Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Because of prop 13, each new house costs the EXISTING homeowners money. That's because the taxes on the new house will never pay for the additional public infrastructure (roads, schools, public safety, etc) to support its residents. So, at some point, there will be "parcel taxes" for a new wing on the school, a new library, and a new fire house, and then "sales surtaxes" for a new overpass, a Bart extension, etc ...... In San Mateo county, this is where most of the opposition comes from.


view as:

Prop 13 favors current homeowners at the expense of future homeowners. This NIMBY-written FAQ[0] exposes the structural unfairness pretty well.

And yes, property taxes are an ideal way to pay for local infrastructure, and California is suffering the consequences of defunding this.

[0] http://www.hjta.org/propositions/proposition-13/what-do-you-...


I tend to think that cost of a house is the carrying costs, mortgages, interest, maintenance, taxes. In a built up area, carrying costs are determined by what the local economy will support.

Reducing property taxes just drives up the price and thus mortgage payments. Difference is property taxes tend to pay for local services and infrastructure that increase the real value of a home. Where mortgage and interest paid flee to places elsewhere.


Legal | privacy