[quote=CA renter][quote=AN]CAR, sorry but your logic doesn’t make any sense. If you think landlord who are not pay market value taxes are getting a subsidy, then the same logic also apply to home owners who are not paying market value taxes. Renters are the ultimate payers of these subsidies because they have to pay higher income and sales tax to subsidize those long time owners. It doesn’t matter if they live in the house or not.[/quote]
Yes, of course the owner-occupied homeowners are also getting a subsidy if they’re not paying market property taxes. That’s a given. That’s why Prop 13 passed in the first place — so that people wouldn’t be taxed out of their own homes (primary residences) just because local RE prices were going up. That’s exactly how Howard Jarvis sold Prop 13 to the gullible voters who didn’t comprehend that the greatest beneficiaries of Prop 13 would be investors, not granny; and that the revenue lost because of Prop 13 would have to come from somewhere else.
This protection for owner-occupiers is the only subsidy that should exist (if any). It’s one thing to help people stay in their single, primary residences; it’s quite another to subsidize the profits of landlords, commercial/industrial property owners, and developers/owners of large tracts of land.
And it’s not just renters who pay these higher taxes and fees. We all do.[/quote]
No, it’s definitely not just “granny” who benefits from Prop 13. I would surmise that 80%+ of today’s Prop 13 “beneficiaries” are the very able-bodied children and grandchildren of “granny” who were deeded the home before or after granny’s death, are occupying it at present and paying approximately 1/10th of my tax bill, yet reside on either side and across the street from me :=0. Then you have the subset of “granny’s heir-landlords” who have been collecting rent for years and even decades on properties that they’re paying $350 to $800 annual taxes on which they “acquired” in the same manner as above.
I’m not leaving out the mega landlords of 200++ units and mega landowners (whether agricultural or industrial) who “inherited” these many parcels from their wealthy, enterprising parents or grandparents and, although they might be potentially fully subdivided, they pay but a song in property taxes on these many parcels (as CAR is referring to here).
Case in point: In the most expensive city in the state (SF), over 75% of building/pkg lot owners have assessments dating back to 1978 or earlier (+2% per yr) and are likely paying property taxes equal to 1/15th to 1/30th of their “market rate” tax bill. Yet, they are able to fetch among the highest rents in the state if they are not located in a “rent-controlled” district.
Props 58 and 193 are to blame for these VERY widespread inequities, and, at the very least, as “progeny” of Prop 13, these sections should be abolished as their passing by the Legislature was NOT in keeping with the original intent of Prop 13 … that was, keeping granny and gramps in their homes until the last one moved in with a relative, into assisted living or died.
As it stands, granny’s (able-bodied) young “heirs” enjoy the same low assessment as “granny” did on into perpetuity no matter how much the neighborhood in question has increased in value over the years.
This is completely unfair to the surrounding “arms-length” homeowners who paid market prices for their homes in the era in which they bought them in, and, as I’ve said before here, it amounts to unjust enrichment to “granny’s” heirs at the expense of their neighbors.
I’m not against “inheriting” real property in CA but I am against an heir having the right to “inherit” granny’s low assessment.
As the years roll by, there are and will be less and less original homeowners as of April 1978 who are still residing in those same homes, yet the vast majority of these homes have never been marketed as they are still titled to individual(s) “within the family.” Since so many of them have no other redeeming qualities except their “ultra-low” assessment, this is the SOLE REASON why they are being retained by family members who would have otherwise sold them long ago, IMO.
Piggs are constantly complaining here about low inventory to choose from and Props 58/193 are the prime reason for this phenomenon. It isn’t going to get any better.
No other states in the US have these provisions in their laws … and rightly so. They will end up (indirectly) causing the fiscal demise of CA if they are not repealed, IMO.
