[quote=peterb]Prop 13 is unfair as two homes within feet of eachother can have two vastly different tax payments. The recent buyers carry the tax load, while the people that have been “enjoying” the same govt services for decades pay far less. Govt services are not a capital investment to be enjoyed over the years. They are on-going costs that must be paid every month.
This may put downward pressure on home prices as the threat of rising property taxes may scare home buyers. If the law was structured that way.[/quote]
peterb, I don’t see prices rising if Prop 13 and its progeny were repealed in part to omit the “pass-thru” within families of a =<1978 property assessment + 2% per year. I just see a little more inventory being marketed.
I really have no problem with the "1% of assessed value" portion of Prop 13 (+ City/County svcs fees). What I have a problem with is that this ultra-low assessment doesn't die with the =<1978 homeowner. As it stands, my "boomer" neighbors on either side of me could each leave their "inherited" home with its subsequent "inherited" assessment to any of their six children between them, currently aged 19-41!
If I'm still here after I retire, I fully expect to see one or more of my neighbors' children owning these properties if either of these "boomer" homeowners move in one of their children to care for them or predecease me. No, neither of these properties would be something these children would buy themselves or choose in an open market. But the artificially-low ASSESSMENT will be what keeps them there . . . for life, if this "loophole" is not closed. Then, while the 20 to 40-something “heir of an heir” is paying under $500K or under $900 annual property tax next door to me, my bill will be back up to $4000, when I’m on a “fixed income.”
As =<1978 original owners die, this law is no longer serving those it intended to protect, which was to keep the "over-65 fixed-income set" in their homes as long as possible. As the years pass, Prop 13 will only be "protecting" able-bodied persons of working age. How is this fair to "arms-length" market purchasers??
