Prop 13 and Housing Prices

[Andrast]

Have there been any studies done on how prop 13 has affected the real estate market?

It seems that those who have been in their house for awhile are pretty much stuck there. For example, why would you want to dramatically increase your tax bill if you have had your house for the last 5 years (if you had the choice)?

Meanwhile, those who buy in newer areas can get stuck with pretty bad mello-roos fees. I heard today that some of the housing in Del Sur have upwards of $1,000/month mello-roos fees! More commonly, it is $500/month which is still tough to swallow. And, they tack on just about everything they can to the homeowner such as various services, etc.

I understand that the newer developments get the most benefit for the new services, but I think prop 13 has really screwed the state. It seems that it keeps inventory low which increases prices. It also tacks on the missing taxes to those buying new housing which are typically people moving in to the state. That is not a good way to promote growth IMO.

[4plexowner]

Prop 13 is interesting.

As a real estate owner I am glad that it exists. My 1998 tax basis suits me just fine, thank you!

As a citizen of San Diego I wonder whether Prop 13 makes sense.

One of the things I have read about Prop 13 is that it can influence the growth of a city in a bad way. Since the city can’t raise taxes on existing homeowners they have more incentive to build new strip malls and new subdivisions. Can you say “Urban Sprawl?”

But then I read about people on the east coast (where property taxes HAVE increased significantly regardless of when the owner purchased) and how some people are being forced to sell because of the increased tax bite. That pretty well sucks!

One of the reasons Prop 13 was enacted was to prevent people on fixed incomes from being forced out of their homes due to rising taxes. That makes sense to me.

Another thing I have read is that Prop 13 (or similar law?) also applies to commercial property. Since tax re-appraisal only occurs when a property changes ownership, commercial property is rarely ever re-appraised. I think it is even possible to own commercial real estate inside a legal entity (LLC, corp, etc) and have new ownership take over the legal entity without triggering a re-appraisal of the real estate (because the property itself is still owned by the same legal entity).

Again, since the city can’t raise taxes on existing commercial real estate they are forced to promote new strip malls and subdivisions to build their tax base. More urban sprawl.

So, Prop 13 is an interesting nut to crack – if I were tasked with evaluating its continuation, I would start by looking at commercial property and how it is taxed.

~

An example of how Prop 13 is perhaps too generous to existing property owners: Prop 13 also covers multi-unit residential properties – one of my friends has been buying San Diego apartments for almost 30 years now – she has a cashflow problem (ie, too much of it!!!) and buys another property every few years so she has something new to depreciate on her income taxes – part of her cashflow “problem” is that she is collecting 2007 rents and paying 1970 taxes – she could certainly afford to pay more property taxes on her many properties – again, if I were evaluating Prop 13 I would start with commercial property

[blahblahblah]

Since the city can’t raise taxes on existing homeowners they have more incentive to build new strip malls and new subdivisions. Can you say “Urban Sprawl?”

Texas has no prop 13 and Texas counties frequently re-asses residential properties. In Texas, you pay taxes on what the county says your property is worth today, no matter if you bought it twenty years ago or not. And Texas is NOTHING BUT suburban sprawl. San Diego, for all its problems, is a masterwork of urban planning compared to places like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, or even North Austin. If anything, prop 13 keeps people planted in their houses because they can’t afford to sell, thus reducing churn from old houses to new ones and limiting suburban sprawl.

[4plexowner]

I grew up in Dallas, went to school in Austin and worked in Houston so I am familiar with the cities you mention.

Texas is mostly flat so Texas cities can expand outward very easily. Just add another freeway circling the city and, presto, lots of new off-ramps for gas stations and strip malls and many square miles of land just waiting for new houses. This occurred several times during my childhood in Dallas.

San Diego is geographically constrained by the ocean and mountains as well as the Mexican border and Camp Pendleton. I think it was probably these constraints that forced urban planning to occur in San Diego – not Prop 13.

~

In regards to Prop 13 keeping people planted in their houses, that is certainly true to some extent. I sold all of my investment real estate in San Diego but kept my personal residence, in part, because of Prop 13 and a 1998 tax basis.

~

I have the perception that many people in San Diego buy real estate without including the cost of property taxes in their budget. They choose not to have taxes and insurance withheld in their mortgage payment (which they can barely afford) and then get shocked when the tax bill arrives in November.

Property tax of 1.1% on a $500K house is $5500/year or $458/month – ouch!

And the people that paid $800K – $1.4 mil for tract homes in North County? They are paying $8800/yr – $15,400/yr for the privilege of commuting in traffic hell on I-5 and I-15. That’s $733-1283/mo for just taxes and then, as you point out, they get to fork over $300-600/month for Mello-Roos. Some of them also have HOA fees to cover common areas of their development.

I’m ranting about North County tract homes so I’ll shut up now.

[PerryChase]

I have the perception that many people in San Diego buy real estate without including the cost of property taxes in their budget.

I have that same perception. Taxes along with bubble prices are the reason that I’m not moving–yet

However, I don't think that Prop 13 lowers turnover that much since buyers think in terms of monthly payments and are willing to take on exotic loans. I'd be interested to see if Prop 13 in CA lowered turnover as compared to other states. I doubt it. If anything, California is more mobile than other states for reasons other than taxes.

I know that my much older cousin who just retired in NY is thinking about selling her house because of taxes. She’ll probably move to North Carolina where she can buy a much cheaper house.

I think that Prop 13 was unsuccessfully challenged in the past because it discriminates against newcomers.

As a long time homeowner, I'm happy about Prop 13. But I think it's unfair since I believe that everyone should be treated the same. Personally, I think that we should get rid of all the incentives to homeownership because I don't believe that they work — they simply cause prices to go higher. Homeownership should not be a measure of success (especially if everyone is in debt to their eyeballs). Quality of shelter for the general population is, in my view, a better measure of well-being.

 

[PerryChase]

And the people that paid $800K – $1.4 mil for tract homes in North County? They are paying $8800/yr – $15,400/yr for the privilege of commuting in traffic hell on I-5 and I-15. That's $733-1283/mo for just taxes and then, as you point out, they get to fork over $300-600/month for Mello-Roos. Some of them also have HOA fees to cover common areas of their development.

Add to that car a payment on an SUV and gas, and you're at $2000/mo just in taxes and transportation.  

 

[bob007]

I think the green space crowd, immigration, influx of skilled professionals from Asia, limited land in coastal areas, Fed interest rates have a bigger impact on the housing bubble.

Prop 13 has a minor impact in that some longtime homeowners in coastal California may not be able to pay property tax on their homes if they were assessed at the current inflated value.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I mostly agree with bob007. In the grand scheme of home prices, prop 13 is a bit player.

However, I believe that it does suppress both the overall supply of homes and the pool of potential buyers by incentivizing people to stay in their low-cost-basis house rather than moving. This reduces the overall numbers on both the supply and demand side. This impacts the overall potential volume of sales, which is correlated with price.
But other factors are more important.

[Author]

Posts