I honestly don't necessarily want any particular area to be densified.

What I want is: 1. Anyone be able to build any type of housing anywhere. 2. Really steep land value taxes

I have no issue with a clique of hyper reach folk living in a low density neighborhood, as long as any of them is be able to defect and build a tower if they feel like it _and_ they all pay their LVT.

Exactly… no zoning is the best zoning! You wanna be low density, but out all the land and pay for it. If the market supports low density, so be it.

In terms of property tax, I thought there was some research that the best way to do that was actually irrespective of the development on top of it? I think the idea being that would encourage development because you’re not taxed on the improvements? Or maybe I’ve got it backwards.

Yes, that's the whole point of Land Value Tax, you tax only the value of the "unimproved land". This incentivizes density since the tax can be distributed among all the tenants.

Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut, for those who wish to underuse valuable space, they can pay for it.

> Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut

I think it's close to “for 90% of people who pay property tax that would be a tax increase”; the people it will be a tax cut for are the people with relatively high improvement value on their land compared to the bare land value, like corporate HQs and landlords of high density apartment complexes.

Prop 13 is very difficult to have an exit strategy for because people feel entitled to their feudal (and inheritable) tax rates. The idea that a $2 million home should be treated as a $100,000 one for taxes is laughably wrong, but the people who have enjoyed that benefit for years will be permanently against any politician who changes it.

I disagree with the 90% number for the LVT switch on multiple fronts: for starters all the people with historical discounts will pay more. Secondly, the typical SFH pays more and there is a lot of SFH in California.

LVT is still worth doing but making it actually happen is politically difficult in the best of states and California is the worst one due to Prop 13.

It is a tax cut for property owners and a tax raise for land owners, yes that is the entire point, to make housing cheaper by taxing it less and taxing the location monopoly more. Of course anyone who speculated on higher land prices gets screwed over, that is the point as well.

You seem to be ignoring that the presence of the corporate HQ raises land values across the entire city. Landlords of high density apartment complexes should be applauded for not wasting precious land in locations where many people want to live in, using land wastefully increases rental payments and causes homelessness.

> It is a tax cut for property owners and a tax raise for land owners, yes that is the entire point, to make housing cheaper by taxing it less and taxing the location monopoly more.

But...California has a tiny overall property tax rate. A revenue neutral change to an LVT (unless it's revenue neutral on the far side of the Laffer Curve) might better meet some abstract concept of fairness better, but isn't going to have a meaningul impact on price of... anything.

I don't know about the percentages, but I think the majority of people who would see a tax cut are those who bought property in the past 10 years at inflated prices. The people hurt the most will be those who've been living in the same home they purchased 40 years ago, and are clinging to their tax assessment that's orders of magnitudes behind what the current assessed value would be.

There are ways to fix that too with gradual phase-ins, not allowing people to pass their tax assessment on to their heirs, etc. But anyone who stands to inherit property will vote against such a move, and most people who will be passing along that property will vote the same way.

Is the idea of taxing land to discourage ownership or is it to fund local services to insure that the rich have the best schools, police, fire and utilities while maintaining an air of equality?

Why is regressive property tax better than the progressive income tax?

The idea is to encourage people to use land more efficiently. Sure, you can buy a 2-acre plot and put a single-family home on it, but you're going to pay handsomely for the privilege. If you put a duplex on that lot and sell the second unit, your tax burden gets cut in half. Or put a 10-unit condo building on it and each owner only has to pay a tenth of the total.

If you also tax the improvements to the land, you discourage people from building denser housing on it, because the tax itself goes up the more you build.

You can make land value taxes more progressive than income taxes by paying out a citizen's dividend.

> And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes.

I know people in Berkeley who own homes in neighborhoods where those kinds of covenants are still on the books, even though they're illegal and unenforceable. It's so weird, and disgusting.

"I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen."

Same with parking. In LA there is the popular Runyon Canyon. On weekends it's parking hell because so many people go there. Interestingly one block down there are some side streets with huge houses and (not surprisingly) street parking isn't allowed there.

You are joking, right? Sea Cliff hardly takes up any space at all. Sure the houses look big from Google Map - but how many apartments do you expect to cram in there if they were bulldozed?

Sea Cliff or Pac Heights?

Was curious myself. Here’s the link: https://goo.gl/maps/cWou8PiXKoGPMNFL9

Did a quick look via street view. There are some very nice houses indeed. I might even say it’s the perfect location: golf course, beach and huge park adjacent to the neighborhood. These people will probably not actually visit the beach nor the park as these seem to be public areas.

Checking google maps, looks like Sea Cliff. And I remember now... they even have their own golf course! A looot of land dedicated to a small number of families there.

It's absolutely gorgeous. The homes are in the $20-100M range and are nothing less than works of art.

To me they are disgusting. Monuments to extravagance. All I can think of when I see homes like that are the thousands of people across town huddled under awnings begging for housing. And in this one neighborhood enough money was spent to house all the city’s homeless 100 times over. Appalling. Disgusting. Inhuman.

If art has meaning, these “works of art” represent oppression and selfishness.

Sure I get that perspective. But this is a small neighborhood. The problems that plague the city are not because of this neighborhood.

The reason more housing doesn't get built is not because of this neighborhood.

Prop 13 that was passed in 1975 is not because of this neighborhood.

I get that you see the neighborhood as a symbol for something that angers you, but this is a nationwide problem where we do not build enough housing in general.

I lived next to Sea Cliff in the Richmond for a very long time. I’d say that it’s basically less than 3 blocks away from higher density solidly middle class housing at almost all points, and except for a few blocks, much of the neighborhood is more modest than you’d think (by Bay Area standards). The golf course is public too. As far as exclusive rich people places go, it’s incredibly relaxed.

What’s the name of the golf course?

Probably Lincoln Park GC, adjacent to the Palace of the Legion of Honour.

There's also the Presido Golf Course (on the grounds of the former Presidio), and a total of six in The City, AFAIU.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/golf+course+san+francisco...

https://www.sanfrancisco.org/golf

Lincoln Park Golf Course. Obviously it’s accessible to a lot of neighborhoods not just the wealthy one I mentioned. But when I see golf courses I think of all the affordable housing that could be built on that land.

Ah. Not that I think golf courses are a good use of public land, but it’s worth noting that that’s a public golf course run by the city.

Oh of course it's public. Why would these people want to pay for their golf course when they can get the city to do it? Obviously it is accessible to a lot of other folks, but it's bordering this high end neighborhood ostensibly so they all have a nice place to play golf. Actually there is ANOTHER golf course on the other side of this neighborhood, in the Presidio.

Yeah when I see basketball and tennis courts, city parks, or zoos I think of all the affordable housing that could be built there instead.

Hell, bulldoze Golden Gate Park in SF and build a ton of cheap housing there! Same with Central Park in NYC.

No more fun until more housing gets built.

/s

I get what you're saying, but golf courses usually take up a lot of space that is used by a proportionally smaller group of people. Those other things you mention can be enjoyed by many many more people in a much denser fashion.

I definitely agree that golf courses are inefficient uses of land, but even if we built mid-density housing on all of them here, it wouldn't solve the problem. There are plenty of other low-density areas that need to be upzoned if we're going to solve anything.

Isn't Seacliff where Jack Dorsey bought his $30M properties?