Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
by disishhsha on Saturday January 05, 2019 @10:30PM
(#18836382)
If I were to speculate about the outlines of the “shell company” loophole you describe - I figure you would form a company to own the property, and then sell the company instead of the property directly? Is that right, and if so, any reason you can’t do that for a house?
Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
by flattone on Saturday January 05, 2019 @10:28PM
(#18836377)
Yeah I don't understand aggression toward long time residents. Like... On what basis is anyone wanting to move I to an area and opposed to... Exactly what's good about the area. More population density in SF sounds like a deal breaker to me.
It's already not worth any money to me to move between SF and mtv. Tried it for years. It's terrible already .
Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
by snapdangle on Sunday January 06, 2019 @04:44AM
(#18837486)
This also boggles my mind. The only ones allowed a say in what happens to a city are.. the people just moving to it? Aka the same ones who are responsible for a majority of the current issues?
Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
by titanomachy on Sunday January 06, 2019 @10:49PM
(#18842620)
Longtime residents of the city also suffer. The ones who weren't wealthy enough to but a house before the boom. Should homeowners be the only ones with a say?
They can buy multiple houses rent them out, and then let the kids live in them when they grow up.
Also, businesses can own multiple properties and sell them without reassessment (there is a well-known loophole involving shell companies that makes this possible).
Basically the only people that get hit by prop 13 reassessments this are young working families that need to upgrade, or want to buy into a stable housing situation to raise their kids.