San Francisco has a NIMBY problem.
A lot of the housing issues would go away if people in the Bay Area (ie. my neighbors) didn't vote down every single thing that would allow more than a single family home. I'm ok with my home price being cut in 1/2 if it means more middle class people can move in. Most of my neighbors aren't.
There is a "missing middle" of housing throughout the entire Bay Area of 4-8 unit apartment buildings near transit.
SB827, flawed as it is, is trying to fix this. If it passes, SF basically won't be able to block construction anymore, regardless of what the residents want. If it passes you'll see a lot of eight story buildings replacing single family homes.
Me as the techie and SF native do feel like they are using their oligopoly for selfish personal gain and would love to see more people go out and actually vote on these zoning laws to allow more complexes to be built
They don't realize that their plumber and their house cleaner and their kid's teachers can't afford to live nearby anymore, which means they will either have to pay a fortune for those services, or deal with crappy service. They refuse to see the big picture and realize that sky high housing prices aren't what should be optimized for.
And now, because of their stubbornness, SB827 is going to come in and take away any control they had. Now local residents will have zero say in what happens, because the state is going to set the rules. So now we won't get a say in what's actually important because a bunch of stubborn people wouldn't allow anyone to do anything.
The second reason for skyrocketing housing prices is the rise in wages. If people didn't get paid so much in the city, rent prices could not possibly be as high as it currently is. So while we do pay a crap ton in rent, most of us who can afford that rent probably are still WAAAAY better off than the average american.
I am a Bay Area homeowner, and no, I do not want that. I'm able to see the long term effects of that, and realize that in the end it will bad for me, bad for everyone around me, and bad for my community, when all the people that provide services in our community get priced out.
And the wages are only going up because of the housing costs. If the costs weren't so high, companies would not have to pay so much to get people to move here, which is the main driver in determining wages.
You hit the nail on the head though with "most of us who can afford that rent probably are still WAAAAY better off than the average american". Not everyone can afford the high rents. And eventually there won't be anyone left to provide any services, or the cost of those services will have to go up, and people will move away even faster as companies decide it just isn't worth paying that much anymore and start locating elsewhere.
It's weird that it's come to self-described "socialist" groups like DSA and Gay Shame chastising people like me, a homeowner, for advocating against my financial interests in favor of members of my generation who are less well off. Bay Area housing politics are wild.
A Land Value Tax would ensure that people monopolizing a limited resource that owes it's value to the society that has been built in San Francisco actually pay their fair share.
• Under Proposition 13, the statutory tax rate is only about 1.2% (1%, plus voter supermajority-approved bonds). Ideally, a land value tax would be higher.
• You’re taxed according to acquisition value plus an inflation adjustment (instead of current fair market value), so the average effective tax rate is only about 0.7%. What this means is that property investors (instead of the community) pocket 100% of the unearned value increase until they sell.
• But it also causes reassessment when you renovate or rebuild. So if you construct an addition, the effective tax rate on the addition is actually greater than the effective tax rate on the land. (Contrast to land value tax, in which the tax rate on improvements is 0%.)
Secondly, it is really important to think of real estate as an investment more than a physical asset. These people got in the market early and their investment is giving them great returns. I think that is fair. They purchased these homes maybe 40 years ago when SF was full of crime and property was worthless. Their "penny stock" or whatever you'd like to call it popped off because tech decided to be in the bay area. I think it is right that they are rewarded greatly for picking a great investment.
This "reward" you're talking about is a massive subsidy that everyone is forced to pay existing residents. Public funds don't need to go to millionaires. Period.
And that narrative is completely inaccurate when it comes to commercial property and suburbs, many of which were founded on redlining and racial exclusion. Do we need to be "rewarding" longtime homeowners for being fortunate enough to be of the right race at the right time, at great public expense?
> That proposition exists as a protection from homeowners being screwed by the government being unfair about the value of their land
According to The Permanent Tax Revolt (https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Tax-Revolt-Property-Transfo...), Proposition 13 was largely the opposite. Previously, homeowners benefited from informal and corrupt tax assessments that lagged market values. After assessment practices were modernized and standardized, homeowners demanded protection from the market. And while many states created protections (e.g. low-income circuit breakers, elderly exemptions, and homeowner exemptions), California’s Proposition 13 protections (along with the later Proposition 58/193 hereditary privileges) are probably the most regressive among the states.
> does property tax really even make sense? This person PURCHASED the land but still has to owe the government taxes even though they own it?
Yes, a property tax (particularly, on the unearned portion which is the land value) makes sense as a progressive way to enable the fruits of the community to be used to benefit the community. For one thing, a private owner should not reap all the benefits from the economic activity around him that he did not earn. For another thing, private ownership should not last forever because that leads to concentration of wealth; one could similarly ask whether copyright and patents should last forever.
> Secondly, it is really important to think of real estate as an investment more than a physical asset. These people got in the market early and their investment is giving them great returns. I think that is fair.
I disagree. The economic justification for investing in capital is that investors help to make the country more productive. Driving up the price of land does the opposite; investment in land crowds out investment in capital. The value of land comes from the neighborhood’s economic activity and public investments, not from the individual landowner. Now, you could argue that giving the landowner some incentive will encourage more civic-minded engagement, but I think it’s a far cry from justifying giving him 100% of the increase in ground rents.
For a recent book on the moral foundations of land ownership, I recommend Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing by Josh Ryan-Collins, Toby Lloyd, Laurie Macfarlane (https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Economics-Land-Housing-Rya...)
It seems that almost everywhere supply of housing is being artifically restricted leading to rising prices. This is also unsurprising. Housing is the biggest investment most people have, so people prefer policies that keep housing prices to be ever increasing.
Sometimes it sort of reminds me of "bitcoin for old people". Why invent new things when you can get decent returns on housing? Of course until the bubble bursts. But if that happens the government tends to intervene to a degree, not so for crypto bubbles.