Dan McAllister is not someone to joke aboutā¦Iāve said too much alreadyā¦..if Iām not on Reddit again by this time tomorrow , tell my family I love them and notify the authoritiesā¦..
Because like Assessor-Recorder it's an elected position and since the job gets no press he needs to help people remember his name somehow come November. It's a common practice for these sorts of offices.
If you compare it to the Assessor-Recorder (Jordan Marks), his name on the page is not nearly as prominent, large or stylized. I thought I was getting a letter from a Chevy dealer when I received my tax bill.
As someone else mentioned, it's publicly available. This is his position:
https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/sdcounty/classspecs?keywords=00185
TL:DR $237K annually
It's probably somewhere publicly available. . . though I'm more interested in know the details of how it is spent. It can easily be like the top comment said. Money thrown away on things it was never meant for.
I know his daughter from high school, they didnāt live in any kind of crazy house or anything. Pretty normal. It is weird still seeing his name on my property tax bill tho
lol yeah it's just funny how his name is EVERYWHERE related to property taxes, even walking through the waterfront city hall I know immediately which office he works in
Same, pay all the property taxes then get the old folks on the HOA getting on our ass about having a little playground in our back yard for our young child that no one can even fucking see.
That is ironic too, the generation that keeps telling the younger gen to "have more kids" yet doesn't want to hear/see kids or pay a property tax that would go towards investment in local schools / infrastructure
This sub for some reason loves to crap on Prop 13 (I have a feeling it's all the people with sour grapes that don't have a home). I guarantee if you bought a place, you wouldn't want the government pricing you out when you're retired, or if your area explodes in value and now suddenly you're paying so much more in taxes.
> I guarantee if you bought a place, you wouldn't want the government pricing you out when you're retired
Yes, I guarantee you everyone is selfish about money.
I was in high school when Prop 13 was proposed, was vocally against it, and wrote a long and considered OPED in the school newspaper. Now that I'm a homeowner, I feel grateful that it passed. I wouldn't be able to pay my property taxes otherwise.
Gentrification happens, places change. It's a capitalist economy, deal with it.
The hate comes from the fact that it pulled the ownership ladder from future generations. I'm lucky enough to own in CA but that was through luck and financial discipline.Ā
I mean if you hate poor people just say so. Prices in the past were feasible for people on average salaries. That is no longer the case.
I have a feeling that most boomers who bought their homes back then would never be able to do the same in today's market.
> I'm lucky enough to own in CA but that was through luck and financial discipline.Ā
Oh, you're a homeowner. Do tell if you pay your prop 13 level taxes or do you pay the same rate voluntarily as the most recently sold comp in your area to be "fair"?
We know the answer is the former don't we?
I love presumptuous comments like this. Reddit really does live in a bubble. I didn't inherit like you did.
If I paid market rate taxes my cash flow would still be fine. Thanks for your concern :)
yes, this sub is full of broke ass people with terrible jobs who think if prop 13 went away, they'd suddenly be able to afford a house. They think it'll drive down prices but are too ignorant to realize the monthly expenditure of house+taxes would still be full on unobatinium for them.
They also haven't learned that giving the government more money doesn't end up fixing much of anything.
Itās not even that. The moment their house appreciates and suddenly theyāre saddled with a higher tax burden, theyāll be like āwell ackshaualltyā¦ prop13 might not be badā
If folks wanna know what happens without prop 13. Look at Chicago. Itās not uncommon for taxes to double in past years. Then folks lose their homes for not paying taxes. Then guess what happensā¦ investors come in and pay 60 cents on the dollar and then catch up taxes, ultimately passing it on to the new renters. Overtime the neighborhood gentrifies because investors out there work together to systematically raise prices in a neighborhood then sell off to new home owners while gentrifying and fixing up the next hood.
At the end of the day itās those at the bottom that hurt the most from the governments ability to adjust taxes and appraised value. Prop 13 prevents runaway taxation saves those families that are on low income. Forget about the few boomers that still have their house and rich as fuck. Itās for the boomers that are on SS and Medicare and the families that have 2-3 generations under a roof and work those low wage jobs in the county. Everyone who hates prop 13 doesnāt see that theyāre literally voting for the government to tax you more.
Another side to look at is because taxes are so high in that city. It keeps housing prices lower. Which allows people to put a down payment of 10-20% and build equity IF they can make their property taxes every year.
> They also haven't learned that giving the government more money doesn't end up fixing much of anything.
That's what the rich always say. Giving the government more money doesn't fix anything, so let's have more tax cuts. Only for us, of course.
The real reason that housing is so expensive here are rage NIMBYs who wonāt allow enough housing to be built to satisfy demand. Many of the NIMBYs are old people who now have high house values but have capped property taxes.
I would love to see a study that shows the overnight change in taxes procured if prop 13 was suddenly repealed. I bet it would be an absolutely gargantuan number and all of our budgeting issues would disappear. The housing market might suddenly get a little more affordable as all the seniors flee SD, too. Maybe then we could finally afford to move from our condo to a real, full-sized house.
SD now has a massive budget deficit. The temporary superintendent of PUSD sent out an email about it. I believe it was tens of millions of dollars just for PUSD. I'm not sure what California's budget situation is, but I imagine it's similar as they're all facing the same economic environment.
I guess there was thought to be a record high surplus but was really Governor Newsoms bragging about his budget a little bit too soon, appears shutting down the economy during the pandemic was not good for the economyā¦ who would have guessed, lol.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/10/california-budget-whiplash-pitfalls-forecasting/
Yeah at some point Gruesome Newsome wanted to let everyone that he and his team were doing a really good job budgeting and planning, then two months later they are spending tooo much and are running up the deficit by the millionsā¦
It would solve a lot of educational funding issues. Which "coincidentally" came to be because of prop 13. The reason CA is ranked 37th in education is because many inner city districts have a lack of resources. Education has been funded in other ways like the lottery (started in 1985).
The biggest argument people use for prop 13 is that they don't want seniors getting kicked out of their homes.
This is a bad faith argument because prop 13 has been shown time and again that it mostly benefitted rich people. Sure a few people will get kicked out of their homes but they already have a massive amount of equity and can easily move elsewhere.
[California Prop. 13ās āunjust legacyā detailed in critical study | EdSource](https://edsource.org/2022/californias-prop-13s-unjust-legacy-detailed-in-critical-study/674412)
The second is that if the property tax is too high then you are free to live elsewhere. The same concept applies to home prices.
I doubt prices will go down by that much if prop 13 were overturned but there will be more inventory.
> Sure a few people will get kicked out of their homes but they already have a massive amount of equity and can easily move elsewhere.
Hrm. Not sure I like that sentiment.
We see posts here every now and then where someone is complaining about the high cost and needing to move and saying goodbye, and there are some people who speak up and say, "Yeah, well, San Diego is expensive and if you can't afford it then move away," to which they get downvoted and people saying they are heartless.
This is the same sentiment, no? "Sorry it costs too much to live here, good luck elsewhere," but perhaps even more callous as it's more tenable for a 25 year old to move across the country than a 75 year old granny.
An empty nester selling a big house for a million plus and moving across the neighborhood into a 300k 55+ building condo is not a big deal
Young families getting priced out of the region entirely is a big deal
Do we have a free market when we have things like Prop 13, or programs for affordable housing? What about building codes, height restrictions, and other policies that drive up the cost of real estate and limit density?
People place bids and sellers take offers. That is a free market.
You are free to bid $1 for a house. It doesn't mean you will win.
Prop 13 is a price control meant to favor the rich. It did what it was intended to do.
Density limits are the fault of NIMBYs. Even Obama called them out.
[Barack Obama Blasts Liberal NIMBYs (therealdeal.com)](https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/06/30/barack-obama-blasts-liberal-nimbys/)
They will pay market rates for taxes.
Lets say granny has a house worth 800k that she bought for 80k back in 1985. Thanks to prop 13 she is only paying taxes on that 80k (1% of sale value, plus capped yearly increases). The new owner who now buys that house for 800k pays taxes on 800k.
Granny only pays \~$800
New owner pays \~$8000
Im not following how you think prop 13 is the free market.
This myth needs to die.
The average tenure of homes in San Diego is 15 years, which is the same, and even lower, than many other major cities in the U.S.
But other major cities donāt have prop 13 or tax increase limits like California does.
Average home price 15 years ago: $330k
Average home price now: $990k
Your average owner who bought 15 years ago only pays $5.8k ($330k x 1.30% = $430k, taxed at 1.35%). Young new family scraping by pays $13.3k
By the way, the median is 12, so no there arenāt āmany citiesā that top San Diego. And guess which ones do? Mostly Californian cities.
The point is, there needs to be a distribution of taxes paid. Boomers already got the benefit of incredible equity gains, without any of the cost of higher taxes. Itās a NIMBY fiscal policy.
Well then keep it the same for everyone else and maintain the taxable value even after transfer and take out the step up. The cost to run a county doesnāt go up 300% in 15 years; so why is it okay for new owners to pay 3x as much for the same property?
>By the way, the median is 12, so no there arenāt āmany citiesā that top San Diego. And guess which ones do? Mostly Californian cities.
That's across every single place in the US, not just major cities. If you actually take a look at the list of major cities, you'd see that ALL of these have a higher tenure than San Diego, all while *NOT* having prop 13. Your argument of "prop 13 makes people keep their homes longer" is completely disproven here. In fact, out of the 10 cities in the U.S. that have a population of 1 million or more, 80% have a longer tenure than San Diego.
Honolulu
Jersey City
Boston
Washington DC
Cleveland
Dayton
Memphis
Detroit
Miami
Philadelphia
Akron
Chicago
Newark
and about 5 others
> Average home price 15 years ago: $330k Average home price now: $990k
The exact reason why Prop 13 needs to exist. No one would be able to keep up with this rate of tax increases.
This doesn't make sense.
Taxes are a percentage of the sale price, it works the exact same way with or without prop 13.
The only thing different is that your taxes won't increase drastically and push you out of your home.
New buyers and old all benefit exactly the same
Donāt clap back at me if you donāt understand how property taxes work. Assessed value is completely different than sale price.
New owner gets a step up from prior owners taxable amount to current assessed value. Same home but now young family pays 3x the taxes for the same public services. Makes no sense.
It's funny because you are the one that doesn't know how property taxes work. Assessed value is NOT market value, and it does NOT get assessed routinely, it's also variable by region and can be just a fraction of assessed value. Especially in times of high increases in prices, assessment values are delayed by many years and taxes continue to stay lower than market value. You really did try though, but you're in over your head on this topic.Ā
Ā >Same home but now young family pays 3x the taxes for the same public services
Ā This is the case in EVERY market with or without prop 13. It's very clear you're never looked into property tax systems in other states.
Since you have no idea about it - nearly every other state has a system to cap the property tax increase year over year.
Longer tenure home owners are always on a lower tax burden than new home owners and for good reasons.
New home owners have more income on average. Retirees have fixed income. It's simple. Use your brain.
You literally just said the same thing I did š āassessed value stays lower than market value and taxes stay lowā. So then taxes are based on assessed value and not market value or sale price.
Sure many states have tax increase limits but they donāt have $1m median homes.
Again, main point was that you drop property rates and make it more equitable for everyone. If you donāt agree with that then you really are NIMBY.
The county of San Diego sure doesnāt need 3x the cash it did 15 years ago.
> You literally just said the same thing I did
Except you don't have any idea what that means for taxes.
You think Prop 13 keeps taxes low.
So does assessed value with caps.
There's no difference.
>The county of San Diego sure doesnāt need 3x the cash it did 15 years ago.
Good thing the average tenure is 15 years so home ownership and taxes have been flushed since then.
Come back when you have any real data to support literally any obnoxious claim you have - because your opinions don't matter.
>Again, main point was that you drop property rates and make it more equitable for everyone. If you donāt agree with that then you really are NIMBY.
Property taxes are never dropping. We already have the lowest rates out of most major cities. The only place taxes are going with a removal of Prop 13 is UP.
Add it to the pile.
$550/mo property tax
$400/HOA because SFH is a pipe dream
$150/mo mortgage insurance
$200/mo home insurance
Leaves little room for what one can afford on the principalā¦
Huh, you'd think a high rise would have many more people and that would lessen the cost per unit. I have a buddy who lived downtown a few years back and his HOAs were ~$750 a month, and they had a decent gym, a pool, a hot tub, a pretty nice BBQ area, etc.
Yeah, our building is unique, not enough units for the height of the building.
Most HOAās are $800-1100 regardless, itās terrifying, but glad I bought in where the HOA plus mortgage is less than most peoples rents.
I work for a civil/CM firm and our roadway widening and improvement projects are contracts with the County, not the City. Our City contracts are mainly water/sewer. Just some insight from my experience that youāre not totally wrong. Cc @thizzydrafts
Fun fact: if property taxes were fairly assessed across all homeowners in San Diego, we could have a property tax rate around 0.15% instead of the current ~1.1%.Ā
Wow thatās fascinating. Can you show some math? I assume you mean assessing based on property value (but >1% similar to states without Prop 13) and replacing the current amount of tax revenue taken in
Good question. This sounds more like an extrapolation based on some millennial wailing point about virtually all property being monopolized by embedded boomers who bought in the 60s and have never sold.
If you ever looked at the San Diego county property foreclosure auctions, you'll notice a lot of multi-million dollar properties listed including the mega mansions on Neptune St in La Jolla. They end up on the auction because the owners never pay taxes, that is until the week before the last day of the auctions when they pay just enough to have the listing removed and buy another year of pending round of litigation before it gets listed again. They do this because paying $50k annually to a lawyer is cheaper than paying $100k in taxes on a $10m property.
I mean itās not that hard to extrapolate this data even on rough mental math. If even my neighbors who bought in the 90ās have had their home appreciate 8x in that time frame but are still paying on 90ās evaluations, that makes sense. Look at 80ās and prior and it becomes really believable.
Rough mental math? Youāre talking about pure anecdata. My neighborhood sounds very different from yours, but Iām not holding it up as the basis for rough mental math.
All Iām saying is that it doesnāt sound plausible that the tax base in non-dollar terms skews so heavily toward people who bought at market lows and/or 50 years ago and havenāt done anything to raise the taxable valuation that my own tax rate (Iām a GenXer who most recently bought in late 2021) would go down by 90% if Prop 13 were repealed.
If it were repealed, I bet the emphasis would be on raising the rate for the freeloaders. Not because government is greedy, but because there are too many deferred needs to catch up on before rates could be lowered.
Iām open to being wrong, but Iām not taking something like this on faith. I hope idk895 follows up with some sourcing (hopefully non-TikTok) for their claim.
I mean I apologize here for even answering on my walk to the gym, but I just felt the need to refute what I feel is a heavily exaggerated need for you to have relied upon an assumption that the argument stems from agist beliefs that boomers ruined it all, or something.
The facts are, regardless of anecdata, that homeowners in san diego hold on to their homes much longer than elsewhere in the US. I believe itās roughly double the national average. To further compound this issue, home prices have appreciated at a significantly higher rate than the national average as well. These two factors alone mean that the basis of property tax funds are heavily biased towards new home purchases.
We can certainly debate the pros and cons of what it would mean to remove prop 13, how that would certainly affect retired individuals on a fixed income, or that we could consider higher property taxes for foreign buyers or those with a second home. Those are all considerations as well.
But the fact remains that I donāt think itās too hard to imagine a place like san diego with the aforementioned issues of long term home ownership and extreme appreciation to figure that many home buyers have seen more than 8x appreciation in the time theyāve owned it. .15% to 1.1% is ~7.34x rate of appreciation.
What I do have time to sort out is the median home price in san diego. In 2023 that was 911,000. Divided by 7.34 puts us at roughly 125k median home price we would need to see to put that figure in place. Median home prices passed that level sometime in the 1980ās (I can only find median data on my walk right now to 1990 where it was 181k).
CA is 0.7%. San Diego county **median** property tax is $4697. San Diego county **median** housing unit $725,200. That's 0.64% by my calculations.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/high-state-property-taxes-2021/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.taxfoundation.org/median-property-tax-collections-2021/index.html
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sandiegocountycalifornia,sandiegocitycalifornia,CA/PST120222
Ā No, that is not how it works. If you mean to say if taxes were to be asses at current values without prop 13 then the % of revenue needed to reach that amount is .15% then yeah sure. Wording alludes to if only we taxed people more we all could have a lower rate which is just not true. Government doesn't generally lower taxes at all especially here in CA.Ā
Yeah, and all the grannies would be in senior housing because they wouldn't be able to afford the homes they've spent decades in. That's the whole point of how our tax system works. Maybe go after the real villains. Your government is allowing out-of-country interests and corporations to buy property in San Diego even though they have no intention of living here. This is making it impossible for natives to afford houses. I mean, how can you even compete with someone who will pay like 50-100k over market value in cash just to secure the property?
Iām with ya on investors, but grannie should move. Granny in her 3 bedroom house by herself should go to sr living where services can be provided more easily, upkeep is easier and they can be with their peers instead of getting angry with my 3 year old when he walks on her lawn. Instead we have a family of 4 living in a one bedroom apartment because we want to protect grannies right to live in a huge house long after she needs to live there.
Not being kicked out, just not living basically tax free because you happened to be born at a time when housing was plentiful. There is nice senior housing being built all the time which is quite affordable and has amenities suited for people of that age. There is no reason for society to protect people staying in our limited housing suited for families well past that part of their life. This is a relatively new phenomenon due to increased lifespan and changes in family structure.
And BTW, my parenting is just fine.
Honestly in this context land use is the biggest reason. No where to really go. Sure you can increase density, but single family homes are well suited for families with kids. Me and my wife bought a townhouse, later started a family and moved into a SFH, and intend to go into a townhouse/condo when the kids move out. There are so many homes in my neighborhood with original owners or inherited from original owners who pay next to nothing in property taxes and are just simply not taken care of.
Anyone know why the county tax collector uses a non-government domain (sdttc.com) instead of other county departments that use sandiegocounty.gov? The email account they tell you to use, "[email protected]" is also a questionable choice.
Sad diego should be ashamed for not making it a better place to live !! But more profitable for the corporations and leaders. Remember this when you vote !!!
Dan McAllister probably will blast a rail and party hard tonight after reading this headline
Dan, the man š„
Hi, Iām Dan McAllister and customer service is number one priority.Ā
Seriously tho how much does that guy get paid?
And why is his name in a much larger font on the website, envelopes and tax bills than the name of the county or department?
Yeah what is he like the feudal lord of San Diego ? Do I have to kiss his ring when I see him?
Dan McAllister is not someone to joke aboutā¦Iāve said too much alreadyā¦..if Iām not on Reddit again by this time tomorrow , tell my family I love them and notify the authoritiesā¦..
Because like Assessor-Recorder it's an elected position and since the job gets no press he needs to help people remember his name somehow come November. It's a common practice for these sorts of offices.
If you compare it to the Assessor-Recorder (Jordan Marks), his name on the page is not nearly as prominent, large or stylized. I thought I was getting a letter from a Chevy dealer when I received my tax bill.
As someone else mentioned, it's publicly available. This is his position: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/sdcounty/classspecs?keywords=00185 TL:DR $237K annually
It's probably somewhere publicly available. . . though I'm more interested in know the details of how it is spent. It can easily be like the top comment said. Money thrown away on things it was never meant for.
Why does it matter what people spend their money on? We shouldnt pay someone bases their on what they plan to spend it on.
I know his daughter from high school, they didnāt live in any kind of crazy house or anything. Pretty normal. It is weird still seeing his name on my property tax bill tho
lol yeah it's just funny how his name is EVERYWHERE related to property taxes, even walking through the waterfront city hall I know immediately which office he works in
All shouldered on the backs of the young who didnāt buy their homes in the 70s and essentially pay 4x the tax rate.
As a millennial who is surrounded by elderly neighbors... 
Same, pay all the property taxes then get the old folks on the HOA getting on our ass about having a little playground in our back yard for our young child that no one can even fucking see.
While saying, āwhy donāt kids play outside anymore?ā
That is ironic too, the generation that keeps telling the younger gen to "have more kids" yet doesn't want to hear/see kids or pay a property tax that would go towards investment in local schools / infrastructure
fuck the olds
Itās a terribly unfair situation, but the gif is cracking me up.
This is legit how I feel lol I pay Mellow Roos and tell myself itās worth it if it goes into making the school system better
Wasnt Mellow Roos supposed to be gone by now?
MR are based on the neighborhood and the bonds associated with building it out. They make up for prop 13 deficiencies.
yuuuup paying 5-10x as much each year.
Prop 13 baby One of the best examples of pulling the ladder from under you.Ā
This sub for some reason loves to crap on Prop 13 (I have a feeling it's all the people with sour grapes that don't have a home). I guarantee if you bought a place, you wouldn't want the government pricing you out when you're retired, or if your area explodes in value and now suddenly you're paying so much more in taxes.
> I guarantee if you bought a place, you wouldn't want the government pricing you out when you're retired Yes, I guarantee you everyone is selfish about money.
Exactly. And not paying more taxes than we already are.
I was in high school when Prop 13 was proposed, was vocally against it, and wrote a long and considered OPED in the school newspaper. Now that I'm a homeowner, I feel grateful that it passed. I wouldn't be able to pay my property taxes otherwise.
Did your parents own the house you lived in? Because that wouldāve been peak irony. Haha
Gentrification happens, places change. It's a capitalist economy, deal with it. The hate comes from the fact that it pulled the ownership ladder from future generations. I'm lucky enough to own in CA but that was through luck and financial discipline.Ā I mean if you hate poor people just say so. Prices in the past were feasible for people on average salaries. That is no longer the case. I have a feeling that most boomers who bought their homes back then would never be able to do the same in today's market.
> I'm lucky enough to own in CA but that was through luck and financial discipline.Ā Oh, you're a homeowner. Do tell if you pay your prop 13 level taxes or do you pay the same rate voluntarily as the most recently sold comp in your area to be "fair"? We know the answer is the former don't we?
If he adds an ADU Prop 13 will be in full affect. How does that happen?
I love presumptuous comments like this. Reddit really does live in a bubble. I didn't inherit like you did. If I paid market rate taxes my cash flow would still be fine. Thanks for your concern :)
Itās actually illegal to overpay taxes.
yes, this sub is full of broke ass people with terrible jobs who think if prop 13 went away, they'd suddenly be able to afford a house. They think it'll drive down prices but are too ignorant to realize the monthly expenditure of house+taxes would still be full on unobatinium for them. They also haven't learned that giving the government more money doesn't end up fixing much of anything.
Itās not even that. The moment their house appreciates and suddenly theyāre saddled with a higher tax burden, theyāll be like āwell ackshaualltyā¦ prop13 might not be badā
If folks wanna know what happens without prop 13. Look at Chicago. Itās not uncommon for taxes to double in past years. Then folks lose their homes for not paying taxes. Then guess what happensā¦ investors come in and pay 60 cents on the dollar and then catch up taxes, ultimately passing it on to the new renters. Overtime the neighborhood gentrifies because investors out there work together to systematically raise prices in a neighborhood then sell off to new home owners while gentrifying and fixing up the next hood. At the end of the day itās those at the bottom that hurt the most from the governments ability to adjust taxes and appraised value. Prop 13 prevents runaway taxation saves those families that are on low income. Forget about the few boomers that still have their house and rich as fuck. Itās for the boomers that are on SS and Medicare and the families that have 2-3 generations under a roof and work those low wage jobs in the county. Everyone who hates prop 13 doesnāt see that theyāre literally voting for the government to tax you more. Another side to look at is because taxes are so high in that city. It keeps housing prices lower. Which allows people to put a down payment of 10-20% and build equity IF they can make their property taxes every year.
> They also haven't learned that giving the government more money doesn't end up fixing much of anything. That's what the rich always say. Giving the government more money doesn't fix anything, so let's have more tax cuts. Only for us, of course.
The real reason that housing is so expensive here are rage NIMBYs who wonāt allow enough housing to be built to satisfy demand. Many of the NIMBYs are old people who now have high house values but have capped property taxes.
I would love to see a study that shows the overnight change in taxes procured if prop 13 was suddenly repealed. I bet it would be an absolutely gargantuan number and all of our budgeting issues would disappear. The housing market might suddenly get a little more affordable as all the seniors flee SD, too. Maybe then we could finally afford to move from our condo to a real, full-sized house.
What budgeting issue ? Didnāt the state just have a surplus for the last few years or do you mean SD ?
SD now has a massive budget deficit. The temporary superintendent of PUSD sent out an email about it. I believe it was tens of millions of dollars just for PUSD. I'm not sure what California's budget situation is, but I imagine it's similar as they're all facing the same economic environment.
I guess there was thought to be a record high surplus but was really Governor Newsoms bragging about his budget a little bit too soon, appears shutting down the economy during the pandemic was not good for the economyā¦ who would have guessed, lol. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/10/california-budget-whiplash-pitfalls-forecasting/
Oooooops
Yeah at some point Gruesome Newsome wanted to let everyone that he and his team were doing a really good job budgeting and planning, then two months later they are spending tooo much and are running up the deficit by the millionsā¦
It would solve a lot of educational funding issues. Which "coincidentally" came to be because of prop 13. The reason CA is ranked 37th in education is because many inner city districts have a lack of resources. Education has been funded in other ways like the lottery (started in 1985). The biggest argument people use for prop 13 is that they don't want seniors getting kicked out of their homes. This is a bad faith argument because prop 13 has been shown time and again that it mostly benefitted rich people. Sure a few people will get kicked out of their homes but they already have a massive amount of equity and can easily move elsewhere. [California Prop. 13ās āunjust legacyā detailed in critical study | EdSource](https://edsource.org/2022/californias-prop-13s-unjust-legacy-detailed-in-critical-study/674412) The second is that if the property tax is too high then you are free to live elsewhere. The same concept applies to home prices. I doubt prices will go down by that much if prop 13 were overturned but there will be more inventory.
> Sure a few people will get kicked out of their homes but they already have a massive amount of equity and can easily move elsewhere. Hrm. Not sure I like that sentiment. We see posts here every now and then where someone is complaining about the high cost and needing to move and saying goodbye, and there are some people who speak up and say, "Yeah, well, San Diego is expensive and if you can't afford it then move away," to which they get downvoted and people saying they are heartless. This is the same sentiment, no? "Sorry it costs too much to live here, good luck elsewhere," but perhaps even more callous as it's more tenable for a 25 year old to move across the country than a 75 year old granny.
An empty nester selling a big house for a million plus and moving across the neighborhood into a 300k 55+ building condo is not a big deal Young families getting priced out of the region entirely is a big deal
That is what you call a free market.
Do we have a free market when we have things like Prop 13, or programs for affordable housing? What about building codes, height restrictions, and other policies that drive up the cost of real estate and limit density?
People place bids and sellers take offers. That is a free market. You are free to bid $1 for a house. It doesn't mean you will win. Prop 13 is a price control meant to favor the rich. It did what it was intended to do. Density limits are the fault of NIMBYs. Even Obama called them out. [Barack Obama Blasts Liberal NIMBYs (therealdeal.com)](https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/06/30/barack-obama-blasts-liberal-nimbys/)
I'm still now following how taking granny's $1,000 a year property tax and increasing it to $10,000 is "the free market."
They will pay market rates for taxes. Lets say granny has a house worth 800k that she bought for 80k back in 1985. Thanks to prop 13 she is only paying taxes on that 80k (1% of sale value, plus capped yearly increases). The new owner who now buys that house for 800k pays taxes on 800k. Granny only pays \~$800 New owner pays \~$8000 Im not following how you think prop 13 is the free market.
> and all of our budgeting issues would disappear. something about being a sweet summer child.
I was admittedly being a bit hyperbolic, but it certainly would help.
I pay literally 12x what the previous owner of my house paid. No exaggeration.Ā
Feels more like 8x, but yeah. Hopefully time corrects this.
This myth needs to die. The average tenure of homes in San Diego is 15 years, which is the same, and even lower, than many other major cities in the U.S.
But other major cities donāt have prop 13 or tax increase limits like California does. Average home price 15 years ago: $330k Average home price now: $990k Your average owner who bought 15 years ago only pays $5.8k ($330k x 1.30% = $430k, taxed at 1.35%). Young new family scraping by pays $13.3k By the way, the median is 12, so no there arenāt āmany citiesā that top San Diego. And guess which ones do? Mostly Californian cities. The point is, there needs to be a distribution of taxes paid. Boomers already got the benefit of incredible equity gains, without any of the cost of higher taxes. Itās a NIMBY fiscal policy.
other cities don't have houses appreciating 500k in 5 years.
Well then keep it the same for everyone else and maintain the taxable value even after transfer and take out the step up. The cost to run a county doesnāt go up 300% in 15 years; so why is it okay for new owners to pay 3x as much for the same property?
>By the way, the median is 12, so no there arenāt āmany citiesā that top San Diego. And guess which ones do? Mostly Californian cities. That's across every single place in the US, not just major cities. If you actually take a look at the list of major cities, you'd see that ALL of these have a higher tenure than San Diego, all while *NOT* having prop 13. Your argument of "prop 13 makes people keep their homes longer" is completely disproven here. In fact, out of the 10 cities in the U.S. that have a population of 1 million or more, 80% have a longer tenure than San Diego. Honolulu Jersey City Boston Washington DC Cleveland Dayton Memphis Detroit Miami Philadelphia Akron Chicago Newark and about 5 others
> Average home price 15 years ago: $330k Average home price now: $990k The exact reason why Prop 13 needs to exist. No one would be able to keep up with this rate of tax increases.
Then donāt allow step ups for everyone else. As if new homeowners can afford the higher taxes and better.
This doesn't make sense. Taxes are a percentage of the sale price, it works the exact same way with or without prop 13. The only thing different is that your taxes won't increase drastically and push you out of your home. New buyers and old all benefit exactly the same
Donāt clap back at me if you donāt understand how property taxes work. Assessed value is completely different than sale price. New owner gets a step up from prior owners taxable amount to current assessed value. Same home but now young family pays 3x the taxes for the same public services. Makes no sense.
It's funny because you are the one that doesn't know how property taxes work. Assessed value is NOT market value, and it does NOT get assessed routinely, it's also variable by region and can be just a fraction of assessed value. Especially in times of high increases in prices, assessment values are delayed by many years and taxes continue to stay lower than market value. You really did try though, but you're in over your head on this topic.Ā Ā >Same home but now young family pays 3x the taxes for the same public services Ā This is the case in EVERY market with or without prop 13. It's very clear you're never looked into property tax systems in other states. Since you have no idea about it - nearly every other state has a system to cap the property tax increase year over year. Longer tenure home owners are always on a lower tax burden than new home owners and for good reasons. New home owners have more income on average. Retirees have fixed income. It's simple. Use your brain.
You literally just said the same thing I did š āassessed value stays lower than market value and taxes stay lowā. So then taxes are based on assessed value and not market value or sale price. Sure many states have tax increase limits but they donāt have $1m median homes. Again, main point was that you drop property rates and make it more equitable for everyone. If you donāt agree with that then you really are NIMBY. The county of San Diego sure doesnāt need 3x the cash it did 15 years ago.
> You literally just said the same thing I did Except you don't have any idea what that means for taxes. You think Prop 13 keeps taxes low. So does assessed value with caps. There's no difference. >The county of San Diego sure doesnāt need 3x the cash it did 15 years ago. Good thing the average tenure is 15 years so home ownership and taxes have been flushed since then. Come back when you have any real data to support literally any obnoxious claim you have - because your opinions don't matter. >Again, main point was that you drop property rates and make it more equitable for everyone. If you donāt agree with that then you really are NIMBY. Property taxes are never dropping. We already have the lowest rates out of most major cities. The only place taxes are going with a removal of Prop 13 is UP.
my neighborhood is nothing but olds who can barely walk and all are white. we are the only non white household here..
All those new homebuyers being taxed to death
Add it to the pile. $550/mo property tax $400/HOA because SFH is a pipe dream $150/mo mortgage insurance $200/mo home insurance Leaves little room for what one can afford on the principalā¦
Donāt forget the extra $1000-2000 /mo interest if you bought your home after the rate hikes.
I would welcome $400 HOA, sitting at $1069/mo š
Please tell me you have awesome amenities, like swimming pools, gyms, etc.
No but they do mow the grass once a month
We do not! A sweet lobby and two mostly working elevators
Sweet mother of Jesus, what does all that money go toward? Was there some huge building maintenance issue that depleted the reserves?
Mostly keeping a building alive. High rises need a lot of maintenance, especially water related issues
Huh, you'd think a high rise would have many more people and that would lessen the cost per unit. I have a buddy who lived downtown a few years back and his HOAs were ~$750 a month, and they had a decent gym, a pool, a hot tub, a pretty nice BBQ area, etc.
Downtown buildings are crazy sometimesā¦mine is about $400 a month with all those amenities, but I lucked out. Most around me are $1000 a month
Yeah, our building is unique, not enough units for the height of the building. Most HOAās are $800-1100 regardless, itās terrifying, but glad I bought in where the HOA plus mortgage is less than most peoples rents.
We're at $705.
And still not enough to fix the streets.
I hate to be that person but the County of San Diego and City of San Diego are separate government jurisdictions.
No thatās a good correction. Iād rather be corrected than continuing on the wrong path.
I work for a civil/CM firm and our roadway widening and improvement projects are contracts with the County, not the City. Our City contracts are mainly water/sewer. Just some insight from my experience that youāre not totally wrong. Cc @thizzydrafts
*going down a bad road* if you will
Honestly that just makes it worse
Fun fact: if property taxes were fairly assessed across all homeowners in San Diego, we could have a property tax rate around 0.15% instead of the current ~1.1%.Ā
Wow thatās fascinating. Can you show some math? I assume you mean assessing based on property value (but >1% similar to states without Prop 13) and replacing the current amount of tax revenue taken in
Median home price ~$650k x 1.2 million homes x .0015 = about a billion. Math checks out
Good question. This sounds more like an extrapolation based on some millennial wailing point about virtually all property being monopolized by embedded boomers who bought in the 60s and have never sold.
If you ever looked at the San Diego county property foreclosure auctions, you'll notice a lot of multi-million dollar properties listed including the mega mansions on Neptune St in La Jolla. They end up on the auction because the owners never pay taxes, that is until the week before the last day of the auctions when they pay just enough to have the listing removed and buy another year of pending round of litigation before it gets listed again. They do this because paying $50k annually to a lawyer is cheaper than paying $100k in taxes on a $10m property.
I mean itās not that hard to extrapolate this data even on rough mental math. If even my neighbors who bought in the 90ās have had their home appreciate 8x in that time frame but are still paying on 90ās evaluations, that makes sense. Look at 80ās and prior and it becomes really believable.
Rough mental math? Youāre talking about pure anecdata. My neighborhood sounds very different from yours, but Iām not holding it up as the basis for rough mental math. All Iām saying is that it doesnāt sound plausible that the tax base in non-dollar terms skews so heavily toward people who bought at market lows and/or 50 years ago and havenāt done anything to raise the taxable valuation that my own tax rate (Iām a GenXer who most recently bought in late 2021) would go down by 90% if Prop 13 were repealed. If it were repealed, I bet the emphasis would be on raising the rate for the freeloaders. Not because government is greedy, but because there are too many deferred needs to catch up on before rates could be lowered. Iām open to being wrong, but Iām not taking something like this on faith. I hope idk895 follows up with some sourcing (hopefully non-TikTok) for their claim.
I mean I apologize here for even answering on my walk to the gym, but I just felt the need to refute what I feel is a heavily exaggerated need for you to have relied upon an assumption that the argument stems from agist beliefs that boomers ruined it all, or something. The facts are, regardless of anecdata, that homeowners in san diego hold on to their homes much longer than elsewhere in the US. I believe itās roughly double the national average. To further compound this issue, home prices have appreciated at a significantly higher rate than the national average as well. These two factors alone mean that the basis of property tax funds are heavily biased towards new home purchases. We can certainly debate the pros and cons of what it would mean to remove prop 13, how that would certainly affect retired individuals on a fixed income, or that we could consider higher property taxes for foreign buyers or those with a second home. Those are all considerations as well. But the fact remains that I donāt think itās too hard to imagine a place like san diego with the aforementioned issues of long term home ownership and extreme appreciation to figure that many home buyers have seen more than 8x appreciation in the time theyāve owned it. .15% to 1.1% is ~7.34x rate of appreciation. What I do have time to sort out is the median home price in san diego. In 2023 that was 911,000. Divided by 7.34 puts us at roughly 125k median home price we would need to see to put that figure in place. Median home prices passed that level sometime in the 1980ās (I can only find median data on my walk right now to 1990 where it was 181k).
I would have assumed closer to .4% or something. Do you have data or just guessing as well?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The average listing may not be representative of the average home. It'll probably bias high due to new construction making your number a little low.
CA is 0.7%. San Diego county **median** property tax is $4697. San Diego county **median** housing unit $725,200. That's 0.64% by my calculations. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/high-state-property-taxes-2021/ https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.taxfoundation.org/median-property-tax-collections-2021/index.html https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sandiegocountycalifornia,sandiegocitycalifornia,CA/PST120222
Ā No, that is not how it works. If you mean to say if taxes were to be asses at current values without prop 13 then the % of revenue needed to reach that amount is .15% then yeah sure. Wording alludes to if only we taxed people more we all could have a lower rate which is just not true. Government doesn't generally lower taxes at all especially here in CA.Ā
Wouldnāt that be nice!
Yeah, and all the grannies would be in senior housing because they wouldn't be able to afford the homes they've spent decades in. That's the whole point of how our tax system works. Maybe go after the real villains. Your government is allowing out-of-country interests and corporations to buy property in San Diego even though they have no intention of living here. This is making it impossible for natives to afford houses. I mean, how can you even compete with someone who will pay like 50-100k over market value in cash just to secure the property?
Iām with ya on investors, but grannie should move. Granny in her 3 bedroom house by herself should go to sr living where services can be provided more easily, upkeep is easier and they can be with their peers instead of getting angry with my 3 year old when he walks on her lawn. Instead we have a family of 4 living in a one bedroom apartment because we want to protect grannies right to live in a huge house long after she needs to live there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not being kicked out, just not living basically tax free because you happened to be born at a time when housing was plentiful. There is nice senior housing being built all the time which is quite affordable and has amenities suited for people of that age. There is no reason for society to protect people staying in our limited housing suited for families well past that part of their life. This is a relatively new phenomenon due to increased lifespan and changes in family structure. And BTW, my parenting is just fine.
Why was housing plentiful in the past but not now? Is it because NIMBYs wonāt allow new housing to be built?
Honestly in this context land use is the biggest reason. No where to really go. Sure you can increase density, but single family homes are well suited for families with kids. Me and my wife bought a townhouse, later started a family and moved into a SFH, and intend to go into a townhouse/condo when the kids move out. There are so many homes in my neighborhood with original owners or inherited from original owners who pay next to nothing in property taxes and are just simply not taken care of.
"citation needed" what is this definition of "fairly assessed" and who determined it?
Anyone know why the county tax collector uses a non-government domain (sdttc.com) instead of other county departments that use sandiegocounty.gov? The email account they tell you to use, "[email protected]" is also a questionable choice.
I see good olā Dan regularly shopping at the Morena Blvd Costco
How many ways will it get misappropriated
Over 1 Billion ways.
that would buy alot in road repair dept
Moar please!
They probably already misplaced it and will need to add more sales tax to fix the potholes to drive to said property
Fix these crappy roads!
Now fix the roads....
Impressive! County is gigantic, so I'm glad.
But they don't have enough money for anything. Just ask them.
Sad diego should be ashamed for not making it a better place to live !! But more profitable for the corporations and leaders. Remember this when you vote !!!