San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility. Repeal it and watch as existing homeowners are forced out of their homes onto God knows where, for factors out of their control, and in the hands of government officials who decide how much something is worth.

Also, I’m not sure how many funds this would ultimately raise. Houses will flood the market as existing homeowners can’t afford their taxes, putting downward pressure on housing costs and ultimately decrease tax revenue.

And, while new residents and the next generation are paying insanely high property taxes, the NIMBYs pay a small fraction of the real property taxes. And, big businesses like Stanford and all the countless farms that fill up much of the land across CA, are paying a tiny fraction of the property taxes that any resident would pay.

I agree there is a cyclical taxation problem, especially since most of those store fronts are rented. High rents are only part of the problem with Prop13... which is that property owners don't care if their land is profitable or even occupied. In some cases that means a little mom&pop store (or a farm) stays open for a lifetime, but in many others it means that a giant mall is shuttered for decades in the middle of relatively vibrant economy in a sub-urban neighborhood. The owners see enough appreciation in value they see no reason to rent or even maintain it. Eventually homeless move in, because "housing costs are too high", and often there is fire damage. The use of prop13 by multi-generational trusts and perpetual tax avoidance by sale of company rather than transfer of title has led to significant blight in an economic boom lasting decades.

The solution to affordablity of property taxes could have been limited to humans (not trusts or corporations) with deferred taxes (lien) until probate. Instead, it will likely be with local municipalities fining ever larger amounts for unoccupied/rented properties based on market value (rather than assessed). Of course the risk that you would need to pay even 0.5%/yr to keep property would drive prices down, which would encourage people to sell or at least rent.

Didn't the Fed say it will buy up to $500B of municipal bonds as part of the new QE program?

I’m not an expert in this area but I don’t think the fed funds operations by printing money. They issue debt which people exchange for money.

Although lately the fed just buys that debt back with printed money so...

I mean California had a $27bn deficit 10 years back, but ended up with a $15bn rainy day fund. Even back then, I heard the exact doom and gloom. I will wait and see how this plays out.

Underrated it is not, just search for Cottonwood Canyon traffic jams to see what skiing really is like here when the snow flies. 30 minutes no traffic, can easily be 3+ hours now.

Are you a west coast native? As a new yorker (and nj native), I've found that west coasters often think we're rude but I see it as just our communication style. We often interrupt and speak over each other, and really don't like being interrupted on a commute (which is often just walking somewhere).

Since working more with west coast devs, I've learned to be "nicer" when communicating. But still have the same habits with my family. To be fair I think that some these habits are good to break.

I assume you're trying to use hyperbole, but there are no theocracies in the US. LDS definitely has a great deal of influence in Utah, but there are plenty of non Mormons who live there and have no issues living there.

Ohh hogwash, I live in Salt Lake for half the year and I am non religious and I love the place. Salt lake city is one of the best cities in the country for people who love the outdoors, particularly mountains.

That’s changing rapidly.

Sure, but a homeless tent camp is a far cry from high-density housing. How long do the locals have to deal with a tent camp and all the associated problems? If you don't understand why spending $15.5m to actively make the lives worse of the locals and not really solve the problem--then I think you're missing why SF has budget problems.

>For some nearby residents, the decision was met with dismay and frustration and a feeling of futility after they had spent weeks pleading with Preston’s office to find an alternative, like parking lots owned by the school district or City College and even Recreation and Park Department property.

>“There are all of these large parking lots not being used that would be so much better than plopping this down in the middle of a residential area — an area we’ve struggled for decades to get control of on this end of Haight Street,” said Ted Loewenberg, president of the Haight-Ashbury Improvement Association.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-to-open-sanct...

"Temporarily" according to who? And still $15.5m and $XXm still to be spent on the new development, and for now it's a massive tent camp---this is why SF has budget problems is my point. They're squandering the resources they have and not even solving the problems, they're actually making it worse in most cases. Tents tripled in the city in the last few months: https://abc7news.com/homeless-coronavirus-san-francisco-hous... SF could house these people instead of leaving them in tents somewhere else, but we have this ridiculous idea we have to house them in the most expensive city in the country where there's no new supply. We're spending nearly $1m per affordable housing unit.. who is paying for this? It's doomed to fail.

The fact that it's only a temporary homeless tent camp doesn't do a whole lot to make the situation better. I think you're not recognizing how absurd this sounds to outsiders; most people would not live in a city that formally sanctioned tent camps in residential neighborhoods.

but his point about SF funds being squandered, definately has a lot of truth to it. There are a lot of ways to build high density housing in a cost effective manner that are not being used. The city constantly fights against anyone that tries to build any kind of cost effective housing. I've talked to SF residents (even the very people who work in Nonprofits that supposedly help the homeless), and they'll make any excuse they can against building any kind of cost effective housing: i really don't get it.

I think saying SF problems are due to "cultural swings" is borderline veiled racism. Sounds like something Hillary would say for sure. No, SF problems come from incompetence. No other city in the country spends as much per citizen and gets as poor results. Quality of life stinks here for the cost.

And no, you're erasing the voices of many locals who don't want more tent camps in residential areas when there are other city lots they could put them in.

Question--do you ever hold the city accountable for its vast and egregious failures? Look at how much money we spend and the results. It's pathetic.

The government is what tells where and what things can be built. As, as long as that's the case, then gov is almost 100% responsible for this mess. Sure, the geography of SF is limiting.

Look at cities that let people build where there is need to build, they don't have the kind of housing problems SF does.

SF is wealth deprived (wealth is not money, wealth is your ability to Shelter/food/water/necessities etc). It has so much money and yet, 100K income isn't near enough for a family to live there. The homeless rate is nearly 2%! The bottom 20% is at risk of being homeless. The other 70% can barely afford to make rent.

Compare this to Houston, a city that allows things to be built when it needs to be built. Homeless rate is just 0.2%. The bottom 20% is able to afford to live there and so is everyone else. Look people, there's nothing about hot weather that makes it easier to build buildings. It's the attitude of the people. People in SF need to seriously learn something about supply and demand, and the nature housing.

And, let's keep in mind, Houstons yearly growth rate is much faster than SF, it has added over x4 more people to its city per year than SF! and still is able to handle all that, whilst creating a ton of jobs in the process.