Comments on: A Pandemic of Hope

By: PascoBill

PascoBill — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:00:27 +0000

You are so correct about the transfer of revenues from commercial property owners to new buyers of residential houses. In fact, I’ve heard of leases up to 7 layers deep, written so that a mini-mall or executive park doesn’t change legal owners, and thereby increase taxes. Very few commercial properties have changed hands since Prop 13 passed, though they have been transferred via long-term leases many times. Although sold as a benefit for grandma, Prop 13 instead benefited the multi-millionaire owners of commercial properties throughout the state. Who could have seen that coming?

By: nahant

nahant — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:20 +0000

I have been mulling just that over. As for cost We used www.Solarcity.com and they have a lease program where there is nothing down and based on the size of the system you start paying the lease when the system has passed all inspections and is online! Solar City has been great, the installers , management and people on the phone have been warm and very friendly. They all go out of their way to make sure you are happy and are getting what you are paying for. We don’t owe PG&E anything in fact we have almost a $1,000.00 credit with them and pay them nothing including all the natural gas we use!! I couldn’t give a better recommendation for any product/service I have ever purchased. You can see our results here.
As you can see we generate almost 60KWH per day!!

By: Elliott

Elliott — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:00:41 +0000

nahant, perhaps you could do an update with links back to your series.

I’m sure the pups would really appreciate it and you might just spur a few on to making the transition. I’m envious myself but don’t have the means right now to do it. Aside from the investment in the system itself, it would also require the removal of a row over waAay overgrown hemlocks. (I do love the hemlock but these guys are 50 years old and have outlived their usefulness as a screen between.) properties.

By: spurious

spurious — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:56:41 +0000

The problem is that if anyone (including an older person) wants or has to move, property taxes on the new house are reset to 1% of current value, defined as sales price. So even if one wanted to move to a house of the same or lesser value, taxes would go up exponentially. Prop 13 assumed that incomes would go up at an equal rate, a singularly false assumption. Also, I believe that since commercial properties change hands less frequently, the tax burden has shifted disproportionately away from business to residential property owners.

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:51:21 +0000

Wow, Peterr, what a powerful imaginary you’ve posted. Took my breath away right at the outset of your post, that one did.

By: NorskeFlamethrower

NorskeFlamethrower — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:38:34 +0000

Citizen nahant:

It’s simple, at least for California: get rid of the property tax and bump up the income tax on the top end and increase the sales tax on “luxury” items and financial services.

The imbalance in incomes and the public debt are so bad right now that only confiscatory taxation through progressive taxes and targeted sales and use taxes will give the people of California a fightin’ chance.

By: nahant

nahant — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:28:18 +0000

I have read a little about that SD, at least here the county has to lower taxes if the value goes down below the assessed value. We fortunately haven’t lost any value and because We went Solar it has only increased in Value compared to my neighbors. It also doesn’t hurt that our home is just 1/4 mile from Atherton, the most expensive town in the country, 3.2 mill for a starter home there!!

We do love our Solar Power, we can run everything at once during the day and the meter still goes backwards!!

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:25:06 +0000

Here it’s no greater than 3% on a homesteaded property, what you’d call primary residence. When you buy a home in FL as your primary residence you apply for a homestead exemption, which subtracts a set amount from the assessed value of the home. Year before last they raised it to $50K from $25K. The increase was one of the selling points of whatever amendment number it was, equiv to your prop number. On the ballot in 06.

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:19:37 +0000

It was all the nasty consequences of 13 that never got any press. FL has a cap the yearly increase on homesteaded property taxes and that particular legislation didn’t have a lot of shit attached to it. The legislature came out with it’s version of 13 last year. Once the housing bubble went kaboom the folks who voted for it realized what they’d done. We’re still trying to get that remedied. Sorry ass excuse for a state legislature we’ve got.

By: nahant

nahant — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:16:26 +0000

That is the down side Norski… OK so those who DO have large landholdings and based on Their income you raise their property taxes by a larger percentage. I know I know it is not perfect but… We must let the older folks stay in their homes. Or maybe just exempt the primary residence from raising so fast???