Hacker News Reader

If housing is only for people who've already been in a place, why do we allow children? Your argument is patently absurd. Especially in a growing state like California, accommodating newcomers is good if not necessary. I was born here, and I want to live in a place that welcomes outsiders and is affordable for all who want to live here. Don't you see you're just the beneficiary of a pyramid scheme?

A tax raise is not punitive if your taxes were not commensurate with what you need to contribute to society in the first place. A homeowner in California for the past 30 years has paid drastically less than what a homeowner in basically any other place would have, while probably getting more in terms of public services.

You got lucky. You got in early and now you get to benefit from the massive unfairness of Prop 13. I will also graduate in-state from a UC. What will I inherit? Will I ever be able to afford a decent home in the metro area I grew up in? I doubt it — and even if I did, how much less would the guy next door be paying than me every year?

[Edit: grammar]

i don't want california to grow. the traffic is too bad and people are less happy. in fact, i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants here because it's a legal way to alleviate the housing crisis.

CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent. i don't want to invite the whole world here. i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here.

i believe there are too many people here. unfortunately my voicing of this opinion is confined to a niche web forum for tech nerds.

i have a different opinion than you about whether CA growing is a good thing. however, i think wieners bill allows for growth without increasing traffic--i'll take it.

>the traffic is too bad >CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent

If the traffic is bad, vote to build public transit. Germany and Japan are almost identical to California in size and both have preserved most of their natural beauty and have comparatively few problems with congestion. They do this by investing in rail, because it takes cars off the road and increases physical and economic mobility.

>i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants

I see no reason to kick people out who want a shot at the American Dream, and whom Americans like you and I have invited into this country with our insatiable desire for cheap labor, food, and construction. Instead we could let them legalize (not even necessarily become citizens, though I'd like to see that) and build housing and other infrastructure to accommodate them while growing our economy and tax base. That has been a proven success in this country for the last several hundred years.

>i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here.

And yet, by continuing to support Prop 13 and other policies that reduce the housing supply and place an undue burden on those who wish to purchase housing, you are forcing people like me — who were born in this state — to leave.

>i believe there are too many people here

There aren't too many people here. There's too little housing at too low a density with too little public infrastructure. All of those problems are solvable — we just need to gather the political will to make investments for the continued prosperity of our state. We need to act like grown-ups living in a society: we must pay our taxes, elect responsible leaders, help those less fortunate than us, and fight for our collective interest.

Or are we just going to scapegoat the most vulnerable, dodge paying our fair share of taxes on our ever-appreciating assets, kick the ladder out beneath us, and cower behind walls? Most in my generation seem sick of this free-for-all past generations have created. I want a society where we do our share, help those less fortunate, restore civil society, embrace community support structures, and give everyone a shot at a happy existence. That's what I'll be fighting for. What about you?

There are cities in the US with housing at $20/square foot. There is plenty of space for people who can't afford to live here.

That is literally 100 times cheaper than the most expensive real estate in CA.

Why won't Google put some satellite offices in York, PA? York, PA isn't 100 times worse than Atherton.

Most people in CA feel the same way I do and our voices matter. There are big forces at play: third-world illegal immigration, third-world legal immigration, tech's reluctance to spread out across America, driving up costs for all of us natives. Rather than lower the value of housing here by overbuilding, I'd rather stand up for myself and eliminate those negative forces. In case you didn't know, being nativist is in vogue these days. I'm not the only one! And I'm happy and unashamed to vote this way.

Vancouver did something like this, rather than overbuild. It's not racist and it's not immoral. It's just making your voice heard.

The technology-based economy extracts value from the rapid information exchange that takes place in cities full of highly-educated people. That doesn't exist in York, PA. Google et al. know that if they moved, their rate of innovation would falter, along with their revenue.

>Most people in CA feel the same way

What? Citation?

>being nativist is in vogue these days

You're not a nativist. If you were, you'd want a place for people like me who were born here. Instead, you're more than willing to kick us out for the sake of your own financial well-being. You're just a selfish beneficiary of the pyramid scheme that is the American housing market.

Give me your stock options. You're just a selfish beneficiary of the pyramid scheme that is the US technology industry.

I'm a UC student on Pell grants. My parents were priced out of owning a home in their metro area.

What is wrong with you? What destroyed your empathy, compassion, and hope?

I was trying to be provocative. I'm just saying, politics is a sensitive subject, and to you, "equalizing property taxes" might seem righteous, but in reality it could mean someone else losing their home. I think prop 13 is grounded in sound principles.

There are ways to dramatically increase the housing supply that I think we should be working on and it seems like the state is doing that.

Then allow prop 13 to stay but only for a primary residence. Maybe even limit it to native born citizens if you want. The benefit should definitely not be available to landlords or foreign buyers.

The current situation is bad enough that it's actually driving away people who were born here and have regular jobs, and causing a lot of the traffic problems you mention by increasing commuting.

I don't personally care about newcomers all that much, but I was born in California and the housing shortage caused by prop 13 made it impossible for me to stay without severe sacrifices to quality of life compared to what is possible in other states. That I may someday inherit real estate from one of my parents doesn't really change the fact that I need a home to live and raise children in the meantime, while my parents are still alive.

So I left.

Except that I can't help but feel that there is something deeply dysfunctional about a society/culture/place (CA) which makes propagation of the next generation not really possible. And whose children get pushed out in favor of extremely wealthy outsiders. I'm not complaining, I've simply accepted that in order to be able to raise a family, I have to join the long tradition of Americans migrating elsewhere inside of the country in search of a better future.

But it sure as hell isn't how I would have things work if I were designing them from scratch.

There are a number of ways that property taxes could be handled so as to not force people out of their homes as property values fluctuate. Just one example, there could be a maximum on percentage of income that can be charged as property tax. Pegging those taxes to prices that are literally decades old seems like the least efficient and most distortionary method. Nevermind that handing that benefit down generation after generation is the surest way to create a form of aristocracy.

Oh and let's not forget the many, many problems it has caused for the education system you so respect. Prop 13 is often named as one of the reasons why CA's public education system is under such financial duress at every level.

Why can't we just admit that we need far, far more housing stock, far, far better public transportation systems, far, far better infrastructure and that CA's unique property tax system has essentially stymied all of those efforts. I find if hard to believe CA wouldn't be better off without Prop 13.

On another note, this post strikes me as incredibly hostile toward anyone moving to California. "Stay away, this place is ours, and if you come and can't buy, then don't complain, because this place was ours first." "Oh, and you're a tech person, so bugger off, we don't need your kind anyway!"

Is the person who just bought property at market rate today more entitled to complain according to your metric? They will have paid more in taxes than the person who bought in the 70's cumulatively paid over all those decades within just a couple of years. Would they then be more Californian somehow? Entitled to more of the state's resources? How about those people who have rented here for 30 years? If you don't/can't own property are you less Californian?

I totally agree with more housing stock. I am a huge fan of Wieiners bill, except with the exception that some cities should not have an 8 story maximum. He is modeling it after Boston, and I've lived there, and huge complexes near transit stations is not a good thing in small cities with 1 railway station.

But do that and keep prop 13 in place, please. We don't need the state to hire a bunch of new tax assessors; it's doing just fine destroying itself financially already.

How, exactly, is denying the state access to revenue supposed to improve its financial situation? If you want better use of money, you've got to vote for it.

tax assessment would raise money but it would cost money. by costing money some businesses may leave. for example, amgen just put a new plant in RI instead of california.

Businesses are also going to leave when they have to pay workers several times what they would in other regions because of our insane housing prices.

I don't understand how you're supposed to get a financially healthy state when it's starved of funds compared to states like MA that have reasonable and equitable property tax laws.

"Sorta a pain"? Are you shitting me? I have to make 400k/yr to buy a house here. The area is beyond approachable. Just because your parents paid their utility bill for 30 years doesn't mean they should be entitled to paying 15% of the tax rate of a new home owner. That's obscene and only increases the issue here. Prop 13 gives great incentive for you to fight any kind of increase in density or affordability.

If real estate is where all your net worth is: SELL AND DIVERSIFY

The newcomers themselves and their parents by and large contributed to other parts of the country. You, as a citizen of the US, are allowed to move there and take advantage of that infrastructure. The fundamental unit of analysis is the nation-state.

And as it happens the bay area turned out to be too important as an engine of growth for the nation-state as a whole to allow nostalgia about pseudo-Victorian homes filled with hippies or greed for unearned wealth to be the tail that wags the dog. The incumbent power structures there, which represents narrow local interests can and should be overruled by higher levels of government for the good of the state and country.

nontechdude1, I think I can blame both tech companies of this current generation for their sins AND people of generations past for theirs, and that includes their exclusionary housing policies. It’s not an either-or situation.

Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves —and they will, it’s not like any of us can afford those houses (even the ones who grew up in the city and aren’t in tech, which you seem to imply are more important or valid).

That’s just democracy, after all.

[this comment was originally made in response to one of nontechdude1’s now-deleted comments]

>Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves

The millennial children of the 1% will inherit those houses and once the boomers are gone they will find another scapegoat to blame while they try to justify their parasitic streams of rental income.

Americans are weirdly susceptible to being divided along identity politics lines.

The whole "boomer vs. millenial" thing is just the 1% engaging in a game of scapegoat, divide and rule. By blaming your mom, you're helping them.

The thing is though, many, many baby boomers own their homes.

Many, many millennials don’t. Even for the small minority that inherits them, new housing is out of their reach. Studies show millennials, even ones’ whose parents own property, by and large don’t want to live in the same suburb/house they grew up in (though, with the current state of affairs, many still live with their parents).

In any event, even if all of that small minority wanted to stay in their exact house, the rest of the disenfranchised would be so numerous as to overwhelmingly outvote them.

Here’s a very enlightening article to the current plight of the millennial. I recommend setting aside some time to read it today.

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millenn...

sorry, i deleted that comment because it was..a little too much.

i would caution anyone with the resources to purchase a home to be cautious right now. there are too many political unknowns that could easily make it a poor financial choice.

or you can go all-in knowing that if you become underwater, you can just walk away (CA is a non-recourse state) as long as you don't have a HELOC on the property.

Family is in real estate— we would never purchase a property in San Francisco this late in the game (and I love that city!). The writing’s on the wall: that same law homeowners voted for to artificially lower their tax burden will also be the law that sends California into a bona fide housing crisis that makes the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis look like peanuts in comparison. It’s artificial, unsustainable, and shows a complete disregard for how markets work.

The current, very real housing shortages and homeless epidemic is just the tip of the iceberg.

So now it's "redistribution" to have people pay the same tax rates on their property? Oyy...

I was born here too but your arguments sound a lot like special pleading.

Do you really think that a tax loophole is "earned"?

It doesn't support property ownership anymore because it incentivizes people to hang onto and rent out properties that haven't been reassessed.