Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by khuey on Sunday October 11, 2015 @11:30PM
(#10372377)
Given how the property tax structure in California massively privileges incumbent property owners over newcomers, I'm not very sympathetic to this line of argument.
Most Bay Area cities also have rather large development fees.
Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by mahyarm on Monday October 12, 2015 @12:45AM
(#10372612)
You are right in this. New people will pay more property tax when purchasing their property, and thus pay a bigger share for the new infrastructure. The people who lived there before hand will be still paying around the rate that they moved in at.
Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by joelwilliamson on Sunday October 11, 2015 @11:11PM
(#10372315)
Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.
Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by tsotha on Monday October 12, 2015 @01:50AM
(#10372763)
We have those in California. New houses are generally built in "Mello Roos" districts, in which bonds are issued to cover things like new schools, streets, and sewers. Homeowners in those districts pay extra property taxes, which in theory go toward retiring the bonds.
Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.)
Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.