Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> Generally, in CA, unless a property changes hands, its annual property tax increase is capped at 2% per year.

I think you are referring to the maximum increase in tax basis value (which is only equal to the maximum property tax increase if it is taxed at the maximum value already, though that's probably the case, given the low cap on property tax rates also in Prop 13.)

And you are oversimplifying in a way which is misleading in this discussion: new construction triggers full cash value assessment not limited to the annual 2% increase.

> AIUI, SF could waive any property tax increases for residential properties that would have been triggered by flattening the existing structures in order to build much more rental housing.

To the extent that they could, where would the sense be in that? Accommodating more people, but reducing the public available to provide services needed by those people?

View on HN

> And you are oversimplifying in a way which is misleading in this discussion: new construction triggers full cash value assessment not limited to the annual 2% increase.

1) That's why I listed two points, rather than just one. :)

2) According to the Alameda County Assessor's office, the situation is not as grim as you seem to paint it (for every situation except the "building flattening" situation):

"Only the portion of the property which was newly constructed is subject to reassessment at market value. For example, if a family room is added to an existing home, only that portion is reassessed and the existing home will retain its previously established Proposition 13 base year value." [0]

This might partially explain all the damned San Francisco apartments with funky vintage 1970's-era single-paned windows. :P

> To the extent that they could, where would the sense be in that?

To encourage the build-out of housing in an area that has roughly between three and ten new people move in for each new housing unit constructed annually?

1) It's not like SF is currently starving for cash.

2) In the -very, very unlikely- scenario that only the ultra-wealthy, pensioners, and property "investors" occupy San Francisco, what happens to the tax base? What happens to the character of the city?

[0] https://www.acgov.org/assessor/about_property_assessment/new...

Isn't 2%/year enough of a property tax increase? Why should I suddenly get a tax bill I can't afford because some idiot bought the house next door to me for too much money, causing my "property value" to skyrocket?

Because you don't own your home, you are renting it from the state. The state has just discovered that it has a higher market value and can use the money to fund all sorts of cool CA government projects.

Maybe one day Jerry Brown will find enough money to adopt Narendra Modi style initiatives to end open defecation.

You don't appear to understand what Prop 13 means for Californian real estate owners. Either ask Google, or check my comment history for a primer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com