[no_such_reality]

You realize it takes close to an hour to cross Irvine at rush hour? That the 405 and 5 southbound traffic out of southbay and east LA is heavier than the traffic going into LA?

A job in downtown LA will take me about an hour to commute to. A job in the UCI/Newport area will take close to the same. One iis easily less than half the distance of the other.

Apparently the trivial solution is to sell my hell suburban place and move to Corona del Mar or Westside. Although coworkers from the west side have told me plenty of horror stories about taking an hour to get five miles. CDM is great, takes a half an hour to get out of it though so hopefully I work in about a three mile radius.

But let’s not let the reality of 18 million people wanting lives intrude on our anti development rants.

[no_such_reality]

Answer the right statement then, I didn’t say low, I said increase the tax expenses would increase rents

I’m not opposed to removing it for corporations either but again, like BGs point above I still don’t see why a massive tax grab is being proposed

Nor have I seen plans that don’t throw the baby out with the bath water

Either way I’m done with this discussion since its just a repeat of the higher taxes and more government discussion with no plans for either.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]That laborious activity is what is needed. Corporations don’t need prop thirteen. An heir I’m more neutral on. Like the housing authority starting the thread, is the problem less than 1% of owners or 30% of owners?

As for non principal residence, I think those impacts would actually hurt the 99% more than it would benefit them. It would several impact the rental market quality and availability and I doubt it would lower sales prices as the homes.[/quote]

The “transfers” pursuant to Props 58/193 mainly exist in communities of the state which were built out by about 1986. So, in spot checking, you won’t see too many of them (if any) in communities which are newer than that. In vacant land and commercial and multifamily properties, Prop 58/193 transfers exist everywhere in CA … ex: office buildings, section 8 complexes, wineries, ranches, egg farms and beef processing plants in rural areas. In single family homes, the older the community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will come across at the recorder’s office. The higher the market value in an older community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will run across. Examples where you will see the bulk of 58/193 transfers in SFRs are: “trophy properties,” “trophy streets,” inside coastal covenants (ex: RPV in LA County), sit-down full water-view streets, streets in historical districts and homes with Mills Act contracts. It will not be 30% of total CA properties because there are many newer communities and less desirable areas which have lower property values (where a 58/193 transfer wouldn’t have much benefit and an heir wouldn’t be that interested in keeping the property), such as in inland cities and counties. But I predict it will be close to 30% of the tax that would have been collected overall had it not been for the later additions of Props 58 and 193, due to the HUGE disparity on each property between what the annual tax actually IS in relation to the property’s current market value or even its stepped-up value at the time of title transfer.

These title transfers on “garden variety” Chula Vista (or Allied Gardens SD, Buena Park, Milpitas, etc) properties matters, also, because their numbers are significant due to their coastal county location and they are often the largest and/or only asset in a small estate. Throughout history, CA coastal counties have seen the highest real estate appreciation in the state. It doesn’t matter if it is a “shack” (by your standards) or located in a “marginal area.” It is “shelter” for an heir … very often “free” shelter located in the coastal county the heir grew up, wishes to remain in and can ill afford to continue living in on their own.[/quote]

So the problem is the now 50 year old kid that grew up in La Jolla gets to keep his parents SFR there and not pay $20,000 a year in property taxes? Cause that last sentence looks like the perfectly good reason to allow the transfers. If that kid that grew up in la Jolla isn’t making $100k a year, ye, the horror, he can actually live in La Jolla after his parents die and give his kids the chance to experience it. And maybe she’s a sr engineer at Qualcomm through the boom years and can afford to buy her own la Jolla home, so what?

Are you trying to claim the State needs the money? That of we had it, we wouldn’t have some of the other high taxes we have? That we’d be able to fund Jerry’s high speed train to Modesto dreams? That many of the schools in LAUSD wouldn’t be the —-holes they are because the problem is they just haven’t been spending enough?

[no_such_reality]

That laborious activity is what is needed. Corporations don’t need prop thirteen. An heir I’m more neutral on. Like the housing authority starting the thread, is the problem less than 1% of owners or 30% of owners?

As for non principal residence, I think those impacts would actually hurt the 99% more than it would benefit them. It would severely impact the rental market quality and availability and I doubt it would lower sales prices as the homes. Net result, desirable areas would become even more income elite with even fewer rentals.

[no_such_reality]

You miss the point. The market will bear up to where they can’t make the payments. If you take prop 13 out, all the landlords will be being hit with the same increase . All will be seeking the same rent increases. Essentially just greater rent inflation. Perhaps the market won’t bear and the renters will downgrade the properties they rent. Or landlords on higher end properties will go wanting and lower their rent.

If that occurs, landlords will stop upgrading.

Net result, lower grade rentals for the same or higher rent.

Frankly your post on this topic smell of sour grapes. You reach conclusions based off a question that landlords don’t answer because it’s a minor factor and largely irrelevant.

Would we try and buy it from our sibling for the tax advantage? Frankly, I suspect most of us would like to but also realize that the deal is also potentially too problematic to complete. Sure if the sibling has a realistic market rate view of its worth, the purchase isn’t going to create a boatload of other baggage, and the property is one we would look to buy if it was on the general market. Then the 3/4s of 1% savings on taxes makes a nicer cash flow. Around here, it may be the difference of cash flow or even covering the mortgage if you have to buy a sibling out. Frankly avoiding a 8% transaction cost of having liquidate the house is even more attractive. Perhaps is unfair they don’t have to sell /sarcasm.

Given the same type house, on the same type lot, in the same neighborhood, same deferred maintenance etc, the house with a tax advantage is desirable over the regular tax house which is more desirable over the houe with mello Roos. All that said, most investors here will buy any of those given they will reliably rent, to reliable tenant, and provide cash flow. Higher taxes and mello Roos makes it harder to have it sit empty to upgrade or wait to get a “good” tenant.

[no_such_reality]

She likes renting more. In a place were her rent payment is higher than her mortgage payment. With a landlord that replaced a dead oven same day. Meanwhile she’s replacing cabinet pulls.

The article was written two years ago. Let’s all send a follow up letter and ask how she likes the unpredictable annual rent increases. Or if she moved cause of them and hassling with deposits. I imagine she’s not rent control since the oven got replaced pronto.

[no_such_reality]

$10,925 Nissan credit captivecash to the dealer. Cripes, that’s $15,000 up front to the dealer, plus $99 a month, plus the over mileage on 12k miles per year.

[no_such_reality]

I saw the two questions previously, but didn’t think they were serious. A $4000 a year tax advantage is nice, but not the sole decision making item in a investment property decision. My thinking would go much like CAR’s above.

If I kept the house, it wouldn’t be because it had a $4000 tax advantage. I’d keep it because it was owned with no debt and generated a cash flow of around $15000 a year.

I’d sell for a variety of reasons, problematic neighborhood. I’ve seen some neighborhoods really turn to junk, while others gentrify. The difference is sometimes just a few blocks.

Would an ADDITIONAL $4000 tax bill increase my prospective of selling it? Yes, it would create a little less appetite for the deferred maintenance, remote landlording. The equation just become it’s free and clear and generates $11,000 instead of $15,000.

There’s a counter point to you discussion too. I’ve bought rental properties in the last five years. Take prop thirteen away, and I’d be passing sizeable rent increases on to tenants. Don’t think long term landlords are go prevent it either, they’ll all see the increases in property tax as an increase in expenses and raise rents with it.

[no_such_reality]

duplicate

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl]

The “good stuff” around me situated on 1/2 AC+ lots is being hung onto by their longtime owners who are currently assessed at 1/6 to 1/10 of today’s market value. And I can’t blame them.
.[/quote]

Did they buy? Are they hanging because it’s a pice of property you can’t new anymore or they holding on simply because of the tax? I suspect the former and not the later.

If it wasn’t transferred to them, what’s your argument? That they should get a $10,000 tax bill and force them out of the house?

That it isn’t fair for the people that bought 30 years ago and paid local taxes and supported the economy in the area for those 30 years have an unfir advantage compare to the person coming in today wanting to buy what they’ve built?

[no_such_reality]

Since my kid is 5, hopefully that doesn’t happen. In general, the generational passing of the asset is one of the things that is broken. The limit on the increase, isn’t.

Without concrete data, it’s hard to quantify what level is the problem. I bought my first townhouse in 1997. By 2003, it was accessed at less than half of market value. That wasn’t an intergenerational transfer, that’s California’s bubbly real estate. Anybody that purchase pre-2005, basically will be at half market. Even most peak buyers are even again.

The primary problem opponents of Prop 13 have is the massive over-reach they are doing in the money grab. And previously proposals against prop 13 have been money grabs and not tuning of minor issues with it.

[no_such_reality]

I bought about 5 years ago, if we taxed at market rates, based on the neighbors recent sale, my property tax would probably increase near 80% in that period. That’s trivial compared to what would have happened during the last boom cycle before the bust, when we had years were it would have went up 30-40% in a year. That is the reason Prop 13 came into existance.

It may have many flaws, but protecting home owners from tax increases that will average $100 a month or more each year for median priced homes isn’t one of them.

Is 2% annual increase low? Historical house appreciation has been around 3-4%. California does not have tax revenue problem, California has spending problems. The planned expenditures for 2014/2015 was $107 Billion in the general fund. Another $44 Billion in special funds. An another $98 Billion in Federal funds. Not including any bond funds.

LAUSD is a prime example, over the last 15 years, they’ve spent an inflation adjusted $18K per student each year across all their fund streams.

[no_such_reality]

In the anti-trust way. For years they bankroled major losses. They eventually did away with the super deep discounts, but only after capturing market share and servely damaging their competitors. This was back when Amazon primarily sold books. Their impact has been very similar to Walmart on smaller retailers and bookstores throughout smaller cities and towns.

Amazon has become innovative and branched out, but so did Standard Oil.

Amazon lost money, and a lot of it, from 1994 to 2001 when it turned it’s first $5 million dollar positive quarter. From inception in 1994 to end of fiscal year 2001, they last $2.8 billion and lost over $2.2 Billion before ever turning a profit.

[no_such_reality]

The people deserve representation that reflects them. Kim Khardashian is the obvious choice for president

[no_such_reality]

All those superbowl commercials can’t be wrong, you need to set the baby up an E*trade account.

[Author]

Posts