Comment by polalavik

The inability to pay a high tax increase constantly comes up in discussions on Prop 13, and it seems like a willful failure to find a solution.

For personal property, raise the taxes, and give the home owner the option to defer the raise as a lien against the property, accruing fair interest. Nobody gets kicked out of their home, and the taxes get paid when the home is sold. If it is inherited, then the inheritors will have to increase their taxes paid at least so that the lien amount no longer increases relative to the home value.

For commercial property, cap the property tax paid by the lease-holder to the historic rate + a several percent growth to gradually meet the current tax bill. The rest of the tax becomes a lien on the property to be paid on sale, with forced payment increases if the lien to value ratio becomes too large. It would be up to the property owner whether they pay the additional tax or take it as a lien. Ultimately, commercial prop 13 was a mistake, and businesses that can't compete on a level playing field need to be gradually pressured to improve profitability or make the space available to someone that can.

Edit: one more thing that people seem to forget is that if we repeal Prop 13, we can reduce the property tax rate and keep the same tax income. So the unpayable increase is much more affordable than a naive analysis would suggest.

Yeah, I feel like the yimby's are going to take another run at repealing it for investment properties (5+ units of multifamily and all of commercially-zoned property) and it stands a much greater chance of passing the next time because of how close it was last time. The messaging will be much sharper.

Re your NNN comment, would you mind sharing a source for that? My gut says it's not accurate, but happy to be proven wrong. If you meant total square footage of leased space, that would make more sense, but having a hard time believing most leases are NNN (and since your point was about businesses going under what I think matters is the number of leases because (a bit over-simplified) 1 lease = 1 business regardless of the square footage leased by the business.

The ironic thing about this whole topic of businesses going under is that there's no rent control, for the most part, for businesses and yet Prop 13 acts as rent control (i.e., carried cost control) for landlords. If the landlords only charged the market rent that was achievable at the time they bought the property with a nominal capped annual increase that'd be pretty good for operating businesses, just not for the landlord's real estate business.

P.s. I personally benefit from Prop 13 and would be happy to have its market-distorting bullshit eliminated!

> We might just want to pass a gradual phase in

You could probably adjust the annual percentage increase and find a balance between pre-prop13 problems of rapidly increasing property tax and the post-prop13 problems of significant gap between capped assessment and actual value.

Probably also need to do something about transfers via holding companies as well, since there's a ton of commercial properties that have never had their assessment cap reset because of the way the beneficial holding rules apply to corporations. OTOH, if the capped assessment grows at something like 5% per year, maybe it can catch up soon enough anyway.

What is the limiting principle here?

You note that a bunch of small business just won't be viable if you up the taxes, but you agree on the need to do it. So do you just keep upping the taxes until nothing is profitable except giant soulless corporations (who will then probably subvert the tax system anyway)?

Doing that would be good policy but bad politics. The people it would hurt the worst are the ones who vote most (older people) and the people most responsible for cities being the way they are (people who have lived in one spot a long time). So it's unlikely to directly happen, for that reason.

Piecemeal reform is much easier to swallow. Especially if you start with something like commercial properties, and especially since the increased income that results can be used to create tangible community improvements.

So even if your ultimate goal is full repeal, the correct strategy to make that come about is piecemeal reform, and pushing for a full repeal is counterproductive to that happening.

Prop 13 passed originally as a taxpayer revolt against uncontrolled spending increases by local governments. I agree that reform is needed but I'll only support changes if they maintain some sort of reasonable revenue limits on local governments. Otherwise the money will just be wasted giving fat raises to public employees.

I'm a former (i.e. not irrelevant to the question) Californian who also thinks Prop 13 should be repealed, and am probably supportive of LVT;

Can you walk through the scenario that younger neighbors pay a tech of the property tax you do? Are they legacies and benefiting from some sort of inherited trust or something?

> The entire thing is about making sure land is used on the most socially benefiting way possible.

The idea of land value tax is to make the government effectively the universal landowner and everyone else renters, and renters paying a high enough rent that it is economically infeasible to use land for any but the most financially remunerative purpose.

Having it optimizing for social utility rather than maximizing negative externalities requires a finely optimized system of Pigovian taxes and subsidies, otherwise you are nailing the accelerator to the floor on the divergence between market incentives and social utility.

How do they make mortgage payments without rent?

So it does not help with commercial property? How does that work? I don't understand the reasoning. Because this is of course not true unless it lowers the value of that land to below zero. And if it lowers the value of that land even just to zero, it'll just be undeveloped entirely ...