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

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for clarifying and it is as I beleived. Question wasnt for clients but rather for my primary which I expect to pass onto my children at some point in the future. Later than sooner hopefully.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl] . . . 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.[/quote]

CAR, I’m not “envious” of these “heirs.” In years past, I, too (along with my siblings), sold my deceased parents’ primary residences in two different states (NOT CA) and split the proceeds with them. BOTH properties were free and clear. NEITHER had preferential tax treatment.

I hammered the best deal I could get on my property at the time I purchased. The bulk of my neighbors who are enjoying “Prop 13” benefits purchased their properties 50-62 years ago. I can’t compete with those prices and neither can you.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl] . . . 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.[/quote]

CAR, I’m not “envious” of these “heirs.” In years past, I, too (along with my siblings), sold my deceased parents’ primary residences in two different states (NOT CA) and split the proceeds with them. BOTH properties were free and clear. NEITHER had preferential tax treatment.

I hammered the best deal I could get on my property at the time I purchased. The bulk of my neighbors who are enjoying “Prop 13” benefits purchased their properties 50-62 years ago. I can’t compete with those prices and neither can you.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl] . . . 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.[/quote]

CAR, I’m not “envious” of these “heirs.” In years past, I, too (along with my siblings), sold my deceased parents’ primary residences in two different states (NOT CA) and split the proceeds with them. BOTH properties were free and clear. NEITHER had preferential tax treatment.

I hammered the best deal I could get on my property at the time I purchased. The bulk of my neighbors who are enjoying “Prop 13” benefits purchased their properties 50-62 years ago. I can’t compete with those prices and neither can you.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl] . . . 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.[/quote]

CAR, I’m not “envious” of these “heirs.” In years past, I, too (along with my siblings), sold my deceased parents’ primary residences in two different states (NOT CA) and split the proceeds with them. BOTH properties were free and clear. NEITHER had preferential tax treatment.

I hammered the best deal I could get on my property at the time I purchased. The bulk of my neighbors who are enjoying “Prop 13” benefits purchased their properties 50-62 years ago. I can’t compete with those prices and neither can you.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl] . . . 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.[/quote]

CAR, I’m not “envious” of these “heirs.” In years past, I, too (along with my siblings), sold my deceased parents’ primary residences in two different states (NOT CA) and split the proceeds with them. BOTH properties were free and clear. NEITHER had preferential tax treatment.

I hammered the best deal I could get on my property at the time I purchased. The bulk of my neighbors who are enjoying “Prop 13” benefits purchased their properties 50-62 years ago. I can’t compete with those prices and neither can you.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl][p, I can tell you that, in Chula Vista, the City government expanded *exponentially* between 2000 and 2008, in ALL Depts. The City was sitting fat and happy with all the new development fees and their share of the property taxes emanating from all those new developments. …………..
This is indirectly all due to reassessments, mostly on *newer* construction in those much-ballyhooed two newer zip-code annexations, 91914 and 91915, that the City was very much in favor of acquiring but now must serve :={[/quote]

Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl][p, I can tell you that, in Chula Vista, the City government expanded *exponentially* between 2000 and 2008, in ALL Depts. The City was sitting fat and happy with all the new development fees and their share of the property taxes emanating from all those new developments. …………..
This is indirectly all due to reassessments, mostly on *newer* construction in those much-ballyhooed two newer zip-code annexations, 91914 and 91915, that the City was very much in favor of acquiring but now must serve :={[/quote]

Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl][p, I can tell you that, in Chula Vista, the City government expanded *exponentially* between 2000 and 2008, in ALL Depts. The City was sitting fat and happy with all the new development fees and their share of the property taxes emanating from all those new developments. …………..
This is indirectly all due to reassessments, mostly on *newer* construction in those much-ballyhooed two newer zip-code annexations, 91914 and 91915, that the City was very much in favor of acquiring but now must serve :={[/quote]

Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl][p, I can tell you that, in Chula Vista, the City government expanded *exponentially* between 2000 and 2008, in ALL Depts. The City was sitting fat and happy with all the new development fees and their share of the property taxes emanating from all those new developments. …………..
This is indirectly all due to reassessments, mostly on *newer* construction in those much-ballyhooed two newer zip-code annexations, 91914 and 91915, that the City was very much in favor of acquiring but now must serve :={[/quote]

Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl][p, I can tell you that, in Chula Vista, the City government expanded *exponentially* between 2000 and 2008, in ALL Depts. The City was sitting fat and happy with all the new development fees and their share of the property taxes emanating from all those new developments. …………..
This is indirectly all due to reassessments, mostly on *newer* construction in those much-ballyhooed two newer zip-code annexations, 91914 and 91915, that the City was very much in favor of acquiring but now must serve :={[/quote]

Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.[/quote]

jp, Eastlake Shores is mostly in 91913, an earlier annexation. It began sales in 1987. In one development there, the 20-yr MR bonds are already paid off.

The 91914 zip encompasses the new communities of Rolling Hills Ranch, Salt Creek, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake Greens. The 91915 zip encompasses all of Otay Ranch and two newer Eastlake subdivisions.

The “People’s Ordinance” in the City of San Diego, I believe, provides that the fees for trash pickup be added to SFR owners’ property tax bills.

Any Piggs, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.[/quote]

jp, Eastlake Shores is mostly in 91913, an earlier annexation. It began sales in 1987. In one development there, the 20-yr MR bonds are already paid off.

The 91914 zip encompasses the new communities of Rolling Hills Ranch, Salt Creek, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake Greens. The 91915 zip encompasses all of Otay Ranch and two newer Eastlake subdivisions.

The “People’s Ordinance” in the City of San Diego, I believe, provides that the fees for trash pickup be added to SFR owners’ property tax bills.

Any Piggs, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.[/quote]

jp, Eastlake Shores is mostly in 91913, an earlier annexation. It began sales in 1987. In one development there, the 20-yr MR bonds are already paid off.

The 91914 zip encompasses the new communities of Rolling Hills Ranch, Salt Creek, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake Greens. The 91915 zip encompasses all of Otay Ranch and two newer Eastlake subdivisions.

The “People’s Ordinance” in the City of San Diego, I believe, provides that the fees for trash pickup be added to SFR owners’ property tax bills.

Any Piggs, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.[/quote]

jp, Eastlake Shores is mostly in 91913, an earlier annexation. It began sales in 1987. In one development there, the 20-yr MR bonds are already paid off.

The 91914 zip encompasses the new communities of Rolling Hills Ranch, Salt Creek, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake Greens. The 91915 zip encompasses all of Otay Ranch and two newer Eastlake subdivisions.

The “People’s Ordinance” in the City of San Diego, I believe, provides that the fees for trash pickup be added to SFR owners’ property tax bills.

Any Piggs, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[Author]

Posts