Nice to tell them to locate in another area but they also loose that salary. Depending on industry they may never find a job paying as much as they are currently making.

But consider the bright side: ever stricter zoning, skewing new building upscale, and rent controls, reducing the incentive for new rental construction, are a boon to existing homeowners when they choose to cash out and move.

As noted in this Reason article, "Since 1996 San Francisco's housing stock rose by 12 percent while the price of housing rose by around 340 percent, according to the Case-Shiller home price index."

As for the unfortunate, as Ebeneezer once asked, "Are there no prisons, no workhouses??"

So f I buy a home in SF for $1M, what are my Property Taxes under Prop 13?

It depends upon what the assessment value turns out to be, but ball-park appears to be 12,200-13,500/year from a quick check of some recent sales.

I think there are some competitors for the dubious honor of highest housing cost. Where I live, the Greater Seattle Area, housing prices for single family homes rose by 12.7% in 2017, compared to 9.3% for San Francisco. The median house price here was $757K in December. Many people here would love to lose the lead.... :-)

Seattle is hottest home market

"It depends upon what the assessment value turns out to be, but ball-park
appears to be 12,200-13,500/year from a quick check of some recent sales."

Are you sure? That suggests Prop 13 is no longer in effect. When was it repealed?

Prop 13, very much in effect today and probably in place for eternity, had two main provisions to limit property tax increases owners had to pay. First, the tax rate is limited to 1% of assessed value, though they can get around this a small amount by calling certain special charges "assessments" rather than ad valorem taxes. Second, annual increases in assessed value are limited to 2% a year. You can imagine after many years of double digit or high single digit price inflation, one's property taxes will be MUCH LESS than 1% of value.

When there's a change of ownership (excluding certain transfers to family members), the property can be reassessed to the transaction value. So new owners suffer a spike in tax compared to what the sellers paid. Everyone is aware and knows about this. As an example, a buyer of my house would pay 2.5 times more tax than I currently pay.

Silicon Valley real estate has been crazy, fueled by the likes of all the hot tech companies like Google, Facebook, and on and on. Here's a house transaction in this morning's paper. There are many very nice houses and neighborhoods in the area, this one's okay but isn't particularly one of them.

$2,358 per square foot

"It depends upon what the assessment value turns out to be, but ball-park
appears to be 12,200-13,500/year from a quick check of some recent sales."

This is so wrong on every level. The Property Tax on a home that just sold for $1M in CA would be $10,000 per year. It is not dependent on the location of the Tax Jurisdiction - SF or San Diego or LA, etc. (Certainly location can have a huge effect on the value of a structure.)

The fairness issue comes up when the new owner moves in and sees he's paying $10K per year in taxes and his next door neighbors that have similarly valued homes may be paying half of that, depending on when they bought.

Purchase a $1M home in my fairly exclusive Maryland suburb and you'll pay something akin to that same $10K - but the difference is that everyone else on the street will be paying that $10K for their similarly valued homes no matter how long they have lived there.

In 1978 CA's schools were among the tops in the US. With Prop 13 they plummeted in standing. In 1978 services in CA wers considered excellent, now not so much.

How can their schools compare when many, many long term homeowners are paying artificially depressed Property Taxes? They can't!

Another example would be to buy a $1M house in, say, 'Simsbury, CT. The property taxes would be three to four times what the SF taxes would be, and again all of the neighbors would be paying their fair share. (Oh, yeah, their schools and services would also be superior.)

Not bashing CA, in fact we absolutely loved San Diego when we bought in 1984 for $180,000. Paid $1800 per year in taxes while the guy next door paid ~$400 pe year. Schools sucked. When we sold five years later for $280000 the new owner paid $2800 per year in taxes while my neighbor was now paying about $450 per year - and yes, the schools were even worse.

Uh, my property taxes are ~$5.5K per year on an ~400K house...so I don't think $12-15K is out of line on a $1M house. Our taxes are based on SEV, which is reassessed when house sells and again at periodic intervals - so its a fairly level playing field.

The taxes in CA on a newly purchased $1M home in CA are $10K... not $12-15K.

Period.

I gave an example in MD where they were about the same and an example in CT where they would be high.

The whole point of the discussion was that the house next door may have taxes for their $1M home at some 40% less which is unlike most every other part of the country. Also, as a direct result, the schools and infrastructure in CA have suffered drastically in CA since 1978.

Go back and read and comprehend the previous post.

^^ It must be exhausting constantly having your panties in a knot. I am capable of comprehending previous posts. You didn't bare you teeth at Kudzu's post about Seattle. I wanted to share something, too - so what.

Then share something that is correct.

Why would I comment on kudzu9's post, it is both correct and added value.

Your post is simply wrong and displays no knowledge of the Property Tax Structure in CA as mandated by Prop 13, an initiative that came from the people and not the legislature.

Do you understand this?

What I understand I am not able to post because it will likely get me banned...and it has nothing to do with property taxes or CA...

I am surprised that property taxes are not different in different areas of any state. They may or may not have the school tax, special assessment taxes, library tax, city tax if not paid separately, hospital tax. Those are just ones plus a couple of others, that are on my property taxes. A mile north and there is no city or special assessments.

CA does not have different local Tax Rates in General.

1978's Prop 13 created the situation ably described by Elmer J. Fudd above. Some jurisdictions have sometimes sneaked in some minor local add-on's to the Property Tax base to help mitigate the damage, but they are usually beat back and repealed in a year or two.

Surprised or not, that's the way it is in CA.

Most States have no provision for taxpayers alone to add binding law to ballot initiatives for voter consideration. Usually it takes some legislative action to add such proposals.

Prop 13 was sort of a Voter Revolution that had unintended consequences that some feel have seriously damaged the quality of life in the State.

The permissible "add-ons" are called parcel taxes. They're not based on value. I believe they need to be voted on in the area they will apply. They tend to be for things like schools, libraries, water districts, etc.

The initiative process has been a feature of California elections all of my adult life. Proposals are put on the ballot by collecting enough signatures. The legislature also puts propositions on the ballot too, often for matters the members want to avoid having to take a public position for or against.

I found this information from a search:

"In 1911, California became the tenth state to enact the citizens’ initiative process. Today, 26 other states have an initiative or referendum process. No other state, apart from Oregon, has used the process as much as California has: since 1912, 354 citizens’ initiatives have appeared on the state ballot"

With the continued skyrocketing of home values over 40 years since Prop 13 was passed, and the robust activity of the real estate market, you can be sure that the governmental recipients of property tax levies are very well fed and looked after. Property tax stays local and much of it goes to education, as salti said. When more money is sought, they'll put forward a proposal to raise sales taxes (which have a local as well as a state component and so that varies from place to place)

How are your parcel taxes collected? Here they are combined and are based on the valuation of your property be it personal property, cars, boats, planes, etc. or real estate. The bill comes to you with the bill stating that it is a property tax from each county.

Parcel taxes are levied on real estate parcels only (90% certain) and are included as a separate line items on the real property tax bill (paid twice a year, 100% certain). The timing of payments of real estate tax is the same for all owners, whether the real estate is a personal asset or used in a business.

Personal property taxes for individuals only apply for boats, road vehicles and planes and are paid as an itemized amount, based on the value of the item, in addition to registration fees as part of paying for the periodic licenses. Only businesses pay tax on other kinds of personal property.

Trying to understand why the parcel taxes are not considered as property taxes as here that is all that is on the property tax statement here. How is the actual property tax listed on the statement and what is it based on?

The "Parcel Taxes" (Not the term used here in MD) are paid with Property Taxes as a matter of convenience. They are not based on Property Value. They may be based on simply a resident, street frontage, garbage pickup, area sewer or water upgrades, Chesapeake Bay Cleanup, upgrade the Subway and Busses in the area, who knows what else.

EDIT: I forgot. There are also credits that subtract from the tax bill - also not associated with property value. I get a credit because I'm a geezer. Also, I get a credit because I spent 24 years in the US Navy as a Submariner.

I 0think there is another, but as I said I'm a geezer.

In the many states that I was Stationed they were always a pittance compared to the Real Estate Tax levied on property value (assessment.). Under Prop 13 that Property Tax upon sale is reset to 1% Of the Sale Price... does not matter if the $1M was in San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, or top of Mt. Shasta... the Property Tax is $10,000. PERIOD. (And in CA the next door neighbor in a similarly valued home that has resided there for decades may only pay 50% of that $10,000. If he sells that home for $1M today, the new owner will now pay $10,000 per year. You and he can then sip a cool one and cuss the deal the clown three houses down the street is getting on his property taxes and try to figure out why the schools suck and services are dismal.

Blaming the poor school results and poor quality of services to not collecting enough taxes is crazy. That state receives plenty of taxes from a multitude of places to sustain quality schools and services.

I've read that the biggest issue with prop 13 isn't from residental property tax it's more from commercial real estate, where the turnover rates are lower; apparently there are many loopholes to avoid triggering tax rate changes when property changes ownership.

I think some of the confusion the state property tax rate is the difference between the well known prop 13 and 1% rate. Special assessments, tax levies, etc. added to the 1% general levy making many cities tax rate higher, in some places much higher. Here is a brief article explaining the rates. Tax Rates

ncre is correct, especially when discussing schools, I've paid huge special assessments to the local school to obtain building permits.

mello-sacto, I agree I used to own apartment buildings and paid the prop 13 rates, I loved my low tax rate, but even then really thought it unreasonable as that was not the intent of prop 13. I suspect that part of prop 13 will be rescinded some day.

"Blaming the poor school results and poor quality of services to not
collecting enough taxes is crazy."

" In 2007, The New York Times reported the average property tax in California was .68 percent."

No making such a statement from the wilds of NC is crazy. From folks that live there, the consensus is that Prop 13 is the victim of unintended consequences.

California Schools went from among the best in the USA in the late 1970s to among the worst. The infrastructure went from one of the top rated to a situation that has become somewhat desperate.

The fact of the matter is that 0.68% Property tax is unfair when the new purchaser pays 1.0% and the guy next door pays .34% for property identical in value. 1.0% is not an unreasonable tax rate for all to pay - higher in most areas - but 0.68% is not a reasonable base across all properties.

You repeatedly apply your parochial experience in a Southrn State and generalize to apply it broad brush to rel estate practices, property taxes, weather impacts, etc, etc, etc. Read and learn from the folks above that have lived the actual experience.

Denying the impact of a failure to collect adequate taxes on the quality schools shows a certain lack of knowledge of the real World.

One of my favorite examples, and be careful this is a specific case. The Town of Lakehurst, NJ, in the 1980s was a very poor town. One nearly deserted Navy Base (Think Von Hindenburg Fire), lots of wooded and deserted farm lands, and a largely poor, minority population clustered in a "downtown" area.

A huge Retirement Community (55+)called Leisure Knolls was constructed, including Single Family Detached, and high rise apartments. Pricey properties all and largely retired, wealthy owners. (Leisure is a developer with properties located all ovr the USA.

NJ Schools are largely funded by Local Property Taxes, which is the case in many states. The problem in Lakehurst was the Tax Base was overwhelmingly comprised of older people that felt they had already paid for good (read expensive) schools while their Children were attending schools and darned if they'd pay for a ton of schooling for other people's children also.

The tax base remained depressed, the schools got poorer and poorer. Finally the State of NJ stepped in and took over the Lakehurst Schools and funded them to higher minimum performance standard.

My late parents were residents of Leisure Knoll.

The same school situation existed in virtually every State in which I bought home. Shop around for jurisdictions that had seemingly good schools and inevitably you'd find a higher tax base - a meld of property values and tax rate. Essentially, locally you could group together and collect more taxes and fund better schools if so motivated.

In both CA and Lakehurst in 1978 an later those jurisdictions acted to preclude this choice. In CA the Property Tax was mandated by Statewide Initiative. In Lakehurs the choice was precluded by annual voter mandate.

Not blaming the poor school results and poor quality of services to not
collecting enough taxes is crazy - particularly if basing that opinion on local NC experience.

The growth of fee levels for building permits is part of how the funding sources for local governments have shifted. Building permit fees and the litany of things that are imposed - for water, for schools, for sewage, for fire, yada yada, aren't assessments per se, they're just fees. Like parcel taxes/special assessments, fees are outside the domain of Prop 13 control

Here's a big part of the education story.

In 1970, the population of California was about 20 million. It was just under 80% Caucasian.

By 2010, it was about 40 million. By 2020, it will be around 45 million.

In 2010, the Hispanic population had grown to nearly 40% as the Caucasian population had shrunk to the mid-40s%. In the decade of the early 2020s, Hispanics will outnumber Caucasians.

Don't misunderstand me, the Hispanics are an important and contributing segment of the state and arrivals in earlier decades in smaller numbers have become part of the American fabric like all other immigrant groups. The more recent ones will too. But when they arrive in such unprecedented numbers, many poor and uneducated, our schools are overwhelmed. Many don't necessarily know to emphasize education for their children because that wasn't how they were raised. Our school systems are having to deal with large numbers of kids for whom English is a second language and whose parents don't provide the kind of ECE and support more typical in families that aren't recent arrivals.

The source data:

California historical demographics

Elmer Fudd, thanks for your fact - laden post. If it would have come from me, "a resident from a cozy southern state in the wilds of NC", Salti would have argued that I or anyone else not from California, would have no basis for even attempting to present another idea of why California is in such a mess.

Some of NC's best schools are located in the most rural areas where the tax rates are the lowest.