# Save Prop. 13? (California campaign sign) Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798 "2016-05-27T09:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/141 "2016-05-30T23:25:38Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > You must also be pissed about people who buy tax free bonds or donate to charity or, gasp, get a tax break for mortgage interest because they are doing the same thing. Prop 13 also hurts speculators. Keep your house for a while and you reap the benefit of a lower property tax bill. > > Serious question to people more familiar with the real estate market than I. Should Mr Fiveyearlurker not be more upset at the real estate speculators who helped feul the explosion in real estate prices in the Bay Area? And the politicians who make it difficult to build more housing? None of these are mutually exclusive. I have enough room to upset at all of the above. I’ve said several times, prop 13 is not nearly the biggest reason that housing is so screwed up in the Bay Area. Just because there are other stupid things going on doesn’t mean prop 13 is less stupid. I don’t see what any of these things has to do with prop 13. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/142 "2016-05-30T23:29:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **madsircool** : > > You fail to comprehend that home prices exploded in the 60’s and continued to explode for a few decades. Of course I comprehend that. And I also comprehend that that can have all sorts of negative consequences (most notably, it makes it really hard for people to move). And further, I also comprehend that the appropriate response to such a situation is not to make the consequences even worse. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/143 "2016-05-30T23:31:09Z")
I wish I could get **Lurke** r to understand that it was not just a case of “I’ve got mine, Jack”, but I guess it is not to be. My liberal family has voted for tax increases lots of times. This couldn’t be one of them, for us and many like us. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/144 "2016-05-30T23:41:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Of course I comprehend that. And I also comprehend that that can have all sorts of negative consequences (most notably, it makes it really hard for people to move). And further, I also comprehend that the appropriate response to such a situation is not to make the consequences even worse. CA [tax revenue per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States) is about 20% above the national average. Higher than OR and WA, the other 2 west coast states. Looks more like a spending problem than a revenue problem. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/145 "2016-05-30T23:44:36Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > I wish I could get **Lurke** r to understand that it was not just a case of “I’ve got mine, Jack”, but I guess it is not to be. My liberal family has voted for tax increases lots of times. This couldn’t be one of them, for us and many like us. I absolutely get that your family may well have been one of the minority of families that prop 13 deservingly yet inadvertently helped. This was, however, not why the law was written. If it was written to help your grandmother stay in her home it would not have included provisions for commercial real estate. It would not have included provisions to reassess taxes, but only downward. It would not allow families to pass the tax break on for generations and even let them rent it out. If it was a law intended to help fixed income grandmas, there are targeted ways that could have been done that wouldn’t have screwed over future generations of families. I’m sure prop 13 has helped some deserving people. It’s helped a whole lot more undeserving people and it’s hurt a ton of deserving people as well. San Francisco has no families with kids in it. It has the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any major US city. It’s not healthy. You think that maybe having young families footing the bill for the older generation, most of which are NOT fixed income grandmothers in danger of losing their homes, might be PART of the reason? I tried to be the exception, and maybe the neighbor subsidy would have made the difference. Maybe not. Certainly didn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/146 "2016-05-30T23:51:54Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I absolutely get that your family may well have been one of the minority of families that prop 13 deservingly yet inadvertently helped. This was, however, not why the law was written. If it was written to help your grandmother stay in her home it would not have included provisions for commercial real estate. It would not have included provisions to reassess taxes, but only downward. It would not allow families to pass the tax break on for generations and even let them rent it out. If it was a law intended to help fixed income grandmas, there are targeted ways that could have been done that wouldn’t have screwed over future generations of families. > > I’m sure prop 13 has helped some deserving people. It’s helped a whole lot more undeserving people and it’s hurt a ton of deserving people as well. He’s emphasizing his liberal family’s support for prop 13, not their benefit. > [@](#): > > San Francisco has no families with kids in it. It has the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any major US city. It’s not healthy. You think that maybe having young families footing the bill for the older generation, most of which are NOT fixed income grandmothers in danger of losing their homes, might be PART of the reason? I tried to be the exception, and maybe the neighbor subsidy would have made the difference. Maybe not. Certainly didn’t help. And yet CA as a whole, under the exact same tax system, has plenty of kids running around. Seem like a SF problem, not a CA tax problem. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/147 "2016-05-31T00:02:40Z")
And… [Other big CA cities are doing fine](http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2006-05-01/why-does-san-francisco-have-so-few-families) in the [del]rug rat[/del] adorable children department. – San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento. ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/148 "2016-05-31T00:06:15Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > If you keep it for 30 years, your property taxes will be around 20k. Then you (and your heirs) will love it. Can I leave my house to my dog? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/149 "2016-05-31T00:09:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He’s emphasizing his liberal family’s support for prop 13, not their benefit. My liberal family would support a targeted version of prop 13 that actually gave a shit about **Truman Burbank** ’s family. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/150 "2016-05-31T00:23:36Z")
If one comes along, I’ll happily vote for it, I suspect. In the meantime, we had to vote what was on the table. Hope your move goes well, and I am sorry you can’t be where you want to be. SF is a lovely city. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/151 "2016-05-31T01:20:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He’s emphasizing his liberal family’s support for prop 13, not their benefit. > > And yet CA as a whole, under the exact same tax system, has plenty of kids running around. Seem like a SF problem, not a CA tax problem. He might as well blame Google buses on Prop. 13. San Francisco has boomed, has gotten popular as a place to live, and has no space for more houses. I know people who work in Santa Clara who have moved to San Francisco which seems just stupid. On the other hand, housing costs in San Jose and the environs are absurd also. Those of us clever enough to have bought 20 years ago or more don’t really see the impact. But you might have noticed the survey saying that about half the people in Silicon Valley would like to move out due to housing prices and traffic. Remember when the Texans were saying that everyone was leaving California? Wonder what happened to them? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/152 "2016-05-31T01:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > But you might have noticed the survey saying that about half the people in Silicon Valley would like to move out due to housing prices and traffic. Then why haven’t they? Might it possibly have something to do with the fact that California tax law massively punishes moving? And **John Mace** , what makes you say the spending is a problem? If the people of California want lots of government spending, and they’re also willing to pay the taxes to support that spending, then there’s no problem. Unless, that is, they can get the spending they want but can’t get the taxes they want. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/153 "2016-05-31T02:06:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Two-thirds majority of the legislature. Proposition can still raise taxes with a simple majority. The people didn’t trust the legislators. If I am reading the state Constitution right, the only exceptions to the 2/3 majority requirement for voter-approved taxes are: (a) local non-property taxes where the money is not earmarked for a specific purpose, which require a majority, and (b) property taxes to be used by “a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities”, which require only a 55% majority. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/154 "2016-05-31T03:04:13Z")
> [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > Being a relatively new transplant to California, I hadn’t given Prop 13 a whole lot of thought. I decided this morning to take a peek at the tax assessor’s website to see what things look like in my neighborhood. > > On one side of my house, my neighbor, from what I can tell, she’s lived there since before the dawn of time. The lot size is the same and the house has a similar footprint but without the 2nd story my house had added. On the other side, similar footprint and lot, nobody lives there. The owner died 15 years ago and the daughter that owns it now keeps it up nicely as a shrine to her mother, I suppose. > > The occupied house to the west: $945/yr > The unoccupied house to the east: $888/yr > My house: ~$14,000/yr > > I’ve decided I don’t much love Prop 13. Well, she bought a 90000 house. So, you bought a $\*1.4Million dollar house, and you’re complaining? \*And, what do you think your Prop tax would be without it? Likely $30000 or more. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/155 "2016-05-31T03:09:04Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > She had options at her disposal as a result as I’ve mentioned above. So, again, grandma never had to move. > > But, since I didn’t have that sort of foresight my options were to either go in way over my head financially because I have to pay my neighbor’s property taxes for them, or move someplace slightly less expensive where the subsidization of my neighbors is offset by lower house costs. I chose the latter. I’m still paying my neighbors taxes, but my monthly payment is more manageable. > > Your suggestion that I could have planned better when I was born, but grandma couldn’t foresee increasing property taxes, are silly. Are grandmothers in California somehow different from the grandmothers in the other 49 states where there is no prop 13? 1. Taking out a 2nd mortgage you cant afford the monthly payments on is a terrible option. Do we have to explain the difference between **Wealth** and **Income** to you? 2. You’re \*not \*paying your neighbors taxes. In no way shape or form would your taxes be less without Prop 13. They would likely be higher. 3. Yes, most of the other states haven’t seen p\*roperty values jump 10X due to speculators. \* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/156 "2016-05-31T03:15:51Z")
dbl. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/157 "2016-05-31T06:19:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > He might as well blame Google buses on Prop. 13. San Francisco has boomed, has gotten popular as a place to live, and has no space for more houses. I know people who work in Santa Clara who have moved to San Francisco which seems just stupid. > On the other hand, housing costs in San Jose and the environs are absurd also. Those of us clever enough to have bought 20 years ago or more don’t really see the impact. But you might have noticed the survey saying that about half the people in Silicon Valley would like to move out due to housing prices and traffic. > Remember when the Texans were saying that everyone was leaving California? Wonder what happened to them? Yep, I was tempted to add that. The fact is, the young folks (the ones without kids) are flocking to SF in droves, pushing up housing prices. SF’s problems as a childless city have little, if anything, to do with prop 13. There are lots of other factors like limited supply of housing, rent control, and plain old demographics. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/158 "2016-05-31T06:47:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Then why haven’t they? Might it possibly have something to do with the fact that California tax law massively punishes moving? > > And **John Mace** , what makes you say the spending is a problem? If the people of California want lots of government spending, and they’re also willing to pay the taxes to support that spending, then there’s no problem. Unless, that is, they can get the spending they want but can’t get the taxes they want. Everyone wants a handout but not everyone wants to pay. Now, if enough people in California were willing to pay more taxes and vote that way taxes would magically rise. But enough voters obviously don’t want higher taxes. And as always those who feel they are undertaxed can write a check to the state. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/159 "2016-05-31T06:49:52Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > If the real estate market tanks, then they get their taxes reassessed down to the original levels they were when they bought the house, and the problem solves itself. If the real estate market increases 50 fold, they use the home equity line of credit to pay the taxes and get even richer when they finally sell the place. Either way, problem is solved and grandma didn’t have to move before she was ready. Or they vote and act to keep things the way they are and avoid that nonsense altogether. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/160 "2016-05-31T07:47:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. Taking out a 2nd mortgage you cant afford the monthly payments on is a terrible option. Do we have to explain the difference between **Wealth** and **Income** to you? There absolutely are financial products available that could work in such situations, and there’d likely be others offered if Prop13 hadn’t altered the market. For example, reverse mortgages have been around in since the 1960s, albeit on a limited scale until the 1990s. You borrow against the equity, and you make no payments whatsoever until the property is sold. Mum stays in her house and the taxes get paid, regardless of her income level. > [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. You’re \*not \*paying your neighbors taxes. In no way shape or form would your taxes be less without Prop 13. They would likely be higher. Sure, the taxes would very likely be less for later purchasers without Prop 13. The streets need maintaining and the teachers need paying, but the governing body can’t raise tax broadly to pay the bills. In the example given earlier in the thread, they need roughly $16K out of the three properties to pay their bills, but with taxes on two of them capped, the balance has to be made up out of the third. The math is actually more complicated than that, because the third’s taxes are also capped, just at a different level, but the general idea is the same in that whenever a property is reassessed for tax purposes, the level has to be set high enough to generate sufficient taxes to pay the locale’s bills. In a more equitable system, the taxes might be 5/5/6K instead of 1/1/14 to generate that same $16K, or could conceivably by 6/6/6 or 6/6/7, generating a little more, but on what do you base the notion that the taxes would “likely” be 14/14/15 (generating 43K instead of 16K) or even higher? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=9)