything-wrong-with...&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Today we have improved technology along almost every dimension yet the city is zoned for less than half as many people.&lt;p&gt;We are paying zoning&amp;#x27;s steep price: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;object.cato.org&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;cato.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;serials&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;regulation&amp;#x2F;2002&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;v25n3-7.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;object.cato.org&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;cato.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;serials&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;r...&lt;/a&gt; (that&amp;#x27;s a link to a PDF).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>skewart</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s a reasonable position to take.&lt;p&gt;That said, one argument for rolling back prop 13 from primary homes too is that as long as it&amp;#x27;s in place those property price bubbles are more likely to occur.  As long as their property taxes will remain flat existing residents are still incentivized to oppose constructing new housing, pushing prices ever higher.&lt;p&gt;If existing homeowners felt some discomfort from the housing shortage - in the form of higher property taxes - as opposed to only seeing massive financial upside - in the form of rapidly appreciating home prices (which can be realized when they eventually sell or can be borrowed against for immediate cash), then they would be more incentivized to support building more housing supply, keeping prices down.  Right now existing homeowners are highly incentivized to oppose building more housing and that&amp;#x27;s a huge part of the reason why prices are so high.&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are downsides to rolling back prop 13 for primary residences too - it&amp;#x27;s not as if everything would work out perfectly smoothly.  But I suspect a rollback could be crafted so that the transition could be pretty comfortable for existing homeowners.</text></comment>