|
Popular Thug Drink posted: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 has literally been in effect across all of California since the 70s and has done fuckall to curb rents in San Francisco. All it results in is the current situation where property owners simply turn their dwellings into rentals rather than selling, because why not. San Francisco now has roughly a 35% home ownership rate.
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted: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. 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. But the likelihood of that happening anytime soon is about the same as my other proposal of dragging every landlord and banker out into the street and hanging them from the nearest pole.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted: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. Contradictory statements, nonsensical logic. Very poor effort. See me after class.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a rent control scheme that, when applied to a market with a genuine housing shortage, produced a more equitable outcome than would have been achieved by just letting the market do its thing. If you have a shortage of housing in places where people want to live, it necessarily follows that at least some people will be unable to live there and will quite reasonably be pissed off about the situation and regard it as deeply unfair. You can't eliminate that unfairness without building more housing (or making it more attractive to live elsewhere in the city/country), all you can do is decide who gets the lovely end of the stick. Congratulations! The Cato Institute totally agrees with you. You might remember them from their "study" last year claiming that poor people have it totally easy, really.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So your proposal is to use mass eminent domain to seize properties, apparently arbitrarily, in city centres. I'm sure this would work out well...... Forums Poster Fangz appears to not understand that eminent domain involves the big scary government handing you a sack of cash in exchange for your land at market value.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of people will say "you didn't give me what it's really worth and anyway I don't want to move even for ten times what it's worth". Another really common thing that happens is that they'll only buy what they need, which means that you can be left with a weird little slice of land that you can't do much with. Though during the big interstate system buildout these little slices were frequently rented out or sold to billboard companies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:29
|
|