Housing Bubble, credit bubble, public planning, land use, zoning and transportation in the exurban environment. Specific criticism of smart growth, neotradtional, forms based, new urbanism and other top down planner schemes to increase urban extent and density. Ventura County, California specific examples.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Arnie Shakes Down the Elderly
Prop 13 under attack and services that the elderly use. nothing escapes his grip.
The wealthy "elderly" in f-ing Californicated haven't given a rat's ass about the future generations who are stuck picking up their mess while they also suck up any hope of our social security --- I have NO SYMPATHY for the selfish motherfuckers. PROP 13 has been the MAIN fiscal problem in California in my lifetime.
Lab dog you 4ucking idiot don't you know that prop 13 protects financial prudence?
Ponder this, ya little b!tch: If you buy a house right now for $250 per ft^2 and then within the next 5 years some 4ucking delusional idiots (and there is an ever increasing supply here in CA) -- or gov't intervention (i.e. bailouts) -- or both, run up property values by 40%, do you think your property tax should increase accordingly???
Hint: only a self-absorbed short-sighted 4uck-head would reply "yes".
(Adjusts collar) Is it just me, or did it get a little warm in here all of a sudden?
California is in a financial crisis, and that, unfortunately, means that everything has to be considered. I've long maintained that the solution to California's problems is not (a) Tax Hikes, or (b) Elimination of Tax Loopholes, or (c) Reduction of Spending, or (d) Reduction of Benefits, but rather (e) All of the Above.
Maybe California can meet the shortage without sacrificing Prop 13, but it has to at least consider changes to it. There are some disgusting abuses of Prop 13 that really need to be removed--like children living in their parents' home while the parents live elsewhere, and in doing so enjoying low taxes on decades-old valuations. It's a very good question as to why California is providing a huge tax cut for multi-generational upper-income families.
But there are plenty of other places to look for changes--like retirement timelines for state employees, and like reducing benefits fraud. But state spending cuts and tax hikes are going to have to be part of the picture as well.
I think a lot of people miss the point of Prop 13. Forget the elderly, how about corporations? Property tax only gets moved back to market when properties sell. The elderly eventualy die and the house sells - corporations are STILL paying 1970's level prop taxes and will continue to do so long into the future.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."-Revelation 3:20
Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas? In every other industry, having a higher concentration of users tends to lower the cost of providing services. For example, shouldn't it be less expensive to provide water, sewer, fire, police, etc. to homes that are closer together than those that are widely separated?
I realize that there's probably some mid-range size of community wherein the costs are actually higher because they don't yet have enough homes to gain efficiencies, but densely populated areas should have the opposite effect. New York should be the cheapest place in the world to get water, cable, phone, sewer, etc. Why isn't it?
"Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas? In every other industry, having a higher concentration of users tends to lower the cost of providing services. For example, shouldn't it be less expensive to provide water, sewer, fire, police, etc. to homes that are closer together than those that are widely separated?"-bob
Nope.
More crime...urban areas or rural areas?
Bigger jails and schools...urban areas or rural areas?
More staff for same...urban areas or rural areas?
Chances of fires...cornfields or apartment buildings?
Water & Sewer costs...urban treatment palnts or rural wells & septic fields?
"Should be cheapest, but why isn't it?" -- Because the market is fixed, and not free. It is fixed by lobbyists and politicians who pay millions to manipulate it. It works to maximize cash extraction for those who control it. That is why taxes are highest, housing, milk and gasoline cost more. It's a sucker's game, and you are it.
"Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas?"
There are a lot of answers, but they are essentially for the same reason: cities provide more services. Cities certainly have economy of scale, but what they gain in economy of scale, they lose in the much wider range of services offered. Beyond roads, police, and fire response, cities also provide public transportation, public housing, homeless services, and heavy transportation (e.g. airports and railyards.)
To be fair, much of this is suburban areas free-riding on the cities; suburban areas benefit from airports while paying none of the cost (at least directly), they benefit from public transportation while paying only a fraction of the cost, they benefit from homeless services by not having homeless of their own to deal with, etc. At some level, the state compensates for this by taxing the whole state and redistributing it to the cities, but the free-riding problem is still significant.
But of course, much of this--especially public housing and other forms of public assistance--is taken on voluntarily by the cities. For many years, cities were effectively run for the benefit of their residents--a large portion of which were inner-city poor--at the expense of their captive entities, specifically large businesses who could not easily relocate (case in point: San Francisco, arguably the most business-unfriendly location in the United States.)
That, however, is shifting as the demographic of the cities moves upscale. Higher income residents are more sensitive to taxation, and require fewer services. In turn, the previous residents are being forced out by rising rents and dwindling public housing, and are moving to the suburbs--where they are finding fewer services offered. What all that means has yet to be seen, but it is a real transition that I am seeing first-hand. I would not expect cities to become more cost-effective, as I am confident they will find a place to waste the resources, but the suburban areas will be under intense pressure as their burden of the social services increases dramatically.
To be fair, much of this is suburban areas free-riding on the cities; suburban areas benefit from airports while paying none of the cost (at least directly)
Isn't it the other way round for airports? Surely airports are net profit income generators for the cities and rely on the suburbs to provide travellers and hence revenue?
With oil at $60 a barel and the Chinese having to use some reserves or future reserves for a stimulus package of their own, who si going to purchase the Treasuries that will be floated for all of these bailouts and then next year's deficit spending as Obama-Pelosi-Reid rev up and tax receipts fall? I'm expecting treasuries yields to jack up in the next 12 months. This is on top of the fact that the spreads between all other fixed income products and treasuries are very high which leads me to think a reversion to the mean has to happen sometime soon. My guess is Treasury yields go up.
Just a thought Son of brock landers, but with stock markets melting down, property rights collapsing in emerging and third world markets and weak property laws in other countries I would expect what wealth there is in many places to run not walk to US treasuries. Hell maybe Calpers will load up too. Especially if we have a deflationary environment. 3-4% could look awful good. Would you rather be wealthy in Russia or middle class in America?
Wow. That "Letter from Hell" would be hilarity-inducing if it weren't for the fact that so many people that that stuff seriously. If you really study this stuff from the perspective of propaganda and social control it becomes so evident how the 'dead jew on a stick' paradigm has been used by the powers-that-be to control the masses and undermine every 'natural' culture it has come into contact with for centuries. In the case of regions like Africa, Asia, etc., it may have done more good than harm in terms of a civilizing effect, but any progress made by our European culture only seems to have been made at the times when so-called "genuine Christianity" was at a nadir of effect -- viz. the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc.
19 comments:
First to say Prop 13 under attack?
Details please.
Prop 13 SUCKS!
The wealthy "elderly" in f-ing Californicated haven't given a rat's ass about the future generations who are stuck picking up their mess while they also suck up any hope of our social security --- I have NO SYMPATHY for the selfish motherfuckers.
PROP 13 has been the MAIN fiscal problem in California in my lifetime.
Tell me about Jesus guyz
A letter from hell for KC.
Lab dog you 4ucking idiot don't you know that prop 13 protects financial prudence?
Ponder this, ya little b!tch: If you buy a house right now for $250 per ft^2 and then within the next 5 years some 4ucking delusional idiots (and there is an ever increasing supply here in CA) -- or gov't intervention (i.e. bailouts) -- or both, run up property values by 40%, do you think your property tax should increase accordingly???
Hint: only a self-absorbed short-sighted 4uck-head would reply "yes".
Thanks for your time, you 4ucking tool.
(Adjusts collar) Is it just me, or did it get a little warm in here all of a sudden?
California is in a financial crisis, and that, unfortunately, means that everything has to be considered. I've long maintained that the solution to California's problems is not (a) Tax Hikes, or (b) Elimination of Tax Loopholes, or (c) Reduction of Spending, or (d) Reduction of Benefits, but rather (e) All of the Above.
Maybe California can meet the shortage without sacrificing Prop 13, but it has to at least consider changes to it. There are some disgusting abuses of Prop 13 that really need to be removed--like children living in their parents' home while the parents live elsewhere, and in doing so enjoying low taxes on decades-old valuations. It's a very good question as to why California is providing a huge tax cut for multi-generational upper-income families.
But there are plenty of other places to look for changes--like retirement timelines for state employees, and like reducing benefits fraud. But state spending cuts and tax hikes are going to have to be part of the picture as well.
I think a lot of people miss the point of Prop 13. Forget the elderly, how about corporations? Property tax only gets moved back to market when properties sell. The elderly eventualy die and the house sells - corporations are STILL paying 1970's level prop taxes and will continue to do so long into the future.
Who do you think funded Prop 13?
"Tell me about Jesus guyz"-Akubi
Ask Him yourself:
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."-Revelation 3:20
Here's me demonstrating my ignorance again:
Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas? In every other industry, having a higher concentration of users tends to lower the cost of providing services. For example, shouldn't it be less expensive to provide water, sewer, fire, police, etc. to homes that are closer together than those that are widely separated?
I realize that there's probably some mid-range size of community wherein the costs are actually higher because they don't yet have enough homes to gain efficiencies, but densely populated areas should have the opposite effect. New York should be the cheapest place in the world to get water, cable, phone, sewer, etc. Why isn't it?
"Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas? In every other industry, having a higher concentration of users tends to lower the cost of providing services. For example, shouldn't it be less expensive to provide water, sewer, fire, police, etc. to homes that are closer together than those that are widely separated?"-bob
Nope.
More crime...urban areas or rural areas?
Bigger jails and schools...urban areas or rural areas?
More staff for same...urban areas or rural areas?
Chances of fires...cornfields or apartment buildings?
Water & Sewer costs...urban treatment palnts or rural wells & septic fields?
Don't forget cost of living, you pay your cops/firemen/teachers more in the city than in rural areas - they can't afford to live there otherwise.
"Should be cheapest, but why isn't it?" -- Because the market is fixed, and not free. It is fixed by lobbyists and politicians who pay millions to manipulate it. It works to maximize cash extraction for those who control it. That is why taxes are highest, housing, milk and gasoline cost more. It's a sucker's game, and you are it.
"Why are property taxes (as a percentage) higher in urban areas than rural areas?"
There are a lot of answers, but they are essentially for the same reason: cities provide more services. Cities certainly have economy of scale, but what they gain in economy of scale, they lose in the much wider range of services offered. Beyond roads, police, and fire response, cities also provide public transportation, public housing, homeless services, and heavy transportation (e.g. airports and railyards.)
To be fair, much of this is suburban areas free-riding on the cities; suburban areas benefit from airports while paying none of the cost (at least directly), they benefit from public transportation while paying only a fraction of the cost, they benefit from homeless services by not having homeless of their own to deal with, etc. At some level, the state compensates for this by taxing the whole state and redistributing it to the cities, but the free-riding problem is still significant.
But of course, much of this--especially public housing and other forms of public assistance--is taken on voluntarily by the cities. For many years, cities were effectively run for the benefit of their residents--a large portion of which were inner-city poor--at the expense of their captive entities, specifically large businesses who could not easily relocate (case in point: San Francisco, arguably the most business-unfriendly location in the United States.)
That, however, is shifting as the demographic of the cities moves upscale. Higher income residents are more sensitive to taxation, and require fewer services. In turn, the previous residents are being forced out by rising rents and dwindling public housing, and are moving to the suburbs--where they are finding fewer services offered. What all that means has yet to be seen, but it is a real transition that I am seeing first-hand. I would not expect cities to become more cost-effective, as I am confident they will find a place to waste the resources, but the suburban areas will be under intense pressure as their burden of the social services increases dramatically.
To be fair, much of this is suburban areas free-riding on the cities; suburban areas benefit from airports while paying none of the cost (at least directly)
Isn't it the other way round for airports? Surely airports are net profit income generators for the cities and rely on the suburbs to provide travellers and hence revenue?
I'm going to throw this out there....
With oil at $60 a barel and the Chinese having to use some reserves or future reserves for a stimulus package of their own, who si going to purchase the Treasuries that will be floated for all of these bailouts and then next year's deficit spending as Obama-Pelosi-Reid rev up and tax receipts fall? I'm expecting treasuries yields to jack up in the next 12 months. This is on top of the fact that the spreads between all other fixed income products and treasuries are very high which leads me to think a reversion to the mean has to happen sometime soon. My guess is Treasury yields go up.
Son of brock landers, but Ben said he would cap long term rates?
pv, excellent analysis.
Just a thought Son of brock landers, but with stock markets melting down, property rights collapsing in emerging and third world markets and weak property laws in other countries I would expect what wealth there is in many places to run not walk to US treasuries. Hell maybe Calpers will load up too. Especially if we have a deflationary environment. 3-4% could look awful good. Would you rather be wealthy in Russia or middle class in America?
Wow. That "Letter from Hell" would be hilarity-inducing if it weren't for the fact that so many people that that stuff seriously. If you really study this stuff from the perspective of propaganda and social control it becomes so evident how the 'dead jew on a stick' paradigm has been used by the powers-that-be to control the masses and undermine every 'natural' culture it has come into contact with for centuries. In the case of regions like Africa, Asia, etc., it may have done more good than harm in terms of a civilizing effect, but any progress made by our European culture only seems to have been made at the times when so-called "genuine Christianity" was at a nadir of effect -- viz. the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc.
Post a Comment