|
Here's how to fix gentrification. Local jurisdictions are already allowed to create tax districts with special property tax rules. When an area is ripe for gentrification, create a tax zone which applies to any property owner who lives in the house or has family living in the house as a sole residence. Either freeze the property tax or allow it to rise a small amount every year. When the house is sold, the new owner is subject to the full property tax assessment. This would prevent current residents from being chased from their homes due to exploding tax bills while also permitting them to cash out and sell their homes for the new higher prices if they choose. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Oct 16, 2014 |
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Also the government needs to get back into constructing, but not managing housing. The primary reason for lack of affordable housing is that in high demand markets, developers chase the most lucrative customers. Very few developers target the middle and low income brackets, housing for these demographics tends to trickle down from high to low as the area becomes undesirable for whatever reason (this is why first- and second-generation suburbs are the new ghettos). The government needs to directly fund the construction of apartment and condo buildings which are then sold off at a fixed rate, with a deed restriction that the rent or sale price can't be more than X% of median housing cost or whatever. The idea is to inject more units directly into the medium/low cost markets without waiting for housing to decay enough to become affordably priced. Affordable housing allowances and restrictions kind of do this, by imposing a burden on the developer in exchange for more permissive FAR or parking restrictions or whatever other zoning variance is handy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:This has literally been in effect across all of California since the 70s and has done fuckall to curb rents in San Francisco. Yeah, it does make things worse when you freeze property taxes for rich people and not just for poor people. I propose that we freeze property taxes just for poor people when rich people start buying up the neighborhood. Also SF is hosed up because they refuse to allow new housing, not specifically because of Prop 13. Again, because wealthy homeowners looking for subsidies hijacked the protections that should only be used to protect people who can't otherwise afford their homes when markets blast off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This is what destroyed the state of California's budgets for 40 years. Also, it effectively served as a handout to middle/upper middle class white people (and was supported by them) and did basically nothing for the poor. Prop 13 and a Gentrified Tax District have about as much in common as stabbing and surgery. When my argument is "We should freeze taxes for the poor in some circumstances" you can't rebut that with "But California froze taxes for the rich all over the state and it hosed everything up!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Well I propose that all rent-seeking behavior be taxed at significantly higher rates as to encourage home ownership of primary residences instead of treating residential property as an investment. Conversely, cities create special tax districts all the time and freezing your revenue at a current level for some people as a subsidy doesn't cost you any extra, you're only foregoing future income. A healthy number of cities do this exact thing to fund infrastructure. icantfindaname posted:They didn't freeze taxes for the rich, they froze taxes for middle class white Republican homeowners (who then became rich because they didn't have to pay any property tax). These things are fundamentally related. The people who will benefit from property tax freezes are not the poor, it's people who own property Hence why I said in my post (please read my post) that we subsidize homeowners who live in the home as a primary residence, or have family who live in the home (uncle's house might be in grandma's name).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Contradictory statements, nonsensical logic. Very poor effort. See me after class. What part, specifically, do you disagree with? I interned at a county zoning office for a few months before I realized I needed a drastic career change, so I don't know what part you're struggling with. TIFs and TADs are well known mechanisms for accomplishing a thing on the local level. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That doesn't help the poor. Poor people don't own houses. Your plan helps the homeowning middle class, not the poor. There are many cities where poor people own houses. Believe it or not. icantfindaname posted:So..... The idea is that you freeze revenues collected at the current level, and allocate any future growth towards the infrastructure project. It's the exact same as if you got a raise, but you saved anything beyond your previous income level. This way you can set money aside while still living on the expenses you had last year. The anti-gentrification TIF would simply forego that revenue entirely, as a subsidy for the protected class (poor homeowners). boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:By definition those people aren't as poor as the poorest, so what is the problem exactly with them paying property tax? Like I said, if they're forced out by gentrification they're not necessarily being forced into lovely housing. Let's say I'm a retired person living on a fixed income. I own my own home, as I bought it in 1960 and paid it off in 1990. This is actually a common scenario in many low income neighborhoods with a large stock of single family residences. My house is valued at $90k, which leads to a tax bill of $900. Suddenly, the homes around me start getting bought up by young people. This increases the value of my home through the magic of hedonic markets to a respectable $160k. Hooray! The millage rate remains the same, so now my yearly tax bill is $1600. Boo. I can no longer afford to pay the tax on my home and might as well sell. Hopefully I can use this money to purchase another home somewhere else at an equivalent quality of life. Good luck with that when homes in decent neighborhoods are getting bought up. They're not necessarily being forced into lovely housing, it's just likely. icantfindaname posted:Basically, nobody has actually bothered to explain why gentrification is a bad thing to begin with. Most of the complaints about it seem to be coming as much from middle class homeowners being priced out as they are from actual poor people. I don't really give a poo poo about white middle class people getting priced out of Brooklyn, sorry A lot of folks ITT are talking about middle class people in the stupidly inflated markets of NYC and SF. I'm talking about what's happening in most every other non-rust belt American city. Gentrification is the natural consequence of white flight. In most American cities, white wealth fled from neighborhoods, leading to a lowered income status quo. Jobs fled at the same time, meaning the non-white middle class in these neighborhoods was likely to get poorer. Decades later, wealth is no longer afraid of mixed race neighborhoods and is returning to take advantage of relatively cheap homes in cities. This is a good thing in the long run, as long as two outcomes happen. Ideally, this growth in the market stimulates the development of more positive urban development, and not just cheap autocentric suburbs. Also ideally, lower income people don't get chased out of decent neighborhoods into lovely neighborhoods. When I say lovely neighborhoods, I mean first and second ring suburbs. These are neighborhoods that were built roughly 1930-1960, primarily accessible only by car. These neighborhoods tend to have decaying housing stock, lowering their rental value and making them more attractive to the poorest folks. Unfortunately, where the urban ghetto at least had bus access and strong social networks, suburban ghettos are more difficult and expensive to navigate - meaning that it's harder for you to find a job, and harder to participate in community life. Enigma89 posted:This may be nice for people who don't move but for those that do it's a hardship. Yes, but there's very little you can do about that from a legislative standpoint. You'd have to actively interfere with the market, not just subsidize select persons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So build public transportation then? Once again you didn't explain why gentrification is bad, but a lack of public transportation. Public transportation is expensive as hell and doesn't help people who cross into the wrong jurisdictions. If I lose my home in Urban County and find a rental out in Flykicker Country twenty miles away, it doesn't help me if the residents of Flykicker Country don't participate in the regional mass transit program.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So fix jurisdictional issues regarding public transit then. I... don't think you realize how incredibly unrealistic it is to 'just fix jurisdictional issues'. Pointing out that it's quite difficult to walk across an ocean is not shutting down or giving up. "Look, chronic hunger and poverty is easy. Just give people all the free food and money they need! What's so hard about that? Typical leftist, why are you so quick to admit defeat?" If only it were that easy...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It always seemed to me like this was because of how few total units they were allowed to make. If you're only allowed to produce a thousand cars a year, obviously you're going to go for the high end. Sometimes, but also just as a nature of the profit motive you're more likely to sell cars that net you $10k in profit rather than $1k in profit. It's not just artificially capped supply, developers are just much more prone to target the higher end market for something as expensive as new housing construction. Cicero posted:Developers can't manufacture demand for arbitrarily-priced properties out of thin air; if that was the case, how would you explain lower-priced housing in cheaper parts of the country? Are the developers in cheaper places like Texas or Georgia just huge morons who are physically incapable of making luxury properties? Yes, demand in places like SF is very high, but it's not infinite. quote:The primary reason for lack of affordable housing is that in high demand markets, developers chase the most lucrative customers. Very few developers target the middle and low income brackets, housing for these demographics tends to trickle down from high to low as the area becomes undesirable for whatever reason (this is why first- and second-generation suburbs are the new ghettos). Cheaper parts of the country tend not to have housing affordability problems. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Look, any problem is easy. Just fix it! No more problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Who in the middle class is trying to buy an apartment building as an investment? Or do you mean a business? Even then, who are these people and how on Earth can they afford it? I think he means a single apartment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:If you read that fantastic Chicago blog from a few pages back, you can see pretty clearly that the best way to get 'affordable' housing is to change zoning restrictions, whether it be in the near-downtown or the suburbs (or realistically, both). Sure, but changing zoning restrictions means public comment and hearings, giving the NIMBYs an opportunity to organize and shut that poo poo down. It's a totally viable technique IF there is the political will to do so, and that political will can dissipate quickly if a bunch of wealthy neighborhood homeowners get together and complain about their property values and apply pressure to the zoning board. Changing zoning is a carrot approach, but you still need a stick to make developers cater directly to the people in need and not just build middle of the road decent apartments, which would only help the poor by lessening housing pressure as the middle classes move into the new units. icantfindaname posted:I don't really see what's wrong with a simple public subsidy of rent, IE if you can't pay the market rate the government will make up the difference. We do that in America with Section 8 vouchers. It works in theory, but in practice there is a stigma associated with Section 8 tenants meaning that most landlords refuse to accept the vouchers, creating a sort of slumlord effect as landlords with awful properties accept the vouchers to rent at higher than market rate for substandard residences. Again, this is because most low-income housing is just hand-me-down falling apart rat traps that nobody else wants to live in, because nobody builds new housing for the lower or lower middle class. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
side_burned posted:that has been very well established, but gentrification is not a good thing by any stretch. Gentrification is a good thing for society, but a bad thing for individuals. People and families suffer loss of homes, neighborhoods, and social networks because of gentrification. However, it is a good thing that the decades-long trend of suburbanization is reversing. e: Gentrification is a consequence of white flight, so when that cooled off gentrification was inevitable without strong government action. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 04:22
|
|