patrick.net

Of course, if there was an oil spill or a severe storm, Mr. Khosla's argument would be that the public is responsible for the cost of repairing his littoral land.

If you don't think the RichFucks would wall off these area if they could, think again. They would take joy that their exclusive spots can't be contaminated by the "little people". The irony is, a lot of them aren't even there most of the time.

I went to a real estate open house at a furnished beach house in Aptos: owned by a wealthy couple in Sacramento who only visited it one weekend a year on their anniversary for 25 years. Another 3 mill home on the cliffs I walk past when I am over there is probably occupied at most six weeks of the year by the family that bought it. I can see large homes at New Brighton right on the beach with my binoculars, and some of them have never shown signs of life as long as long as I have looked at them.

Pied a Tierre taxes and regulations would go a long way to helping California.

Limiting how much you can own so close to the beach unless you spend 6 months+ per year there, or pay a stiff tax penalty.

On top of a big tax for absentee owners who are neither leasing nor living in their property, the Pied-a-tierre (SP?) tax.

Finally, limiting how much height limitations California Cities can impose over their area (ie no more than 20% of a city can have height limits)

I learned a new word: littoral: "of, relating to, or situated or growing on or near a shore especially of the sea"

Ceffer says

The irony is, a lot of them aren't even there most of the time.

I went to a real estate open house at a furnished beach house in Aptos: owned by a wealthy couple in Sacramento who only visited it one weekend a year on their anniversary for 25 years. Another 3 mill home on the cliffs I walk past when I am over there is probably occupied at most six weeks of the year by the family that bought it. I can see large homes at New Brighton right on the beach with my binoculars, and some of them have never shown signs of life as long as long as I have looked at them.

The fix is Georgism, which is the opposite of Prop 13. Prop 13 means that their property taxes do not go up, so the rich are perfectly happy to leave the property empty.

I also know a guy who leaves his $3M house in Palo Alto empty because the taxes are trivial due to Prop 13.

In fact, the land tax should be the only tax. No one made the land, so taxing it does not discourage "land production". It's also pretty hard to hide land, and land taxes are public record (in theory). Taxing land does not discourage work or commerce the way that the income tax and sales tax do.

Oh, and a land tax would fall disproportionately on people who are hoarding valuable land. It's quite fair.

As for granny being kicked out by high land taxes (the rationalization for Prop 13), that's easy to fix. Just let her granny put off her tax bill until she dies or sells. Then take the taxes plus moderate interest from the proceeds as a requirement for changing the title. If no one will pay, have the state publicly auction off the land to whoever offers the highest annual property tax payment.

We don't have prop 13 where I live and taxes are pretty high. Still 1 in 20 houses in my swanky hood is owned by richfucks who can afford 2.4 million and 40k in annual taxes on a house which they spend 10 weeks a year in max.