What will the repeal of Prop 13 do to the market?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.[/quote]

I just said it. It is what it is.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, XBoxBoy. In my older “tract” of 75-80 properties, there were 8 homeowners paying “market rate property taxes” last time I looked. There have been 2-3 recent sales since then which were all “arms-length,” I believe. That would make approx 10-11 homeowners paying market rate property taxes today. I am one of those “unfortunates.” The neighbor on the right side of me pays approx $792 year and the my neighbor on the left side of me pays approx $380 yr.

These close neighbors of mine are NOT orig Prop 13 homeowners. They are HEIRS of prop 13 homeowners, age 61 and 64, respectively (“baby-boomers,” if you will), who “inherited the Prop 13 tax treatment” from their last living parent. Both “inherited” their properties in the early eighties and have been enjoying this low tax rate ever since. I am also a “baby-boomer,” a few years younger than my neighboring homeowner-heirs. I currently pay approx $3100 yr in property tax (after two reductions by the county assessor). The first reduction was obtained by me through a stipulation in lieu of a pending assessment appeal hearing and the second reduction was voluntary, by the assessor. Without these recent reductions, my current annual property tax would be approx $4600.

How is this fair to me or any other market-rate buyer in the last 20 years?? I’m not a RECENT buyer (almost 10 yrs. ago) and actually got a good deal at the time of purchase, including a large cash credit at COE. How are these two “heirs” (out of several hundred thousand in CA) any less able-bodied than myself to pay a market-rate property taxed based upon the stepped-up value at the time of death?? This is the way OTHER STATES handle this issue.

I understand that 75+ year-old seniors need an affordable place to live until they pass. That was the original purpose of Prop 13, to protect seniors from having to sell their principal residence, due to exorbitant property taxes. But the ability to “pass on” its benefits to heirs makes Prop 13 “unjust enrichment” to CA heirs in perpetuity (several generations hence), simply by virtue of a parent/grandparent buying the property before April 1978.

Do Piggs see all these “heirs” and “heirs of heirs” any LESS able-bodied than you and I to pay “market-rate” property tax.

I believe in Prop 13’s original intended purpose but propose that this benefit die with the last (pre-April 1978) owner.[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of whether or not they are “able-bodied.” The issue is that people should be able to plan their budgets, and you can’t do that with wildly fluctuating/increasing property taxes. Just as ARM loans will cause problems when rates rise, unlimited property tax increases will cause problems.

I fully support Prop 13, largely because people **voluntarily** sign up to pay the higher taxes (if you don’t want to pay higher taxes than the neighbors, make it a point not to pay more than they did +2%/yr). The reason today’s buyers are paying higher taxes is because those buyers volunteered to do so. It’s like buying near an airport and then complaining about the airplane noise.

We can’t let flippers and idiots determine what the neighbor pays in property taxes. Under Prop 13, everyone is free to pay high or low property taxes (you choose what to pay for a house). If you don’t like the high taxes, pay less for the house, or buy a cheaper house elsewhere. I love how idiots make decisions for themselves, and then want everyone else to pay for it after the fact.

OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, XBoxBoy. In my older “tract” of 75-80 properties, there were 8 homeowners paying “market rate property taxes” last time I looked. There have been 2-3 recent sales since then which were all “arms-length,” I believe. That would make approx 10-11 homeowners paying market rate property taxes today. I am one of those “unfortunates.” The neighbor on the right side of me pays approx $792 year and the my neighbor on the left side of me pays approx $380 yr.

These close neighbors of mine are NOT orig Prop 13 homeowners. They are HEIRS of prop 13 homeowners, age 61 and 64, respectively (“baby-boomers,” if you will), who “inherited the Prop 13 tax treatment” from their last living parent. Both “inherited” their properties in the early eighties and have been enjoying this low tax rate ever since. I am also a “baby-boomer,” a few years younger than my neighboring homeowner-heirs. I currently pay approx $3100 yr in property tax (after two reductions by the county assessor). The first reduction was obtained by me through a stipulation in lieu of a pending assessment appeal hearing and the second reduction was voluntary, by the assessor. Without these recent reductions, my current annual property tax would be approx $4600.

How is this fair to me or any other market-rate buyer in the last 20 years?? I’m not a RECENT buyer (almost 10 yrs. ago) and actually got a good deal at the time of purchase, including a large cash credit at COE. How are these two “heirs” (out of several hundred thousand in CA) any less able-bodied than myself to pay a market-rate property taxed based upon the stepped-up value at the time of death?? This is the way OTHER STATES handle this issue.

I understand that 75+ year-old seniors need an affordable place to live until they pass. That was the original purpose of Prop 13, to protect seniors from having to sell their principal residence, due to exorbitant property taxes. But the ability to “pass on” its benefits to heirs makes Prop 13 “unjust enrichment” to CA heirs in perpetuity (several generations hence), simply by virtue of a parent/grandparent buying the property before April 1978.

Do Piggs see all these “heirs” and “heirs of heirs” any LESS able-bodied than you and I to pay “market-rate” property tax.

I believe in Prop 13’s original intended purpose but propose that this benefit die with the last (pre-April 1978) owner.[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of whether or not they are “able-bodied.” The issue is that people should be able to plan their budgets, and you can’t do that with wildly fluctuating/increasing property taxes. Just as ARM loans will cause problems when rates rise, unlimited property tax increases will cause problems.

I fully support Prop 13, largely because people **voluntarily** sign up to pay the higher taxes (if you don’t want to pay higher taxes than the neighbors, make it a point not to pay more than they did +2%/yr). The reason today’s buyers are paying higher taxes is because those buyers volunteered to do so. It’s like buying near an airport and then complaining about the airplane noise.

We can’t let flippers and idiots determine what the neighbor pays in property taxes. Under Prop 13, everyone is free to pay high or low property taxes (you choose what to pay for a house). If you don’t like the high taxes, pay less for the house, or buy a cheaper house elsewhere. I love how idiots make decisions for themselves, and then want everyone else to pay for it after the fact.

OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, XBoxBoy. In my older “tract” of 75-80 properties, there were 8 homeowners paying “market rate property taxes” last time I looked. There have been 2-3 recent sales since then which were all “arms-length,” I believe. That would make approx 10-11 homeowners paying market rate property taxes today. I am one of those “unfortunates.” The neighbor on the right side of me pays approx $792 year and the my neighbor on the left side of me pays approx $380 yr.

These close neighbors of mine are NOT orig Prop 13 homeowners. They are HEIRS of prop 13 homeowners, age 61 and 64, respectively (“baby-boomers,” if you will), who “inherited the Prop 13 tax treatment” from their last living parent. Both “inherited” their properties in the early eighties and have been enjoying this low tax rate ever since. I am also a “baby-boomer,” a few years younger than my neighboring homeowner-heirs. I currently pay approx $3100 yr in property tax (after two reductions by the county assessor). The first reduction was obtained by me through a stipulation in lieu of a pending assessment appeal hearing and the second reduction was voluntary, by the assessor. Without these recent reductions, my current annual property tax would be approx $4600.

How is this fair to me or any other market-rate buyer in the last 20 years?? I’m not a RECENT buyer (almost 10 yrs. ago) and actually got a good deal at the time of purchase, including a large cash credit at COE. How are these two “heirs” (out of several hundred thousand in CA) any less able-bodied than myself to pay a market-rate property taxed based upon the stepped-up value at the time of death?? This is the way OTHER STATES handle this issue.

I understand that 75+ year-old seniors need an affordable place to live until they pass. That was the original purpose of Prop 13, to protect seniors from having to sell their principal residence, due to exorbitant property taxes. But the ability to “pass on” its benefits to heirs makes Prop 13 “unjust enrichment” to CA heirs in perpetuity (several generations hence), simply by virtue of a parent/grandparent buying the property before April 1978.

Do Piggs see all these “heirs” and “heirs of heirs” any LESS able-bodied than you and I to pay “market-rate” property tax.

I believe in Prop 13’s original intended purpose but propose that this benefit die with the last (pre-April 1978) owner.[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of whether or not they are “able-bodied.” The issue is that people should be able to plan their budgets, and you can’t do that with wildly fluctuating/increasing property taxes. Just as ARM loans will cause problems when rates rise, unlimited property tax increases will cause problems.

I fully support Prop 13, largely because people **voluntarily** sign up to pay the higher taxes (if you don’t want to pay higher taxes than the neighbors, make it a point not to pay more than they did +2%/yr). The reason today’s buyers are paying higher taxes is because those buyers volunteered to do so. It’s like buying near an airport and then complaining about the airplane noise.

We can’t let flippers and idiots determine what the neighbor pays in property taxes. Under Prop 13, everyone is free to pay high or low property taxes (you choose what to pay for a house). If you don’t like the high taxes, pay less for the house, or buy a cheaper house elsewhere. I love how idiots make decisions for themselves, and then want everyone else to pay for it after the fact.

OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, XBoxBoy. In my older “tract” of 75-80 properties, there were 8 homeowners paying “market rate property taxes” last time I looked. There have been 2-3 recent sales since then which were all “arms-length,” I believe. That would make approx 10-11 homeowners paying market rate property taxes today. I am one of those “unfortunates.” The neighbor on the right side of me pays approx $792 year and the my neighbor on the left side of me pays approx $380 yr.

These close neighbors of mine are NOT orig Prop 13 homeowners. They are HEIRS of prop 13 homeowners, age 61 and 64, respectively (“baby-boomers,” if you will), who “inherited the Prop 13 tax treatment” from their last living parent. Both “inherited” their properties in the early eighties and have been enjoying this low tax rate ever since. I am also a “baby-boomer,” a few years younger than my neighboring homeowner-heirs. I currently pay approx $3100 yr in property tax (after two reductions by the county assessor). The first reduction was obtained by me through a stipulation in lieu of a pending assessment appeal hearing and the second reduction was voluntary, by the assessor. Without these recent reductions, my current annual property tax would be approx $4600.

How is this fair to me or any other market-rate buyer in the last 20 years?? I’m not a RECENT buyer (almost 10 yrs. ago) and actually got a good deal at the time of purchase, including a large cash credit at COE. How are these two “heirs” (out of several hundred thousand in CA) any less able-bodied than myself to pay a market-rate property taxed based upon the stepped-up value at the time of death?? This is the way OTHER STATES handle this issue.

I understand that 75+ year-old seniors need an affordable place to live until they pass. That was the original purpose of Prop 13, to protect seniors from having to sell their principal residence, due to exorbitant property taxes. But the ability to “pass on” its benefits to heirs makes Prop 13 “unjust enrichment” to CA heirs in perpetuity (several generations hence), simply by virtue of a parent/grandparent buying the property before April 1978.

Do Piggs see all these “heirs” and “heirs of heirs” any LESS able-bodied than you and I to pay “market-rate” property tax.

I believe in Prop 13’s original intended purpose but propose that this benefit die with the last (pre-April 1978) owner.[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of whether or not they are “able-bodied.” The issue is that people should be able to plan their budgets, and you can’t do that with wildly fluctuating/increasing property taxes. Just as ARM loans will cause problems when rates rise, unlimited property tax increases will cause problems.

I fully support Prop 13, largely because people **voluntarily** sign up to pay the higher taxes (if you don’t want to pay higher taxes than the neighbors, make it a point not to pay more than they did +2%/yr). The reason today’s buyers are paying higher taxes is because those buyers volunteered to do so. It’s like buying near an airport and then complaining about the airplane noise.

We can’t let flippers and idiots determine what the neighbor pays in property taxes. Under Prop 13, everyone is free to pay high or low property taxes (you choose what to pay for a house). If you don’t like the high taxes, pay less for the house, or buy a cheaper house elsewhere. I love how idiots make decisions for themselves, and then want everyone else to pay for it after the fact.

OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, XBoxBoy. In my older “tract” of 75-80 properties, there were 8 homeowners paying “market rate property taxes” last time I looked. There have been 2-3 recent sales since then which were all “arms-length,” I believe. That would make approx 10-11 homeowners paying market rate property taxes today. I am one of those “unfortunates.” The neighbor on the right side of me pays approx $792 year and the my neighbor on the left side of me pays approx $380 yr.

These close neighbors of mine are NOT orig Prop 13 homeowners. They are HEIRS of prop 13 homeowners, age 61 and 64, respectively (“baby-boomers,” if you will), who “inherited the Prop 13 tax treatment” from their last living parent. Both “inherited” their properties in the early eighties and have been enjoying this low tax rate ever since. I am also a “baby-boomer,” a few years younger than my neighboring homeowner-heirs. I currently pay approx $3100 yr in property tax (after two reductions by the county assessor). The first reduction was obtained by me through a stipulation in lieu of a pending assessment appeal hearing and the second reduction was voluntary, by the assessor. Without these recent reductions, my current annual property tax would be approx $4600.

How is this fair to me or any other market-rate buyer in the last 20 years?? I’m not a RECENT buyer (almost 10 yrs. ago) and actually got a good deal at the time of purchase, including a large cash credit at COE. How are these two “heirs” (out of several hundred thousand in CA) any less able-bodied than myself to pay a market-rate property taxed based upon the stepped-up value at the time of death?? This is the way OTHER STATES handle this issue.

I understand that 75+ year-old seniors need an affordable place to live until they pass. That was the original purpose of Prop 13, to protect seniors from having to sell their principal residence, due to exorbitant property taxes. But the ability to “pass on” its benefits to heirs makes Prop 13 “unjust enrichment” to CA heirs in perpetuity (several generations hence), simply by virtue of a parent/grandparent buying the property before April 1978.

Do Piggs see all these “heirs” and “heirs of heirs” any LESS able-bodied than you and I to pay “market-rate” property tax.

I believe in Prop 13’s original intended purpose but propose that this benefit die with the last (pre-April 1978) owner.[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of whether or not they are “able-bodied.” The issue is that people should be able to plan their budgets, and you can’t do that with wildly fluctuating/increasing property taxes. Just as ARM loans will cause problems when rates rise, unlimited property tax increases will cause problems.

I fully support Prop 13, largely because people **voluntarily** sign up to pay the higher taxes (if you don’t want to pay higher taxes than the neighbors, make it a point not to pay more than they did +2%/yr). The reason today’s buyers are paying higher taxes is because those buyers volunteered to do so. It’s like buying near an airport and then complaining about the airplane noise.

We can’t let flippers and idiots determine what the neighbor pays in property taxes. Under Prop 13, everyone is free to pay high or low property taxes (you choose what to pay for a house). If you don’t like the high taxes, pay less for the house, or buy a cheaper house elsewhere. I love how idiots make decisions for themselves, and then want everyone else to pay for it after the fact.

OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]If Prop 13 were repealed, what would it do to the market?

It would put a more inventory out there. Even if it is just repealed for “new and subsequent heirs,” a decedent’s property would likely be put on the market instead of one heir “buying out” the others, due to the permanent low tax basis. The heir(s) will have no incentive/reason to hang onto a deceased parent’s property and will just want to “cash out.”

As it stands, many more decedents’ properties in CA are actually “handed down” (by bequest or quitclaim deed) than are marketed, due to the “Prop 13 perk,” which allows (future or present) heirs to live in these (often free-and-clear) properties practically free (+ ins/utils).

In addition, when Prop 13 homeowners get ready to move in with kids or to an assisted-living facility, their property will be marketed instead of one of the kids “automatically” moving in to “hold down the (free) fort.” There’s no reason to hang onto it with market-rate taxes attached to it.[/quote]

But do we believe in private property rights, or do we not?

IMHO, once a property is bought and owned (no mortgage) by a person, that is his/her land. Nobody should have the right to take that land away from someone (and that includes their decendants).

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]If Prop 13 were repealed, what would it do to the market?

It would put a more inventory out there. Even if it is just repealed for “new and subsequent heirs,” a decedent’s property would likely be put on the market instead of one heir “buying out” the others, due to the permanent low tax basis. The heir(s) will have no incentive/reason to hang onto a deceased parent’s property and will just want to “cash out.”

As it stands, many more decedents’ properties in CA are actually “handed down” (by bequest or quitclaim deed) than are marketed, due to the “Prop 13 perk,” which allows (future or present) heirs to live in these (often free-and-clear) properties practically free (+ ins/utils).

In addition, when Prop 13 homeowners get ready to move in with kids or to an assisted-living facility, their property will be marketed instead of one of the kids “automatically” moving in to “hold down the (free) fort.” There’s no reason to hang onto it with market-rate taxes attached to it.[/quote]

But do we believe in private property rights, or do we not?

IMHO, once a property is bought and owned (no mortgage) by a person, that is his/her land. Nobody should have the right to take that land away from someone (and that includes their decendants).

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]If Prop 13 were repealed, what would it do to the market?

It would put a more inventory out there. Even if it is just repealed for “new and subsequent heirs,” a decedent’s property would likely be put on the market instead of one heir “buying out” the others, due to the permanent low tax basis. The heir(s) will have no incentive/reason to hang onto a deceased parent’s property and will just want to “cash out.”

As it stands, many more decedents’ properties in CA are actually “handed down” (by bequest or quitclaim deed) than are marketed, due to the “Prop 13 perk,” which allows (future or present) heirs to live in these (often free-and-clear) properties practically free (+ ins/utils).

In addition, when Prop 13 homeowners get ready to move in with kids or to an assisted-living facility, their property will be marketed instead of one of the kids “automatically” moving in to “hold down the (free) fort.” There’s no reason to hang onto it with market-rate taxes attached to it.[/quote]

But do we believe in private property rights, or do we not?

IMHO, once a property is bought and owned (no mortgage) by a person, that is his/her land. Nobody should have the right to take that land away from someone (and that includes their decendants).

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]If Prop 13 were repealed, what would it do to the market?

It would put a more inventory out there. Even if it is just repealed for “new and subsequent heirs,” a decedent’s property would likely be put on the market instead of one heir “buying out” the others, due to the permanent low tax basis. The heir(s) will have no incentive/reason to hang onto a deceased parent’s property and will just want to “cash out.”

As it stands, many more decedents’ properties in CA are actually “handed down” (by bequest or quitclaim deed) than are marketed, due to the “Prop 13 perk,” which allows (future or present) heirs to live in these (often free-and-clear) properties practically free (+ ins/utils).

In addition, when Prop 13 homeowners get ready to move in with kids or to an assisted-living facility, their property will be marketed instead of one of the kids “automatically” moving in to “hold down the (free) fort.” There’s no reason to hang onto it with market-rate taxes attached to it.[/quote]

But do we believe in private property rights, or do we not?

IMHO, once a property is bought and owned (no mortgage) by a person, that is his/her land. Nobody should have the right to take that land away from someone (and that includes their decendants).

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]If Prop 13 were repealed, what would it do to the market?

It would put a more inventory out there. Even if it is just repealed for “new and subsequent heirs,” a decedent’s property would likely be put on the market instead of one heir “buying out” the others, due to the permanent low tax basis. The heir(s) will have no incentive/reason to hang onto a deceased parent’s property and will just want to “cash out.”

As it stands, many more decedents’ properties in CA are actually “handed down” (by bequest or quitclaim deed) than are marketed, due to the “Prop 13 perk,” which allows (future or present) heirs to live in these (often free-and-clear) properties practically free (+ ins/utils).

In addition, when Prop 13 homeowners get ready to move in with kids or to an assisted-living facility, their property will be marketed instead of one of the kids “automatically” moving in to “hold down the (free) fort.” There’s no reason to hang onto it with market-rate taxes attached to it.[/quote]

But do we believe in private property rights, or do we not?

IMHO, once a property is bought and owned (no mortgage) by a person, that is his/her land. Nobody should have the right to take that land away from someone (and that includes their decendants).

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah I know FLU. Obviously there are just so many of these wealthy old people around. They just flood the San Diego area. It also goes without saying that there are tons and tons of kids who have these homes from there old but not dead parents and are not paying the so called market rate property taxes.

It is almost laughable.

At least the opponents for prop 13 should argue other problems with it (as there are many) and they don’t have much to do with residential real estate.[/quote]

SDR, I did not intend to imply that these =<1978 homeowners were all "wealthy." Often the family home is their largest or only asset and they have two or more children who would be potential "heirs." What typically happens is that one heir buys the other heirs out of the property upon death of the last parent. If the =<1978 homeowner has not already transferred title to child(ren) prior to death, the "heirs" find a way for the property to stay in the family. One or more will take title and at least one will live there. Even if the property is NOT the kind of property that ANY of them would purchase, they keep it because of the permanent ultra-low assessment.

Typically, the only "estate sale" listings you see in SD County are properties in which the heirs have long ago relocated, have established themselves elsewhere and have no intentions to return to SD.

Edit: SDR, you must know that there is a WIDE chasm between the "so-called market rate" tax and the tax that =<1978 homeowners (or their "heirs") pay. The difference here is by no means "chump change" and my neighbors on either side of me enjoy all the same City services that I do.

It's patently unfair for "heirs" to enjoy this perk while incoming purchasers carry them with market-rate property tax payments.[/quote]

This sounds more like a problem with envy than a problem with property taxes. Why do you feel YOU have the right to determine what other people pay on their taxes? You made the choice to pay more...that is NOT their problem.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah I know FLU. Obviously there are just so many of these wealthy old people around. They just flood the San Diego area. It also goes without saying that there are tons and tons of kids who have these homes from there old but not dead parents and are not paying the so called market rate property taxes.

It is almost laughable.

At least the opponents for prop 13 should argue other problems with it (as there are many) and they don’t have much to do with residential real estate.[/quote]

SDR, I did not intend to imply that these =<1978 homeowners were all "wealthy." Often the family home is their largest or only asset and they have two or more children who would be potential "heirs." What typically happens is that one heir buys the other heirs out of the property upon death of the last parent. If the =<1978 homeowner has not already transferred title to child(ren) prior to death, the "heirs" find a way for the property to stay in the family. One or more will take title and at least one will live there. Even if the property is NOT the kind of property that ANY of them would purchase, they keep it because of the permanent ultra-low assessment.

Typically, the only "estate sale" listings you see in SD County are properties in which the heirs have long ago relocated, have established themselves elsewhere and have no intentions to return to SD.

Edit: SDR, you must know that there is a WIDE chasm between the "so-called market rate" tax and the tax that =<1978 homeowners (or their "heirs") pay. The difference here is by no means "chump change" and my neighbors on either side of me enjoy all the same City services that I do.

It's patently unfair for "heirs" to enjoy this perk while incoming purchasers carry them with market-rate property tax payments.[/quote]

This sounds more like a problem with envy than a problem with property taxes. Why do you feel YOU have the right to determine what other people pay on their taxes? You made the choice to pay more...that is NOT their problem.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah I know FLU. Obviously there are just so many of these wealthy old people around. They just flood the San Diego area. It also goes without saying that there are tons and tons of kids who have these homes from there old but not dead parents and are not paying the so called market rate property taxes.

It is almost laughable.

At least the opponents for prop 13 should argue other problems with it (as there are many) and they don’t have much to do with residential real estate.[/quote]

SDR, I did not intend to imply that these =<1978 homeowners were all "wealthy." Often the family home is their largest or only asset and they have two or more children who would be potential "heirs." What typically happens is that one heir buys the other heirs out of the property upon death of the last parent. If the =<1978 homeowner has not already transferred title to child(ren) prior to death, the "heirs" find a way for the property to stay in the family. One or more will take title and at least one will live there. Even if the property is NOT the kind of property that ANY of them would purchase, they keep it because of the permanent ultra-low assessment.

Typically, the only "estate sale" listings you see in SD County are properties in which the heirs have long ago relocated, have established themselves elsewhere and have no intentions to return to SD.

Edit: SDR, you must know that there is a WIDE chasm between the "so-called market rate" tax and the tax that =<1978 homeowners (or their "heirs") pay. The difference here is by no means "chump change" and my neighbors on either side of me enjoy all the same City services that I do.

It's patently unfair for "heirs" to enjoy this perk while incoming purchasers carry them with market-rate property tax payments.[/quote]

This sounds more like a problem with envy than a problem with property taxes. Why do you feel YOU have the right to determine what other people pay on their taxes? You made the choice to pay more...that is NOT their problem.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah I know FLU. Obviously there are just so many of these wealthy old people around. They just flood the San Diego area. It also goes without saying that there are tons and tons of kids who have these homes from there old but not dead parents and are not paying the so called market rate property taxes.

It is almost laughable.

At least the opponents for prop 13 should argue other problems with it (as there are many) and they don’t have much to do with residential real estate.[/quote]

SDR, I did not intend to imply that these =<1978 homeowners were all "wealthy." Often the family home is their largest or only asset and they have two or more children who would be potential "heirs." What typically happens is that one heir buys the other heirs out of the property upon death of the last parent. If the =<1978 homeowner has not already transferred title to child(ren) prior to death, the "heirs" find a way for the property to stay in the family. One or more will take title and at least one will live there. Even if the property is NOT the kind of property that ANY of them would purchase, they keep it because of the permanent ultra-low assessment.

Typically, the only "estate sale" listings you see in SD County are properties in which the heirs have long ago relocated, have established themselves elsewhere and have no intentions to return to SD.

Edit: SDR, you must know that there is a WIDE chasm between the "so-called market rate" tax and the tax that =<1978 homeowners (or their "heirs") pay. The difference here is by no means "chump change" and my neighbors on either side of me enjoy all the same City services that I do.

It's patently unfair for "heirs" to enjoy this perk while incoming purchasers carry them with market-rate property tax payments.[/quote]

This sounds more like a problem with envy than a problem with property taxes. Why do you feel YOU have the right to determine what other people pay on their taxes? You made the choice to pay more...that is NOT their problem.

[Author]

Posts