High taxes, high cost of living, and bad policies were the primary reasons I left CA. Property tax assessment was 1/6th of fair market value (thank you prop 13). Still decided to leave. Got a house almost 3x the size for the same price, and no homeless tents everywhere is a nice bonus.

My whole family split from CA to between WA and MN for the last 3 years and have now all moved to MN. We have about 6 unused rooms berween our homes and maintain a boat and low tax property (empty) in newport beach. We have a fishing boat for the lakes now. Everything is cheaper and we learned to stay inside from the brutal CA summers over the last 2 decades so the snow is a minor inconvenience that washes out the same.

Where did you go?

Yeah having a house 3x the size is not great for you or the environment, given that people don’t use most of their houses ;-)

It's people telling me what is good for me that is another reason I left.

I didn’t leave voluntarily, miss a lot of things but I absolutely don’t miss this.

Then why haven't you left HN? ;)

I wish people here would stop telling me what's good for me too.

I think they said “the environment”.

Whether that’s important to you is - as always - completely up to you in this country. I don’t understand the animosity between different states; we can all go wherever we fit best and that’s a great thing.

Nothing wrong with wanting a big house, but also nothing wrong or coercive with mentioning it has environmental impacts

What they actually said was "for you or the environment" without knowing anything about the op, it is hard to say that a lawyer house was bad for him. Maybe he had a family of four living in a small two bedroom. As far as the environment, almost everything we do is bad for the environment. We should try to minimize or impact, but just because something is "bad for the environment"didn't mean we should stop.

Well, the USA was supposed to be a union of states where they could more or less govern as they see fit based on their own ideology but come together when they need to. But unfortunately the Federal government has gotten involved in far too many things that should have been left up to the states and so there isn't as much diversity or tolerance for other ways of life anymore.

Can you paint a clearer picture of the mechanism for federal intervention being the driver of intolerance?

When something happens at the federal level it affects everyone. Someone in Texas who is conservative is going to be upset about a law that is forced on them that they don't like. However, if that law is only happening on CA and has no effect on them, then they don't care and they can be tolerant of it.

When something affects you personally because it is forced on you it is much harder to be tolerant.

If it only affects the people who want that law then it is much easier to just say "I do me, you do you".

Different states are supposed to have different ways of life based on different value systems. That way people can move to the states that are most in alignment with their values. Laws at the Federal level take that freedom away.

I see what you mean, but I think we have different definitions of tolerate

> Yeah having a house 3x the size is not great for you or the environment, given that people don’t use most of their houses ;-)

Who are you to cast stones?

I guess you're implying that old people are the reason for high housing prices in SV. Respectfully, what are the bad policies my parents are responsible for, besides pioneering the technology that makes you want to live in SV? And buying a house for 85k in a nice neighborhood in order to do so, without forseeing that Facebook and friends were going to move in and make their house unaffordable were it not for the protections you're mocking?

What gives your parents more right to live there than anyone else? Just because they were born first? What about the people that will pioneer the next generation of technology? You’re not entitled to live where you want just because you set up shop there first. This is one of the fundamental reasons property taxes exist. Otherwise, most of the land in the US would be squatted on by powerful families of centuries past. If your parents don’t want to be priced out of the market, maybe they should vote for more and denser housing that would drive property prices down. You don’t get to have a farm in midtown Manhattan. Things change.

> What gives your parents more right to live there than anyone else?

I mean they own the home, so presumably that gives them a right to live there. They went there and bought a home for market value, even if it was a struggle to do so. They didn't complain about the existing residents or suggest that everything had to change to accommodate them. So I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

I live in a town on the Peninsula, inside San Mateo county. It's basically impossible to get new housing development, and the "affordable housing" requirements for any new development in this place have been 100% seniors-only (i.e. aged 55+) housing in the last few years.

The local government committee meetings on these matters is predominantly filled by two groups of people: those same seniors, and people who are effectively independently wealthy. It's NIMBY-ism all over the place here driven primarily by the wealthy and the old. I don't know if it's the same in other communities or towns in this area, but that's what it is here.

Opposing the construction of anything besides single-family housing for one

Championing restrictive zoning policies. They got theirs, and screw everyone else.

Exactly right. And one reason the "prices are so high" is the possibly illegal monopoly action that Google, Facebook, etc took. Once the Government splits these companies, will the people who inflated the price of housing by paying too much be made to compensate other people who had to pay too much for housing?

House prices are high in SV because they're not building enough housing. Blame zoning laws and racism (Palo Alto only builds low-income housing for people with college degrees and no criminal records. They call it "teacher housing.") Don't blame the generation that came before you.

Prop 13 is all of California, right?

> make their house unaffordable were it not for the protections

FB isn't the problem, the problem is zoning... Artificially cutting off supply to the benefit of landowners and capital.

Proposition 13, mentioned by a sibling comment.

Two counterpoints:

- Direct your discontent toward the corporations and landlords who are exploiting Prop 13 when it wasn't intended for them. It was intended to protect homeowners (often on retirement income) from skyrocketing property values that is out of their control. It's done great at that, but unfortunately (like any regulation) has also been exploited by the greedy.

- That aside, don't presume to be entitled to buy the house you want in the place you want it to be for the amount you want to pay for it. It sucks that I can't afford to buy a nice home in my hometown because FAANG came in and made it the place to be, but I'm also not entitled to that. The notion that people like my parents ought to be taxed out of their home so that well-off twentysomethings can have a more favorable property market really grinds my gears. There are lots of people trying to just live in their hard-earned homes after doing the work and taking the risks of building the tech industry, and most of them didn't become wealthy venture capitalists in the end. Just like most of us won't.

From their perspective, of course it would be unfortunate that your parents cannot continue to have their lifestyle subsidized. For the rest of us, that money could gladly be used for schools, infrastructure, etc

Luckily, if someone is being priced out by fair property taxes, they still own a valuable asset.

So, "their perspective" is that their home is where they live, and your perspective is that their home is an asset. From your perspective, they should be glad their asset has multiplied in value, and they should be happy to pay the government based on that. From their perspective, they didn't ask for the asset to increase in value, and they're just trying to live there — while people like you resent them for living there and not building a high-rise apartment building instead.

How about I go to your hometown and bully your folks out of their house? They ought to be fine with that, right? It's just an asset. Come on.

Spot on

I bought my Sunnyvale CA house in 1991. I pay $6,000 in property tax. The tax goes up 2%/year. I do not pay $3.50 in taxes. You are, quite frankly, a liar.

The median property tax paid by homeowners in NY State -- a state with no "Prop 13" is $5,865 (according to facts I just googled).

What, exactly, am I getting away with? How will increasing property taxes in a state with the highest income and sales tax solve the housing crisis?

They need to build more housing, and more dense housing.

I live in CA about 8 months/year, and spend the Feb-May in Tel Aviv. We're actively looking to move our U.S. home to Nashville, TN.

Your Sunnyvale house is worth significantly more than the median house price in NY State. Your post confirms that Prop 13 is very good for long-term homeowners.

What are you getting away with? Paying less for schools and common infrastructure than your neighbors who bought in the last decade. They're probably paying 3X more tax than you are, right?

It's still a 3/2 house. An equivalent house on, say Long Island, would have lower taxes.

An equivalent house in Utah would have even lower taxes. So?

How much would you be paying if you bought that same house right now?

How will increasing it help? For one, it would have forced you to sell and move since you have limited interest in living there. You’re not entitled to live where you want just because you were born first. Property taxes specifically exist so that there isn’t a perpetual inheritance of land with no incentive to relinquish it.

> You’re not entitled to live where you want just because you were born first.

And you're not entitled to send men from the government to take my house. (As was done to my grandparents in 1929. See: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-of-jewish-settl... )

> in a state with the highest income and sales tax solve the housing crisis?

When I think of all the people living in their cars around Oakland, raising property taxes and pooling them into social services is something I favor. Highest income is misleading. Lots of people work retail or similar and will never own a home.

> I live in CA about 8 months/year, and spend the Feb-May in Tel Aviv.

I think this speaks to privilege. I’m not saying it’s unearned, I don’t know you. I do agree that more dense housing is badly needed.

How dare you talk about my "privilege."

You just described the real issue with prop 13. Partially occupied and investment properties by individuals.

The insanely low real estate tax increases over time make California real estate investments more appealing to small scale investors. Especially overseas.

Well looking at voting records of Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Colorado, I’d say say yes. Those moving into those states are bringing their politics with them.

And once they're thoroughly shitted up, there'll be some other place to move.

I like what Matthew McConaughey said about people moving from California to Austin - "Remember why you moved here, and understand you're going to have to vote a certain way if don't want to move again in the future."

What do low property taxes have to do with high rent and lack of housing? Higher property taxes would result in higher rent and property prices...

NIMBYs oppose new construction because it keeps their property values high. They don't care about property values ballooning because they pay property taxes on the assessed values from when they bought, which is often decades ago, due to Prop 13. Prop 13 in general keeps things stagnant. For another example, there is no incentive to renovate/tear down/rebuild bigger because now you will pay significantly higher property taxes. Single family homes don't get turned into denser properties. The list of consequences goes on beyond my interest in it.

> NIMBYs oppose new construction because it keeps their property values high

No, they just don’t want their neighborhoods to change (read: poor people, more traffic). I don’t think most of them are frankly thinking about their property values because it’s just not super relevant, thanks to prop 13.

> For another example, there is no incentive to renovate/tear down/rebuild bigger because now you will pay significantly higher property taxes. Single family homes don't get turned into denser properties.

There is a ton of incentive to build more units: for one, you could sell them for a ton more in aggregate! But there is also a huge disincentive that is not prop 13: zoning laws that prevent basically any increase in density in some absurd fraction of California, especially absurd in central areas and inner ring suburbs.

Prop 13 is definitely an issue, but it’s not the dominant one for the effects you describe.

I don't think it's that simple.

Prop 13 shields NIMBYs from negative externalities of their desire for their neighborhoods not to change. Housing is in short supply which inflates property values, but they don't have to worry about that because they don't want to sell and property taxes continue to remain low due to Prop 13. They can either pass down their property to their children (taxes remain unchanged) or they sell and cash out on their uber expensive property and move out of state sometime later in life. As I alluded in other comments, I suspect it is more often the former rather than the latter since it doesn't make sense to sell.

The incentive to build is low because most existing property owners want to continue living somewhere in the Bay Area and if they move, their taxes reset. Building more units on the same property is a non-starter for that reason. Yes, zoning is also a factor, and goes hand-in-hand with the same agenda that Prop 13 came out of. It's multiple cuts from the same cloth.

> Prop 13 shields NIMBYs from negative externalities of their desire for their neighborhoods not to change. Housing is in short supply which inflates property values, but they don't have to worry about that because they don't want to sell and property taxes continue to remain low due to Prop 13.

This is a really good point, and this framing helps me understand your argument much better, thanks!

> The incentive to build is low because most existing property owners want to continue living somewhere in the Bay Area and if they move, their taxes reset.

I don't think this is right, though -- the incentive to move is low, but the incentive to build is high. Since people do move, even though there is a strong counterincentive, we find that properties do come on the market, and overwhelmingly the reason they are not bought by developers to build larger structures with more units is zoning.

If developers could buy a SFH for $2m and build a 4-plex, selling each unit for $1m (numbers that are pretty common in wealthy Bay Area neighborhoods), then they absolutely would and we'd see this all over the place. In my neighborhood this happens every time edge cases in zoning allow it. (Large enough lot that it can be split? Developer buys it, builds two units. Weird commercial conversion with higher floor limits? Developer buys it, builds three units.)

I agree that prop 13 has an impact here, but zoning in most neighborhoods literally prohibits new construction -- so I don't think a prop 13 repeal would have nearly as much of an impact on new housing construction as upzoning or other zoning mitigation. Of course, from an economic perspective both are highly problematic distortions of pricing (along with rent control!), and both need to be reevaluated -- but if I had to pick one, I'd pick zoning!

What kind of an idiotic argument is this? Prop 13 and nimbys are tied at the hip. Repeal prop 13 and you’ll see the same nimbys squeal for more supply to keep prices down.

> What kind of an idiotic argument is this?

Convincing retort there, I should have realized my argument is idiotic! Consider my mind changed.

And I bet you’ve convinced everyone else reading this thread too.

Well Prop 13 contributes to zoning. Cities get almost no money from residents, so they zone for denser commercial but sparser residential. The ratio of jobs to housing goes wack and you have a shortage of housing for the people who move here for jobs.

This is a common refrain, but cities would absolutely collect substantial property taxes from new residents because new residents are much more likely to be paying substantially higher property taxes (having bought now-expensive properties). Commercial properties bring in tons of sales taxes, but not quite as much in property taxes. (See Figure 6 in [0].)

The history of exclusionary zoning is a history of replacing restrictive racial covenants (binding agreements on property titles that prevent sales to certain groups) and redlining (which rendered unavailable mortgage loans to anyone for properties in neighborhoods that were not majority-white), both of which were invalidated by the Fair Housing Act in 1968, triggering the wave of exclusionary zoning intended to keep out the same people.

The history is clear that this type of zoning is explicitly designed to keep properties expensive, to keep them out of the hands of "undesirables". Prop 13 then insulates longtime residents from that same increase in cost. They go hand in hand, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that Prop 13 contributes to zoning.

[0]: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1129...

This! Right to the point.

I think Texas got this right. Higher property taxes are assessed every year on the current property value. This has the positive effect to keep the real estate market within reason. Home owners have no incentive to see their taxes explode, unless they plan to sell and move.

CA is a mess! And don't get me started on the fact that property taxes pay for public schools, so if I buy a property today say at $1M whereas my neighbor bought 10y ago and payed $100k guess who is paying the most to finance schools ? It is utterly unfair!

Hence, after almost a decade in SF, I and my finally finally moved on, I kept my job and bought a nice, modern, luxury house in Austin! I and my family are super happy now.

I voted democrats my entire life, I have now realized how wrong I was! SF and CA turned me into a republican! And that's what I vote now.

> I think Texas got this right. Higher property taxes are assessed every year on the current property value. This has the positive effect to keep the real estate market within reason. Home owners have no incentive to see their taxes explode, unless they plan to sell and move.

And yet density is anathema, single family home zoning is everywhere, and new development construction happens on the edges, and traffic and cost gets worse every year. Just a little more slowly than in the current CA bubble. But make the TX bubble hotter, and watch the prices then!

Republicans who haven't yet had to deal with the same level of bubble-driven rapid inequality growth don't have some better policies in mind - they just haven't hit the breaking point yet. I'm sure things will get there in another decade or two, but I guess perpetually running away from self-induced problems is a pretty good strategy for folks with the money.

every smart person i know in SF is moving to Austin and they all hate the CA dems now.

There is also a huge regulatory burden to build in much of the bay area, which probably extends to other areas of California. Even when land is available, zoned, and purchased, builders often have a hard time actually getting the cities to sign off. Same for things like in-law units. My girlfriend's parent tried to build on in their backyard, but it turns out just getting the permitting done costs upwards of 80k, about as much as the building the unit.

NIMBYs oppose things because of qualitative factors every bit as much as quantitative ones.

NIMBYism and zoning exists in SO many places without Prop 13, and does the same thing. It keeps the poor people (denser housing) out. It keeps the transit stops away. It keeps the power station away.

"Bad policy" it may be, if your goal is "the cheapest aggregate housing for everyone," but talking about getting rid of Prop 13 without all the other causes of NIMBYism will just get your expensive houses slowly replaced with expensive condo buildings and do next to nothing for the poor and homeless. We have exactly zero politicians or parties in this country who are telling us what "good policy" would look like on this issue.

A lot of people complain about California policies, but I don't ever see anyone stop to think that maybe those policies aren't there to serve them. That is, perhaps they aren't the constituency those policies were implemented for.

And maybe America and certainly California don't need half the country moving to just one state.

So just proud NIMBYism then?

I think if someone really owns this credo - “I’m using the government to improve my life at the expense of someone else’s property rights” - I could maybe respect that? At least it’s consistent.

None of the people I’ve encountered who oppose housing construction seem to see things this way. Most of them seem to be economic conservatives who see themselves as having won a “fair game” and the fact that they’re using the government to strip others of their property rights - rights to build, rights to house - is lost to them. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance and post-hoc rationalization in this group.

It's a mutual agreement to strip each other of troublesome property rights. These people aren't exempting themselves. They want to prevent tragedy-of-the-commons troubles, spite houses, and other anti-social troubles. They mutually agree (government) to prevent anybody from making the place miserable.

Thus there is no right to build: an 80-story apartment tower, a supervised injection place for IV drug users, an organometalic peroxide production plant, a hog farm, and a tire recycling plant.

The demand is there for even more restriction. In many areas, new housing is exclusively in home owner associations or in condominiums.

If my understanding is right, if you purchase a house and you (or your kids) have been living in it continuously you pay taxes on the original purchase price, rather than current value.

These tax savings pass to homeowner families who stay in one location for multiple decades, especially as land values rise.

Homeowners are very opposed to being displaced, since moving means their taxes would reset to a higher level.

Renters are excluded from these savings.

> you pay taxes on the original purchase price

Not exactly. It is more complex than that. The tax base is supposed to be the market value but if the market value raises, the tax base is allowed to follow only up to a certain margin. With CA and especially Bay Area prices skyrocketing for a while, the effect has been than the tax base lags very far from the actual market value, and for people who bought in the 80s the tax base may be a fraction of their current market value.

Your understanding is not correct.

When you buy the house your tax rate is 1% (+ local fees) of your purchase price. Every year thereafter, it goes up by at least 2%.

The assessed value will go up by 2% (that's prop13) so the base tax will go up by 2%. However, local city and county can add their own fees on top of that (so they do), therefore in many years the actual dollar amount increase will be more than 2%.

(Source: my property tax bill over the last 23 years.)

That is correct.

Source: just bought my first home in CA. Taxes were surprisingly reasonable

Not correct: your taxes will go up annually by 2% or CPI, whichever is lower. Granted, this means they will grow substantially slower than historical property appreciation, but it’s not 0.

Also your property taxes start out at 1% of assessed value, which is very low compared with many other high-wealth states.

The above is factually correct.

They are referring to long time California residents taking advantage of Prop 13. Presumably, long time residents vote against "change", which would include construction of new homes. Now imagine a lifetime of such voting. This would lead to a long-term undersupply of housing. Leading to higher housing prices.

edit: added more

High taxes incentivizes more productive use of real estate, such as multi family housing.

High taxes are good because people will have less room to live? This doesn't sound like a good justification.

Most economists agree that a land value tax is economically the best kind of tax.

Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords.

Texas has higher property taxes than California but more affordable housing. Makes you think.

> Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords.

You'd sell for the usual reason, i.e. you'd prefer having money rather than that particular piece of land? That money would be then spent on either consumption or an investment with higher yield than land-holding.

In my home country Poland the land tax is negligible and yet the market for land exists, it's not held forever by "feudal lords".

Your home country Poland is primarily agricultural - at least compared to the BA - and has much lower demand for housing.

I suspect if you pick apart of the BA housing market you'll see some very large landlords with huge property portfolios. While they're not literally "feudal lords" they might as well be in terms of their self-serving influence on housing policy.

Perhaps not coincidentally, some of them are FAANGs.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/03/meet-silicon-valleys-...

But the logic still holds - it there's huge demand for housing, then presumably the land prices are off the charts and the land owners can still be enticed to sell for huge amounts of money and invest into something with higher returns. The market shouldn't be dead.

Funny enough, I actually agree with this, at least from an economics perspective. I'd much rather get rid of the income tax and have higher property taxes. That seems much more efficient to me.

If your goal is to have wealthier/higher income people pay proportionally more taxes than poorer/lower income people, i.e. reduce the wealth/income gap in society, then you want both income and property (specifically land value) tax.

Move to New Hampshire then. There’s no escaping federal income taxes, but the is no state income tax or sales tax. Just a slightly higher property tax, and a lower state budget.

If your goal is to have land be more efficiently used, and thus decrease housing prices by increasing supply, then yes it is.

Whether or not you think efficient land use is a good thing is up to you. The question of what taxes accomplish is separate from the question of if a policy objective is "good".

Why is that bad? If you own a single family home where an apartment tower could house 200 families (and there is demand for those units) why shouldn’t you pay a tax that reflects that?

Only to the extent that it makes single family homes unaffordable. Lower taxes incentivize building any type of housing, and cheaper rent for multi-family buildings.