[quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]That laborious activity is what is needed. Corporations don’t need prop thirteen. An heir I’m more neutral on. Like the housing authority starting the thread, is the problem less than 1% of owners or 30% of owners?
As for non principal residence, I think those impacts would actually hurt the 99% more than it would benefit them. It would several impact the rental market quality and availability and I doubt it would lower sales prices as the homes.[/quote]
The “transfers” pursuant to Props 58/193 mainly exist in communities of the state which were built out by about 1986. So, in spot checking, you won’t see too many of them (if any) in communities which are newer than that. In vacant land and commercial and multifamily properties, Prop 58/193 transfers exist everywhere in CA … ex: office buildings, section 8 complexes, wineries, ranches, egg farms and beef processing plants in rural areas. In single family homes, the older the community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will come across at the recorder’s office. The higher the market value in an older community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will run across. Examples where you will see the bulk of 58/193 transfers in SFRs are: “trophy properties,” “trophy streets,” inside coastal covenants (ex: RPV in LA County), sit-down full water-view streets, streets in historical districts and homes with Mills Act contracts. It will not be 30% of total CA properties because there are many newer communities and less desirable areas which have lower property values (where a 58/193 transfer wouldn’t have much benefit and an heir wouldn’t be that interested in keeping the property), such as in inland cities and counties. But I predict it will be close to 30% of the tax that would have been collected overall had it not been for the later additions of Props 58 and 193, due to the HUGE disparity on each property between what the annual tax actually IS in relation to the property’s current market value or even its stepped-up value at the time of title transfer.
These title transfers on “garden variety” Chula Vista (or Allied Gardens SD, Buena Park, Milpitas, etc) properties matters, also, because their numbers are significant due to their coastal county location and they are often the largest and/or only asset in a small estate. Throughout history, CA coastal counties have seen the highest real estate appreciation in the state. It doesn’t matter if it is a “shack” (by your standards) or located in a “marginal area.” It is “shelter” for an heir … very often “free” shelter located in the coastal county the heir grew up, wishes to remain in and can ill afford to continue living in on their own.[/quote]
So the problem is the now 50 year old kid that grew up in La Jolla gets to keep his parents SFR there and not pay $20,000 a year in property taxes? Cause that last sentence looks like the perfectly good reason to allow the transfers. If that kid that grew up in la Jolla isn’t making $100k a year, ye, the horror, he can actually live in La Jolla after his parents die and give his kids the chance to experience it. And maybe she’s a sr engineer at Qualcomm through the boom years and can afford to buy her own la Jolla home, so what?
Are you trying to claim the State needs the money? That of we had it, we wouldn’t have some of the other high taxes we have? That we’d be able to fund Jerry’s high speed train to Modesto dreams? That many of the schools in LAUSD wouldn’t be the —-holes they are because the problem is they just haven’t been spending enough?
