[an]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, they are indirectly paying the property taxes for their landlords in most cases. This is exactly the group I want to help by freeing up more for-sale inventory at better prices. Most renters want to own, but are not able to because of inventory constraints due partly to Prop 13 and also the hordes of speculators who bid-up housing prices so they can have renters pay their mortgages/taxes/insurance/profits for them.

Though this isn’t related to Prop 13, I would also disallow GSE/FHA financing for investment properties and second homes, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for investment properties (all MID, actually).

I would also favor changing the rules regarding “stepping-up” the cost basis of housing upon the death of an owner (for the benefit of the heir/beneficiary), and exchange that for an inflation adjustment to the cost basis for all real estate sold by anyone, not just lucky heirs. This would free up a lot of RE that people are holding onto in order to avoid the tax consequences of selling before the death of the original or long-term owner.[/quote]You still fail to see that the renters are subsidizing you, a home owner, as much as those landlord you seem to hate so much. Fact is, like it or not, you as a home owner, is taking subsidies from the poorer people of this state. If you want change, why not start w/ the person in the mirror, like Michael Jackson said so eloquently.

BTW, do you own a long term rental? If yes, would you sell if your cost of owning that property goes up a few thousands a year? IIRC, you rented from a long time landlord at a very good price. Would you think you would have gotten that rental price if their cost is higher?

Again, you’ve provided no proof that removal of prop 13 on non primary would force long time land lord to sell or it would prevent people who want to be landlord from buying.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Also, please specify exactly what you’re referring to on the bolded part. Thanks![/quote]45% of Californian are renters and do not benefit from prop 13. They’re subsidizing the 55% of Californian home owners. Renters are usually a lot less well off than home owners. But they have to pay the tax differences through their income and sales tax. So yes, they are subsidizing the home owners’ prop 13.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]AN,

It would also push out the long-time landlords who’ve been getting thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies every year. And it would eliminate the subsidies for corporations and other RE “investors” who’ve been getting an incredibly unfair deal at the expense of other taxpayers.

Enough is enough. It’s one thing to keep a person from being taxed out of their only home, but to pay thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands, or more) per year to subsidize the profits of very wealthy people…that is totally unjustifiable.

I will show you why repealing Prop 13 protection for non-owner-occupied properties would lower housing prices and free up more inventory for people who are looking to buy a primary residence. Stay tuned…[/quote]Do you have data to prove that it’ll push the long time landlords out? flyer is one of those long time landlord and he said this won’t change his position one bit. I would agree with him. If I’m the long time landlord w/ a paid off home, I’m not going to sell my investment just because my cost went up a few thousand a year. The appreciation will more than cover that and the rental income would still be very sweet. Now, if price doesn’t appreciate but depreciate, then my tax burden would also decrease. So, unless removing prop 13 for non primary also reduces rent, it’s not going to for and long term landlords who have paid off house to sell.

FYI, 45% of Californian are subsidizing the wealthier 55%. So, why aren’t you all hell bent in protecting the poorer 45%?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]I compared the changes from *both* 1960 and 1970. You can see for yourself that most of the other expensive states made improvements in the owner-occupied rates, while California declined or remained fairly stagnant. If you consider all of the new housing that’s been built here since 1976, with much of that in “affordable” areas (far-flung communities with long commutes for workers — this trend is much stronger in CA than in other states), that would explain why the statewide owner-occupied housing ratio is higher than it is in the more desirable areas.

Yes, some of it is due to being a high-cost area, but other high-cost areas in the U.S. don’t see the same trends. Even New York has made improvements in owner-occupied trends. If you look at the metro areas with the lowest owner-occupied rates, you’ll see that the other areas aren’t necessarily high-cost, either, so the high prices are not the only, or primary, cause of the low owner-occupancy rates in expensive California areas.

Yes, I believe that by removing Prop 13 protection for non owner-occupied housing, more inventory would come on the market for sale. Renters can’t use mortgages, and raising rents beyond what renters can truly afford would lead to higher turnover rates and evictions, and/or higher density living with more people/families living in a single unit/home (whether or not the LL knows about it, or approves of it). The profitability of holding long-term rentals would be greatly affected, and many of these landlords would end up selling instead of holding onto these older homes in desirable areas.

If we were to remove Prop 13 protection for everyone, then there would definitely be an exodus of elderly people who would sell and move to other, cheaper areas in CA, or out of state. I do NOT favor this, and it’s not even politically feasible under any circumstances. Just making the point that Prop 13 does indeed distort the RE market.

———

“The effect of Proposition 13 on mobility varies widely depending on the size of the subsidy, with the largest effects occurring in coastal California cities where the increase in property values has been greatest.”

http://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html
————

I’ll give you some real-life examples of properties I’m familiar with in LA (SFHs and an apartment complex or two — the apartments as an example of how much taxpayers are subsidizing landlords/property owners) to make my point. Will take some time to dig up all the info, but will get back to you with the details today or tomorrow. I’m even going to try to find some info on long-time owners of large tracts of land (like Pardee!) and commercial/industrial buildings to show how much we’re subsidizing them. The numbers are staggering.[/quote]There has been no proof that removing prop 13 for non-owner occupied will do what you think it will do. If you’re comparing with other states, they don’t have prop 13 at all. If that’s your desired effect, then remove prop 13 to everyone. Then, if your theory is correct, we’ll have an increase of home ownership at that point. I don’t buy tweaking prop 13 will get the result you think it would. But maybe removing prop 13 for all would. It would forced all the retirees to move because they can’t afford the tax, which would increase supply and drive down price.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Those numbers in your chart mute the real effects of Prop 13 on the owner-occupied/rental housing ratio, particularly in desirable areas with older housing stock (which is where the benefits of Prop 13 are the greatest). The fact so much of California’s newer housing developments were built in “lizard land”– making it more affordable for younger buyers — is what has kept the *statewide* owner-occupied numbers fairly stable. In the desirable areas and job centers with homes built before Prop 13, the owner-occupied rates have fallen dramatically….[/quote]Uh, Prop 13 starts in 1978, so why did you use 1960 numbers? If you use 1970s, which would be more appropriate, home ownership is up. But you’re trying to link causation where there doesn’t seem to have any hard evidence of one. You stated a declined of home ownership after prop 13 came into effect, but the opposite is true. Also, could home ownership have something home price vs rent and not so much prop 13? Unless you’re hypothesizing that somehow, if we remove prop 13 for non-owner occupied, that somehow will reduce price and get more people to buy vs rent? If your assertion is prop 13 reduces home ownership, then why not remove prop 13 for everyone? All other states don’t have prop 13 and they seem to have retires doing OK and have a higher home ownership than us.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The reason the owned/rented ratio for residential properties has gone down so much is because of Prop 13[/quote]
Sorry but I have to call BS on that made up statement. Here’s the data from the Census: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html Data doesn’t show any such correlation.

[an]

[quote=earlyretirement]As well probably for 80% of all Americans, this has more than enough range for daily driving use right now but they will keep improving this technology.[/quote]Although current EV is sufficient for 80% of American in term of range, it’s definitely not sufficient in term of cost/range and longevity. Even the cheaper Tesla is only shooting for 200 miles range under ideal scenario. That definitely would be only sufficient for a 2nd car. No way you can make a road trip w/ it. You probably can’t even make it to LA and back under real life condition without need to charge.

[an]

[quote=earlyretirement]Hey AN. Oh I just meant the future is alternative fuel vehicles that can perform vs. only ICE.

I don’t know anything about Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology but honestly I’m all for ANY technology that is sustainable and more efficient.

I’m confident that they will dramatically improve battery technology over the next few years.[/quote]
I wouldn’t hold your breath about dramatically improving battery tech. People have been trying to improve battery tech well before EV. After all, the biggest market for battery isn’t EV but computers/computing devices (Cellphones, laptops). They all want better battery and they have been trying to improve it. It’s not as easy as you think.

Even w/ all those research, we still have major longevity problem. Ever wonder why your 5+ years old laptop doesn’t hold charge like it used to?

Not all ICE are non-sustainable. Bio-diesel is quite sustainable IF they can figure out how to mass scale produce biodiesel from algae. That’s totally sustainable and renewable. I’ve seen a documentary on it and they stated that algae only needs sun light and water to grow. So, they can easily create algae farms in the dessert. That, I think, is a lot more green and sustainable than EV, due to the battery.

[an]

[quote=earlyretirement]I’m totally convinced THIS is the future! I’ll NEVER own an ICE car again. Never. Absolutely love driving now.[/quote]
I’m glad you love it. Although, unlike you, I’m not sold that this is the future. Just based on my reading, I think Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the future. Imagine instant power like EV, but unlimited range like an ICE (assuming the built out the infrastructure like gas station). You can refuel in 5 minutes and back on your way. Not only that, you won’t have to deal w/ battery losing 50% of the range after 10 years. That, I think is the future. And it’s coming soon. Toyota is promising the first production vehicle in 2015/2016. We’ll see which technology win out. Maybe they’ll have a breakthrough in battery tech and they can fix the longevity, charge time, range and cost problem. They better or 10 years from now, you’ll look back and see that EV is nothing more than a stop gap.

[an]

[quote=Hobie]An. Just a nice video of the car being discussed.[/quote]I see. That is a very nice video. That video kind of explain why we have a declining blue collar jobs. The jobs are being replaced by robots.

[an]

[quote=Hobie]Not to drift the thread too much.. but this shows the construction of the Tesla.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_lfxPI5ObM%5B/quote%5DI wonder how this differs from other production line.

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality]Well, my current 2012 Odyssey has a 7.3 second 0-60 time, gets a combined 25MPG and runs about 30MPG on long highway runs, ie. Phoenix. I know the Sienna is a 7.7 0-60. Mini-vans aren’t the dogs they used to be. But I agree, just double up the 60KW battery pack may be enough.

Not sure who their target market is on the Model-X, it’s twice the cost of the vast majority of performance SUVs, so they must be targeting that very small BMW X5 M & Mercedes AMGs that tilt in at roughly $100K.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the market they’re targeting. It’s easier to make money from those people than the market the Leaf is targeting. Smart business on their part.

[an]

Totally agree with your assessment NSR. Those who buy minivan, electric or not, are totally different driver than those who would consider the Model X. Model X driver probably care more for performance than those who buy an Odyssey. If Honda do what you said and create a $50k EV Odyssey, it might sell pretty well. If they use a smaller motor (don’t need to go so fast, 0-60 in 7 seconds should be sufficient), then a 150kWh battery might get you much further than 400 miles.

Nissan Leaf is a prime example. It uses a 24kWh battery, yet it can get 138 miles on it. So, with the 85kWh battery like the Model S, it would be able to get 488 miles. It does 0-60 in 9.9 seconds though, instead of the 4.4 seconds the Model S does. But some people might prefer range over performance.

Also, the biggest problem that need to be resolved is battery life. Right now, a battery will only hold 70% of the charge after 5-6 years and only 50% of the charge after 10 years. So, for those of us who keep our cars for a very long time (my current car is 9 years old), that would be a huge problem. I think that will drastically affect resale as well.

[an]

I personally wouldn’t give Tesla the credit of “pushing” the other car makers to speed up their EV. I think the CAFE standard is a much bigger force in pushing car makers to look into other tech. The way I see it is, European are going all in w/ EV while Japanese are going all in w/ Fuel Cell. It will be very interesting to see which technology win out. I’m personally rooting for Fuel Cell due to the speed of fuel up. It’s much easier to pull up into a FC fueling station (like a gas station) and after 5 minutes, you’re back on the road. Both technology uses electric motor to drive the car.

I hope the next model S is as big of a disruption as the current one is. If they can solve the range issue (going 500+ miles per charge), then I’m totally sold. I think you’re giving Tesla too much credit for EV. Model S is not the first all electric. The way I see it is, they take what is done w/ the Nissan Leaf and apply it to a higher end car. Regardless, competition is great. As a gear head and a tech geek, all of this is really exciting. I can’t wait to see which technology win out.

As for the Model X, I think you’ll probably love out it’ll drive. I don’t expect it to drive too much different than the Model S. Just more room. I’m only disappointed that they stuck w/ the 85kWh battery. I love the space design. I actually like the Model X more than the Model S, based on the interior space.

Did you look at all the concept cars from Frankfurt autoshow that’s going on right now? There are A LOT of alternative fuel vehicles, from the cheap low end eGolf to the well over $100k Audi electric sport car. Exciting time is definitely in front of us.

[an]

[quote=earlyretirement][quote=spdrun]Why is it cool to have your every move uploaded to TSLA’s servers? That sounds like my personal idea of Hell.

I love the idea of a usable electric car, but without the spyware, please.[/quote]

Well, I’m not thrilled about the NSA being able to go through emails and many other things but it is what it is. LOL.

Of course I need to actually test drive the Model X but I’d say there is a 99% possibility once the Model X comes out next year I’ll be buying one of those as well. So I guess more spyware for me. 😛

Check out this video: http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

I like Elon’s sense of humor with Model names.

S-E-X[/quote]
Aww, I was hoping the Model X have more battery than the 85kWh one. Considering it’s bigger than the Model S. Would have fit my need perfectly if it came w/ a 150kWh unit. Oh well, I guess I have to wait for gen 2.

[Author]

Posts