Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 4, 2016

Riding into the sunset

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Tuesday night will be a big one for this City Council. May be one of the biggest issues to affect Alameda in a long time. I’m not going to provide a lot of color commentary, what I did, instead was pop the information from the summary of the ordinances into a table to compare and contrast the differences between the three ordinances.

Also on the table for all three ordinances is a strange highly political sunset for anything adopted tomorrow on December 31, 2019. For those of you playing along this would sunset the year before the 2020 Mayoral election where Trish Spencer, Jim Oddie and Frank Matarrese will all be up for re-election. This would require the Council to take action to re-up the ordinance or let it die. This sunset essentially allows this Council to kick the can down the road because they know it will sunset and then — perhaps — create a different narrative when election time comes. It’s sort of the MO of Trish Spencer anyway when it comes to election time — take credit for things that you haven’t done and distance yourself from previous questionable votes by crafting a different narrative — so it shouldn’t be a surprise that this sunset is incorporated in all three ordinances.   and another Council would be on the hook for solving the rent issue.  While the expectation is never for any one Council to completely solve any massive problem, such as housing or rent stabilization,  it doesn’t help to create a lack of permanency to ordinances which are supposed to protect more than 50% of Alameda’s population.

I will point out that there are some suggestions that staff should have brought a more focused ordinance to the City Council for consideration.  Perhaps borrowing from another city and present that for consideration.  The problem is that when Staff doesn’t provide options for the City Council they’re seen as overstepping and being overly prescriptive.  When staff does provide options it is styled as not allowing the City Council to concentrate on policy issues.  It’s literally a no win situation for staff if you’re the type of person that is creating a narrative to insulate certain incompetent members of the City Council from criticism.

Anyway, here’s the comparison table. More tomorrow:


Ordinance 1

Ordinance 2

Ordinance 3

aka Housing Provider preferred

aka Compromise ordinance

aka Highest tenant protection of presented ordinances

Property owners to initiate the rent review procedure, if they seek rent increases of 8% or above, (or at some other threshold as determined by the City Council) by notifying the Housing Authority within 15 days of serving a notice of rent increase.

Property owner may not increase rents greater than 8% on a cumulative basis over the past twelve-month period (“the maximum allowable increase”).

Property owner may not increase rents greater than 8% on a cumulative basis over the past twelve-month period (“the maximum allowable increase”).

Rent increase above the threshold amount would not go into effect until after the RRAC hearing.

The portion of the rent increase above the maximum allowable increase would not go into effect until the hearing officer’s decision was final or there was a final judgment (or other resolution, e.g., a settlement) concerning the challenge to the hearing officer’s decision.

The portion of the rent increase above the maximum allowable increase/reduction in rent would not go into effect until the hearing officer’s decision was final or there was a final judgment (or other resolution, e.g., a settlement) concerning the challenge to the hearing officer’s decision.

Tenants will still have the right to request a review even if the rent increase is below the threshold.

Retains RRAC to hear cases initiated by tenants of units covered by the rent stabilization ordinance for rent increases below the threshold amount (i.e., rent increases 8% or below).

Retains RRAC to hear cases initiated by tenants of units covered by the rent stabilization ordinance for rent increases below the threshold amount (i.e., rent increases 8% or below).

Tenant and the property owner will then be required to appear before the RRAC for a hearing concerning the rent increase.

N/A

N/A

Following the hearing, as now, the RRAC will make a non-binding, advisory recommendation.

Any RRAC determination would be non-binding.

Any RRAC determination would be non-binding.

Rent increase at or above the threshold would be void and may not be enforced by the property owner if the property owner fails to comply with this process.

N/A

N/A

Any rent increase in violation of this ordinance may be used as evidence in a tenant’s defense to an unlawful detainer action based on a tenant’s failure to pay an illegal rent increase.

N/A

N/A

Retaliation is prohibited for accessing the RRAC process(i.e.,no eviction notice within six months).

Retaliation is prohibited for accessing the rent stabilization process(i.e.,no eviction notice within six months).

Retaliation is prohibited for accessing the rent stabilization process(i.e.,no eviction notice within six months).

Increases the number of days to 15 that a tenant has to file a complaint with the Housing Authority.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Property owner may petition for an increase above the maximum allowable increase in order to receive a fair and just return on property or where the property owner is constructing capital improvements that warrant an increase above the maximum allowable increase.

Property owner may petition for an increase above the maximum allowable increase in order to receive a fair and just return on property or where the property owner is constructing capital improvements that warrant an increase above the maximum allowable increase.

N/A

A hearing officer would conduct an evidentiary, administrative hearing in which the property owner would have to prove that a rent increase above the maximum allowable increase was necessary.

A hearing officer would conduct an evidentiary, administrative hearing in which the property owner would have to prove that a rent increase above the maximum allowable increase was necessary.

N/A

N/A

A majority of tenants (50% + 1) may petition for a reduction in rent based on a reduction in housing services no more than once per year.

N/A

N/A

A hearing officer would conduct an evidentiary, administrative hearing in which the tenants would have to prove that a reduction in rent was warranted based on the reduction in housing services.

N/A

The hearing officer’s decision would be final and binding but subject to a judicial appeal process.

The hearing officer’s decision would be final and binding but subject to a judicial appeal process.

N/A

Provides a rent review process for units that are exempt from Costa Hawkins

Provides a rent review process for units that are exempt from Costa Hawkins

Requires landlords to offer tenants one-year leases(one time only).

Requires landlords to offer tenants one-year leases(annual basis).

Requires landlords to offer tenants one-year leases(annual basis).

Prohibits landlords from increasing rents more than once per year

Prohibits landlords from increasing rents more than once per year

Prohibits landlords from increasing rents more than once per year

Limits the grounds for evictions: stipulations (relocation assistance and cap on rent increase for new tenant).

Limits the grounds for evictions: Allows “no cause” evictions with stipulations (relocation assistance and cap on rent increase for new tenant).

Eviction Limitations: The property owner would not have the ability to evict a tenant for “no cause.”

Limits the grounds for evictions: Substantial rehabilitation will require City’s approval of Capital Improvement Plan (to be developed) before any tenants are evicted.

Limits the grounds for evictions: Substantial rehabilitation will require City’s approval of Capital Improvement Plan (to be developed) before any tenants are evicted.

Eviction Limitations: Substantial rehabilitation will require City’s approval of Capital Improvement Plan (to be developed) before any tenants are evicted.

Limits the grounds for evictions: “No cause” evictions limited to a maximum % of units per month/year (i.e., 25% of units a mo/50% in a year for 1-4 unit buildings, 20% of units a mo/50% a year for 5-14 unit buildings, and 10% of units a mo/50% in a year for 15+ unit buildings).

Limits the grounds for evictions: “No cause” evictions limited to a maximum % of units per month/year (i.e., 25% of units a mo/50% in a year for 1-4 unit buildings, 20% of units a mo/50% a year for 5-14 unit buildings, and 10% of units a mo/50% in a year for 15+ unit buildings).

N/A

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no cause/no fault” evictions: One month’s rent for each year of tenancy up to four months’ rent plus $1,500 (moving expenses).

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no cause/no fault” evictions: One month’s rent for each year of tenancy up to four months’ rent plus $1,500 (moving expenses).

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no fault” evictions: One month’s rent for each year of tenancy up to four months’ rent plus $1,500 (moving expenses).

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no cause/no fault” evictions: Provision for tenants to request more time up to a maximum of four months beyond the 60-day notice (total time six months). Relocation benefits would be reduced in exchange for more time in unit (for each month extension beyond the 60 days, the amount of one month’s rent would be reduced from the relocation benefit).

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no cause/no fault” evictions: Provision for tenants to request more time up to a maximum of four months beyond the 60-day notice (total time six months). Relocation benefits would be reduced in exchange for more time in unit (for each month extension beyond the 60 days, the amount of one month’s rent would be reduced from the relocation benefit).

Requires payment of relocation assistance for “no fault” evictions: Provision for tenants to request more time up to a maximum of four months beyond the 60-day notice (total time six months). Relocation benefits would be reduced in exchange for more time in unit (for each month extension beyond the 60 days, the amount of one month’s rent would be reduced from the relocation benefit).

Monetary Penalties/Enforcement

Monetary Penalties/Enforcement

Monetary Penalties/Enforcement
Advertisements

38 Comments

  1. The re-election is 2018

    Comment by BMac — January 4, 2016 @ 8:09 am

  2. Oops, you’re right. I kept adding 6 years and thinking that was correct!

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2016 @ 8:18 am

  3. If it’s ordinance 1 that’s passed, renters will pass a much more stringent Berkeley style rent control measure at the ballot. The only way to thwart strict rent control for Alameda is to go with the compromise measure. Renters will not support city council members who allow the solution to remain exclusively RRAC based. Council members keep saying that the RRAC works, but it only works for the landlords who see guaranteed 10% increases in their incomes.

    Comment by Angela Pallatto Hockabout — January 4, 2016 @ 8:36 am

  4. The sunset would be such an amazing chicken shit move. Anything the council passes can sunset at the next council meeting with three votes if they want. The sunset is redundant and completely unacceptable.

    Comment by BMac — January 4, 2016 @ 8:42 am

  5. In Option One:
    Increases the number of days to 15 that a tenant has to file a complaint with the Housing Authority.

    Does the proposed ordinance say ,housing ,authority or did you type that meaning RRAC?

    Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — January 4, 2016 @ 9:56 am

  6. That was copied and pasted from the staff summary

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2016 @ 9:59 am

  7. Will they be voting to adopt at least one of these or could they decide to not adopt any of them? Does the one year lease indicate a minimum if the tenant prefers a shorter lease? I’m thinking of people wanting to rent for a shorter time because of a temporary work assignment or while a new home they are buying is being built.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — January 4, 2016 @ 11:23 am

  8. Council can choose to not to do anything and have the ability to craft their own ordinance on the dais.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2016 @ 11:33 am

  9. Other than the political motivation, there’s no good reason for the sunset. The problem with unaffordable rents and the displacement they cause will not solved by the end of 2019, and in all likelihood, will probably be worse. The only way sunsetting could be justified is if there are enough housing units available for every person and income level in Alameda. That’s not going to happen. The City’s December 15, 2015, Five-Year Pipeline Report for Affordable Housing says as much, from the staff report:

    “Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) calculated by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Per the RHNA, the City of Alameda has sufficient land appropriately zoned to accommodate 1,723 units by 2023, of which 692 units should be affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income households. If all of the projects listed above were to be developed, approximately 400 new units will become available to low- and very low-income households. Therefore, despite the robust level of development activity, unless new policies are adopted and additional resources are committed, the City’s affordable housing needs are not likely to be met.”

    400 of 1,723 units is only 22% of the required number of units and those aren’t even built yet. Until there is an affordable housing unit for every renter in Alameda, there is no justification for a sunset – other than politics.

    Comment by John K — January 4, 2016 @ 3:10 pm

  10. What is this supposed to mean: “Retaliation is prohibited for accessing the rent stabilization process(i.e.,no eviction notice within six months)”? Why do the proposed just cause provisions not prevent a retaliatory eviction already? Does an eviction that is otherwise with just cause become retaliatory if commenced within 6 months of the tenant filing papers with the new enforcement agency?

    Comment by MP — January 4, 2016 @ 4:08 pm

  11. Considering the results of Prop 13, there’s an even better reason to sunset than mere politics: Good Sense.

    P13 was a poorly thought out, shot-from-the-hip response to a temporary situation, and its permanence has caused both significant distortion and injustice. The distortion comes from reduced incentives to sell property, keeping supply lower and prices higher for new buyers (much as rent control has everywhere it’s been enacted). The vastly different tax rates on like-valued properties is a screaming injustice. It is very common for neighbors to have property tax rates 5 or 10 fold different for same/similar properties.

    Rents in Alameda were flat to down for a decade (see links below, taken from Michele Ellson’s blog). Note how the last time rents shot up was in a prior tech jobs boom, and remember how quickly that one ended? Rents fell sharply then (much more in SF and Peninsula than East Bay) and they will fall again when this one ends.

    If we must have rent control (and we mustn’t) a sunset is a very wise approach to a temporary situation. Saddling ourselves with permanent rent control will only compound the problem that it attempts to solve.

    http://infogr.am/rising-rents-in-alameda
    http://infogr.am/rents-over-time-8

    Comment by dave — January 4, 2016 @ 4:14 pm

  12. The sunset would allow a redo if the new ordinance has unintended consequences. It seems that all the proposed schemes are a big jump in complexity. It also seems that there will be much more wrangling over whether or not an eviction is no fault. If a landlord has to pay thousands to evict someone without cause, there is much incentive to find a cause. I predict a windfall for the attorneys.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — January 4, 2016 @ 4:36 pm

  13. As a matter of pure political numbers, subjecting homes outside of Costa Hawkins (condos, single family) to new regulation (relocation assistance, etc) seems to risk turning indifferents into opponents, e.g. homeowners who are not presently landlords but would consider temporarily renting out a house or condo.

    Comment by MP — January 4, 2016 @ 5:24 pm

  14. PS: Sunsetting a rent stabilization ordinance is a very non-standard provision – no California city has a sunset provision like the one proposed for Alameda. It’s a completely cynical proposal.

    Comment by John K — January 4, 2016 @ 5:24 pm

  15. 11
    Would closing the business loophole satisfy you? Or do you want all post 1975 home buyer’s tax rates frozen until the pre 75 buyers 2% per annum increase reaches the 2016 appraisal for similar property?

    Comment by jack — January 4, 2016 @ 5:47 pm

  16. 15

    Assess and tax every structure at current market value, reassess every few years, as it’s done in almost every part of the the other 49 states. Localities free to set their own rates & millages, again, as is standard throughout the nation.

    Comment by dave — January 4, 2016 @ 6:24 pm

  17. “The median CA homeowner property tax is an astonishing 74.3% higher than the national average. When you take California homes out of the national average (with one-eighth of the nation’s population, we skew the national average), the average for the other 49 states is about $1,880. Hence compared to the average of the other 49 states, the CA median homeowner property tax is over 93% higher!

    Now, contemplate how much higher California would be without Prop 13. Scary thought.”

    http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2015/12/ca-homeowner-median-property-tax-10th.html

    Comment by jack — January 5, 2016 @ 10:01 am

  18. Thanks for the reality check, Jack! Now if only dave [11] would read it.

    Comment by vigi — January 5, 2016 @ 11:03 am

  19. What a dumb blog post. Of course CA SFR property taxes are higher than the national averages when viewed in pure dollar terms. This is a direct result of CA SFR real estate prices being much higher than the national averages, nothing more.

    For those of you who are going to take comment 17 and 18 at face value and not go to the link – here are the more interesting comparisons directly from the data cited there:

    National Average SFR Effective Tax Rate = 1.29%
    CA SFR Effective Tax Rate = 0.89%

    When compared on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it looks like CA SFR taxes are 31% below the national average. Think of all the extremely rural areas this covers that don’t have nearly as many municipal requirements to serve and it is even more stark. I guess this proves dave’s point in 16.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zvqPvc8vI6VPHZnTuVPlYWNiQMK2VSBAfuBFX792llI/edit?usp=sharing

    Comment by brock — January 5, 2016 @ 1:39 pm

  20. 19. But then we newbies wouldn’t be subsidizing vigi any more. And that would be unjust because she has lived here longer than us, and is therefore entitled to subsidized living at our expense.

    Comment by BC — January 5, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

  21. “California is not an undertaxed state today. According to the latest Tax Foundation data, the state-local tax burden today in California is 11.7 percent of personal income, compared with a national average of 11.5 percent. Proposition 13 merely moved California from one of the highest tax states in the nation to a slightly above-average tax state.

    Californians intuitively understand this. That is why a large majority of California residents say that they would vote for Proposition 13 again if it were on the ballot this year — 20 years later.”

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/proposition-13-then-now-forever

    dave brock apparently want Ca to be at the top of the national tax paying average. I thought my #15 was a reasonable compromise.

    Comment by jack — January 5, 2016 @ 2:43 pm

  22. Good job jack. Two lousy discussion tactics in one post.

    “…the state-local tax burden today in California is 11.7 percent…”, < This one is called "moving the goal-posts". The discussion isn't about total state-local tax burden, we are clearly talking about SFR property taxes as you indicated in your previous post.

    "dave brock apparently want Ca to be at the top of the national tax paying average." < This is a classic "straw man argument". I'm just pointing out that the data in the link *you* provided demonstrates the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make, to any reasonable person.

    Comment by brock — January 5, 2016 @ 2:54 pm

  23. “For those of you who are going to take comment 17 and 18 at face value and not go to the link” Did you go to the link? You keep talking about national averages, but the link explicitly explains why the Median is not the same as an average.

    Comment by vigi — January 5, 2016 @ 5:30 pm

  24. 35 years strong: The importance of Proposition 13 for every Californian.
    Throughout the 1960’s and 70’s California homeowners saw their property tax rise dramatically. At first, some of the increases were more of a tolerable burden. Then it got worse. Frustration, anger and fear drove many homeowners to wonder whether or not they would even be able to keep their homes. Seniors were squeezed even though many had already paid off their mortgages. Young families, too, faced the possibility of foreclosure by the tax collector and a debilitating mark on their credit score. Property tax increases, driven by high tax rates and escalating property values, became intolerable. Pleas to the Legislature went unanswered and Proposition 13 was enacted in June of 1978.
    According to recent data from Department of Finance, property owners make up the majority of Californians. This is true regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, income, political party or location. One of the beneficial effects of Proposition 13 is that it protects all these homeowners, not just low income seniors. For example, a homeowner who purchased in 2006 has already saved over $10,000 in property tax liability as a direct result of Proposition 13. Everybody, homeowners and renters, are now able to vote on local measures including utility user tax increases as a direct result of Proposition 13. It is little wonder then that Proposition 13 remains wildly popular in California. 64% of those surveyed in recent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and Field Poll studies still support it.
    Many misconceptions exist about Proposition 13. For instance, Proposition 13’s limitation on annual increases in assessed value has proven to be an effective revenue stabilizer that benefits local government. Because of Proposition 13, the massive collapse of California’s real estate market in recent years did not translate into massive losses in local property tax revenues. Also, the urban myth that Proposition 13 decimated California’s once great education system is belied by the fact that education funding on a per student basis, adjusted for inflation, has increased 30 percent since the years just prior to Proposition 13’s passage. There is broad consensus that our educational institutions in the mid-70’s were well run and provided a top quality product. This strongly suggests that the failure of our schools today is not for lack of money.
    Finally, California is not a low property tax state. According to the non-partisan Washington D.C. based Tax Foundation, California is 15th in combined state/local per capita property taxes even with Proposition 13!

    Nowadays, it is the mortgage company that forecloses on the homeowner. Back then, before Prop 13, it was the county tax collector who foreclosed on paid-off homes. LA County began to tax parcels based on their “best use”, not their actual use. So if you were a retired couple on a fixed income living in a house in Newhall, which was not the “best use” of that property—but you could not afford to move and develop that property to its “best use”, so that its revenue matched the tax assessment…yes you were in danger of losing your personal residence.

    Comment by vigi — January 5, 2016 @ 5:45 pm

  25. Vigi – even with my educational background, which I’m sure is much lowlier than yours (I had to pay my own way), I understand the difference between “median” and “average”, without having it explained to me by the link.

    The problem is the dataset that jack’s link cites to support his claims is called “Average SFR Property Taxes By State”, and “averages” is what it provides.

    The link cites another dataset to support it’s claims about the median numbers, but when you go to that source, the numbers don’t match. The link states that the Median Homeowner Property Tax for California is $3,641, and for Texas is $2,860. But when you go to his link which purportedly supports his median claims (this one if you are following along https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/ ), you see that the table provided is once again labeled “Average Real Estate Tax”. But even more importantly, the data doesn’t match the original link’s data! The table in the wallethub link shows that the average California Real Estate Tax is $1,431, and in Texas it’s $3,327! Clearly there are some shenanigans going on. The data he is pointing to shows the exact opposite trend than the one you all are claiming.

    For those not bored to tears and still reading this, here is what the wallethub link (the one purportedly using the more representative “median” data) states in the methodology section:

    “Real estate property tax rates were calculated by dividing the median real estate tax payment by the median home price. We than used the rates in order to obtain the dollar amount paid as real estate tax for a house worth $173,200 – the median value for a home in U.S.”

    To be honest, that is a pretty slipshot way to obtain an “average”, “median”, or any other type of datapoint for anything resembling what real property owners are paying in any given state.

    Comment by brock — January 5, 2016 @ 7:48 pm

  26. Okay, let’s make it simple. Why is it unfair for everybody’s property taxes to rise no more then 2% per annum? Just because some rich dude spends a million bucks for some beat-up quasi Victorian should not make every home owner in the neighborhood’s taxes to raise to the new market level.

    Comment by jack — January 5, 2016 @ 8:14 pm

  27. The dumbest blog post I have seen in a while.

    Quote from the link

    “Texas, which has a much higher property tax RATE than California, has the 9th highest average homeowner property tax — $4,065. That’s because the median home in Texas costs ONE-THIRD the price of the median CA home.”

    I rest my case.

    oleczek

    Comment by oleczek — January 5, 2016 @ 9:19 pm

  28. Okay, let’s make it simple. Why is it unfair for everybody’s property taxes to rise no more then 2% per annum? Just because some rich dude spends a million bucks for some beat-up quasi Victorian should not make every home owner in the neighborhood’s taxes to raise to the new market level.

    I suppose it’s okay as long as you recognize that those “rich dudes” and not so rich dudes who had the misfortunate of being born way after you or not inheriting their homes are heavily subsidizing your property tax.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 6, 2016 @ 5:56 am

  29. The thing about Prop 13 is that the longer you own your home, the more appealing it becomes. Thirty years ago, I thought it was outrageous. Now, I kinda like it. A lot.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — January 6, 2016 @ 9:43 am

  30. I’m sure Denise is right about this. It’s almost tautological. So should all laws/regs be written to grossly favor seniors over everyone else? If the intent is to protect seniors who are economically disadvantaged, why not exempt those seniors who are economically well off after having so much time to accumulate their wealth?

    This is of interest:

    State CA
    Per capita tax rev. $3.6k
    Property 2% <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< LOL! Thanks Prop 13 for placing the burden on State Income and Sales Taxes!
    General Sales/ Gross Receipts 27%
    Selective Sales/ Receipts 9%
    License 6%
    Individ. Income 49%
    Corp. Net Income 6%

    (source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-your-state-gets-its-money/ )

    Comment by brock — January 6, 2016 @ 11:02 am

  31. “misfortunate” of being born way after…yikes…but just think, you’ll have the fortunate of living way after some one else is heavily subsidizing your home.

    Comment by jack — January 6, 2016 @ 11:11 am

  32. Damn, that’s almost tautological too, eh brock?

    Comment by jack — January 6, 2016 @ 11:21 am

  33. Jack – serious question: earlier you talked about buying a property for a reasonable price, then getting screwed on your prop taxes because some young rich dude buys the nextdoor place for a million bux.

    What about the upside you experience from this situation in the form of home equity gains? Would you forgo the home equity gains to keep your property taxes low? Or vice versa? Or do you think the earlier home-buyer should get the best of both worlds?

    Comment by brock — January 6, 2016 @ 11:29 am

  34. Thanks for nothing.

    .http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/120521-web-resources/image/6850.png

    Comment by jack — January 6, 2016 @ 11:40 am

  35. 33
    Home equity gain means nothing since it’s not liquid unless you flip, then if you flip upwards you start with zero equity and higher taxes. Prop 13 made neighborhoods more stable, if nothing else.

    I don’t know if you were here before prop 13 was passed but after it was passed Alameda homes really started sparkling with new paint, new landscapes new roofs, etc. Alameda was, in a lot of areas, really dumpy back in the sixties and seventies. Prop 13 changed that because people spent their tax savings on their property instead of giving it to the tax collectors.

    Comment by jack — January 6, 2016 @ 11:50 am

  36. Jack – here is a better link for your #34 figure with the report context – http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx .

    This contradicts what is shown on the fivethirtyeight numbers in my #30. I don’t know how they came to their widely different conclusions. The 538 link says it’s getting its data from the Fed Census Bureau. The ‘lao.ca.gov’ numbers must come directly from the State. It’s confusing. I’d probably trust the state numbers to be accurate in this context. Point to you.

    Comment by brock — January 6, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

  37. your home equity is as liquid as you would like it to be. just check your mailbox, there are probably 4-5 offers each week willing to liquefy your home equity for very low rates. You can use it to pay your fair share of property taxes. Or buy a boat. Or a kidney.

    Comment by BMac — January 6, 2016 @ 1:20 pm

  38. I pay my fair share of property taxes with “minimum required distribution”. Once you get a little older you’ll find that the IRS makes you spend your IRAs while dying.

    Comment by jack — January 6, 2016 @ 4:32 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.