patrick.net

Robert,
You and I both acknowledge that Prop never was perfect. No tax or piece of legislation ever is. That said, while I agree that getting rid of it and back-treading to 1975 would put the pressure back on homeowners which would be just as bad as it is for non-homeowners now. I think that there needs to be a middle ground. Everyone pays to an extent that acts more like a baysitter. A reasonable cost to stimy out of control growth, and one that also serves the community better. Basically, a method to return houses more to the standard to simply being dwelling places and not the potential goldmines that people in this state view them as. At the same time, anyone purchasing a home would also have incurred expenses that would make the type of buyers be of higher quality- not like the investors and weasels of today. What the state needs is reform, not neccesarily scrapping . An amendment.

Robert,

Fair enough. You are assuming that Ralph's savior is either (a) willing to assume Ralph's well known high default risk on the private note and/or (b) has "alternative" means to ensure Ralph repays the private note. You're essentially proposing that the mafia will be moving into the home financing business. Perhaps, but lots of Ralphs will either end up in the Chicago River or fleeing.

Robert,

You're toying with semantics here. In practice, both have the same kinds of market distorting effects. You're working from the perspective that direct ownership of property is untouchable. However, property has always stemmed from government grants of rights. Government has always defined what you can own and what terms - people cannot own marajuana or plutonium in this country. Without government to police property ownership right, anyone with a gun can talk in and forceably take over your home. Yes, I know there are libertarian solutions to the problem, but I've yet to see a real world example (warlords, usually) I would be comfortable living in.

Unfortunately, if Randy's observations are correct. This isn't any way to correct the system. In that case, you can keep the system until the negatives of the system grind the entire California economy down, relative to the rest of the country. I'll rent and move out of Cali when I'm ready to buy.

Nomad,

I think a transition period would ease the pain, and there's no reason to adopt the problems of other system. But really, if you look at low basis homeowners, their net worth is such that they can afford higher taxes for sometime, if they wish to sell the house. The market will eventually adjust itself, and such home owners' networth will still be 100,000s higher than if their house stayed at 1975 prices all this time.

astrid,

We're right back to the underlying problem: California is ungovernable as a state. It has too many people, the economy is too big, and it is too diverse. Last I read Italy and Germany were hard enough to govern *as countries*. It is lunacy to believe CA can be run as a state with a Mickey-Mouse form of government.

I am a proponent of breaking up all the big states, and then also promoting large city-metro areas to city-state status. By my guess there would be about 100 or so states in the US, with much more fair and equal representation.

Randy H,

"breaking up all the big states, and then also promoting large city-metro areas to city-state status"

I'll drink to that!

Robert Coté Says:

"How would you like a letter from the DMV:
Dear recent auto buyer, Congratulations on your excellent deal on your vehicle. At the time of purchase you were taxed based on that price however a neighbor recently purchase a similar automobile for considerably more. As such your tax assessment is retroactively increased based on the irresponsible actions of your friend down the street. Cash, check or credit card. Remit now."

The DMV has been sending these out for years…

At the Palo Alto Concourse a few years back I saw an actual letter. A retired guy with a Mercedes 300sl Gulwing bought his car new in the 50's for under $10K and was a little upset to get a letter from the DMV telling him that he had to start paying based on the current value of the car $250,000...

All counties in CA will not let you take your Prop. 13 tax basis with you when you are over 55 and move (a friend's parents just found this out when they moved from Sonoma County to Marin County)...

"he had to start paying based on the current value of the car $250,000…"

But isn't that the risk of having too much money or investing too wisely? :P

FAB,

Maybe this fellow could establish a charitable trust for the car.

Robert Coté said:

Prop 13 correctly protects people and businesses against arbitrary government distortions of the market. That’s the point of government regulation in the first place isn’t it?

I wasn't aware that government is there to "protect' us from itself or market fluctuations. I don't trust the government to police itself, nor do I "need" protection from a well functioning free market. That's not my definition of good government. Personally, I thought government regulations were (among other things) to protect people and the environment against externalities (aka "tragedy of the commons") caused by reckless business behavior guided solely by the profit motive.

astrid said:

Prop 13 advocates are basically making the same arguments as proponents of rent control. They allow people who got in first to stay put, even if greater utility and revenue can be derived by people who came in later and got locked out.

Robert, do you defend rent control?

Thank you. If there were no easy-credit induced housing bubble or anti-development NIMBY laws to begin with, property taxes would be reasonable and there'd be no public outcry for government "protection" from government's high property taxes.

One thing I do agree with Robert on, this state will spend every dime it gets its hands on and then some. We already have a "protection mechansim" for that though: elections. Now if only we could get the public to pay attention once in a while and vote for candidates who understand this, instead of candidates who promise them a free lunch, demagogues who play racial politics, etc.

Randy H,

As I see it, big state government face two major problems:

(1) administrative problems for the government: too many conflicting interest, too much complexity

(2) voter apathy and unwillingness to identify with the state.

astrid Says:

"You and other California property owners can take that Prop 13 with you to the grave. You’re ignoring the fact that these house owners are now a hell of a lot richer in equity, and they can easily afford taxes based on their current net worth."

You can't use net worth to pay property taxes...

I think that Prop. 13 is unfair in that the taxation is unequal, but as an apartment owner I like the fact that rising property taxes won't force me to sell a building…

There are many older widows living in Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights paying under $2K a year in taxes. It doesn't seem fair that we should raise their taxes to $50,000 a year + just because the home their late husband bought for $50K in the 1960's that was selling for $500K in the early 90's is worth $5mm today…

In the last 5 years the value of my apartments has doubled (gone up by millions of dollars) but my cash flow has gone DOWN (rents are down a little and expenses are up a little)...

HARM, Randy, Robert, etc.,

Once you guys start thinking governments are truly irredeemable, even at the local level, then my arguments become pointless.

I know I'm getting into hot water here, but California is ungovernable due to it's overly liberal status. There are few heavily liberal areas in the world that aren't in some sort of economic problem. Look at France for example. They are probably a decade further ahead than California. The cost of housing leaves young families and especially immigrants out cold.They also have very heavy unemployment because of the same reasons Ca may very well encounter- the out migration of manufactoring and even many white collar jobs to lower cost regions like Romania and Yugoslavia. This causes a lot of tension, and you see where it got them this summer. Not to say this would ever happen here, but it is entirely possible with the scales so heavily leaning to one side. I'm not conservative, but believe you need elements of both parties working together. This isn't the case in CA and as a result things are out of hand. A totally liberal population means NOTHING ever gets passed because anything that government does is seen as hostile.

I think that Prop. 13 is unfair in that the taxation is unequal, but as an apartment owner I like the fact that rising property taxes won’t force me to sell a building…

This sounds reasonable to me. Why not just cap property taxes at 1% and let the "assessed value" ebb and flow with the market? Everyone's tax basis will be the same, therefore "fair". If prices (and tax assessments) start shooting up due to insane lending practices and reckless speculation, then the public should direct its anger at the culprits: irresponsible lenders, specuvestors, the government that incentivizes this behavior. If prices start shooting up due to anti-development NIMBY laws, then the public can direct its anger at local officials or (if approved by directly by voters) ITSELF.

FAB,

But that's how any reasonably efficient market works, it uses dollars amount to approximate need and resource allocation. These widows have 2 options: (1) move out and get a huge windfall or (2) do a reverse mortgage and stay there til death. I don't think that's such a horrible prospect compared to the young families currently priced out of SF due to price illiquidity.

Also FAB, as a good businessman, if your apartments are yielding significantly poorer relative to their value on the open market, that probably means it's a good time to sell and roll the money into a different venture. I know cap gain/income taxes complicate the picture somewhat, but shouldn't that be the general idea of an open, efficient market?

Nomad,

I think you should replace the “liberal” in your 10:54 am post with the words “stonily conservative” or “reactionary.” The people in power are totally unreceptive to new ideas, that’s why it got so bad.

:P

Astrid,
I totally agree. I recall when Prop 13 was mentioned to Arnold, he mentioned that whoever brought it up again would have to" do 50 pushups". I think politicians here are scared to do anything because anything new will likely cause the masses to erupt in protest. Ever notice every time a new measure goes up, the yards het packed full of " No to this", "No to that!", etc etc?

HARM, Randy, Robert, etc.,

Once you guys start thinking governments are truly irredeemable, even at the local level, then my arguments become pointless.

Astrid,

Please re-read my statements above more carefully ("tragedy of the commons", etc.) I am not arguing that government has NO purpose or is irredeemable. I am agreeing with you that government cannot (and should not) be used to "protect" certain groups from price swings and other economic fluctuations in a functioning free market.

The more "fair" the government tries to make markets (by imposing price/wage caps, rent control, incentivizing RE speculation, NIMBY laws, agricultural subsidies, punitive tariffs, etc.), the LESS "fair" markets become. Keep taxation fair and asset-class/age/gender/race nuetral and spend it on the stuff people expect government to do (protect civil rights, enforce the law, protect borders, provide education, ensure clean air/water, etc.).

HARM,

Yes, I know most people here actually find governments to be useful.

But the opinion seems to be that it's badly degraded and trapped in an ever worsening cycle of ineffectiveness and capture by special interest. And there's no way to alter that cycle.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with that assessment, it just makes me sad to think that it was so, precisely because a government is able to do so much good in correcting the problems of a totally free market.

nomadtoons2 Says:

"I know I’m getting into hot water here, but California is ungovernable due to it’s overly liberal status. There are few heavily liberal areas in the world that aren’t in some sort of economic problem."

Most of the people I know in San Francisco could be described as "very well educated liberals". The problem I see is that most of these people think that the rest of the population is poor only because of "racism" "classism" or "not enough education" (they have never really known any "poor" people). These smart liberals have worked their ass off their entire lives getting good grades high SAT scores and promotions at work (while doing volunteer work in their spare time) and don't understand that a huge part of the population is not like them and tries to do as little as possible every day…

A good friend from grad school had a real wake up call when he went from managing a bunch of super smart overachievers at McKinsey to managing a bunch of stoners at a tech firm in 2000. The kids working for him at McKinsey all had 4.0 GPAs, went to top 10 schools and would do anything to get good letters of recommendation to top 5 grad schools. The stoner losers were the best a start up firm could find in the 2000 hiring boom and would do anything possible to avoid working...

I recall when Prop 13 was mentioned to Arnold, he mentioned that whoever brought it up again would have to” do 50 pushups”. I think politicians here are scared to do anything because anything new will likely cause the masses to erupt in protest.

@nomadtoons2,

Yes, for most voters here, Prop. 13 is a sacred cow, and politicians (wisely) view it as a third rail that will destroy them if they dare touch it. It will remain this way unless/until enough voters recognize the imbalances it has created and demand change.

newsfreak,

"I agree, like the illegal aliens, we may not need so many NEW laws, as we need enforce laws on the books."

Precisely, if people don't like a law, they should get together and change it. Giving amnesty for lawbreakers is no way to run a nation of laws.

But the opinion seems to be that it’s badly degraded and trapped in an ever worsening cycle of ineffectiveness and capture by special interest. And there’s no way to alter that cycle.

_nod_ to astrid & newsfreak

A huge of the problem to me is an endlessly expanding government that (a) refuses to enforce many of it's own laws (anti-corruption/monopoly laws, immigration laws, etc.), and (b) incessantly demands MORE POWER to encroach upon my civil rights, confiscate my property, tells me what to eat/smoke/fuck, etc. The far Left is really no better than the far Right in this regard, IMO. Both sides are "Big Government" when it suits them.

I don't think I'm an anarchist for advocating reigning in government power and mis-spending when it gets too large and too corrupt. I just recognize bad government for what it frequently is: a cause of my misery, not a solution.

Newsfreak,

How's the weather where you are? Around DC, this spring is shaping up to be the prettiest one I can remember. A little stormy, but at least no more drought problems.

I do not believe government is irredeemable. I believe that governments become entrenched; rather interested become entrenched, and governments exist to serve entrenched interests. From time-to-time, the whole thing needs to be mixed up or it dies a slow, painful death. I'm not a philosopher, so this is where the more ethereal types take up arguments about the nature of man and such.

I also do not agree with the ideological correlation that nomadtoons proposed (CA is too liberal to be governed), or even astrid's re-framing of that statement. Using countries as analogies is a stretch. The EU countries are still independent sovereignties, only with a de facto pegged currency and some reciprocal labor and trade agreements. It's far from a federal union.

There are counter examples to the govern-ability and representation problem directly within the US. Take two big-states that split almost exactly in political ideologies: IL and OH. At best, IL vacillates wildly between representing intense Urban/Suburban interests and Rural/Agricultural interests. This state should be at least two states, Metro-Chicago and Agri-Rural, each managing to their own best goals and represented by those championing their own needs and interests. Similarly, OH should be 3-5 states, dividing the rust-belt from the agri-rural from the metros. In the absence of that, you have a cluster-F of a state that invests the public good in things like collectible coins. No excuse. A complete and utter failure of government.

FormerAptBroker,
It seems to me that many of these so called" highly educated" folks also like to project a lot. Whether they say it or not, I know a lot of them consider themselves somewhat superior to people with the same education in another state. I recall after having just moved here, I still had a fairly strong accent and people stopped me all the time to ask me where I was from. I could tell these people anything sometimes. Often the response was along the lines of " boy you were smart getting out of there." It was as if I was a refugee from a third world country.
The level of lazy techies I've met are similiar to the ones you mentioned above. I quite agree.

Randy,

I will go with the ethereal type and venture that public education can go some ways to solving the twin problems of bad government and apathetic/stupid voters. People nowadays, in all walks of life, unthinkingly repeats a lot of platitudes without thinking through the consequences of what they're saying. If all people were taught to think more clearly and more outside the box, maybe, just maybe, we can do better as a society.

The other part is, absolutely, we need smaller and more responsive governments that spends its energy in governing, instead of the re-election as goal mentality of current public officials.

But the current system is so complex, it's hard to know where to start. My intuition is to look to the Progressives. Not because I agree with them on the all the substantive issues, but because they seem genuinely interested in change and forming a coherent policy. Nontheless, positive change just seems so hard when there are so many layers of entrenched interests and such an ignorant and apathetic public.

Nomad,

Those folks have to do something to justify living in their $800,000, 1,100 sq ft shacks. :)

astrid,

You stated the education problem quite well on my blog. We need to teach basic logical reasoning/critical thinking, or we are doomed. And in this hyper-complex world, we need to teach at least basic economics and statistics to every single high school student, no exceptions. The cost of democracy. If you want the right to vote on bond issues, then you don't get the privilege of being ignorant. Otherwise, democracy is the wrong system of government, just let me run everything, lol.

I used to be very progressive, and I was involved in lots of third-party kind of stuff (although I was never what would be called big-L liberal). I have become much more pragmatic as I saw my idealism evaporate along with the years of my life. It's a cliche, but it's also my reality. I now just try to force all public debate through an apolitical lens, so we can discuss the issues and not the ideologies.

HARM
Great graphic...you are one sick man....

As far as government, it was Thomas Jefferson that mentioned that no democracy can reasonable function beyond 200 years or so without a major overhaul- essnetially scrapping it all and getting back to basics. While impossible to do now, I can see where he does have a point. The system works for a while, then gets clogged with legislation that makes it clumsy and inefficient.

Randy,

"I used to be very progressive, and I was involved in lots of third-party kind of stuff (although I was never what would be called big-L liberal). I have become much more pragmatic as I saw my idealism evaporate along with the years of my life."

That is really sad observation. And even though I'm not to that point yet, I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Nomad,

"The system works for a while, then gets clogged with legislation that makes it clumsy and inefficient."

A part of the problem is how people deal with psuedo-property rights. Prop 13, rent control, ag subsidies - these are all government distributions that become so entrenched that the system would largely break apart if they were withdrawn too quickly. They also pit the interest groups against each other, and especially against the faceless taxpayers from whom their pet project is collecting.

This is one of the reasons why I'm against subsidies and tax breaks that function as subsidies. They produce adverse results and entrenched interests, then it becomes next to impossible to ween off the entrenched interests.

I would be scared of the more radical solutions to equilibrium. Most revolutions happen because things have gotten so bad for a group of people that they've got nothing to lose. Things have to get very bad for that eventuality. I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

The American and the French revolution are rather unique in that they were founded by political idealists -- and they still stumbled quite a bit before finding their footing. No guarantee we'll be lucky again.

Astrid-

Well, conservatives are idealists too. Conservative idealism can be sorted into four main categories.

The first, which is mostly economic, believes that the liberal welfare state of the 1960's is a destructive force in our society and should therefore be dismantled. Although I am a conservative and therefore biased, I think the evidence for this POV is pretty compelling. Public housing projects, ADFC, etc. -- these things were unmitigated disasters. This type of conservative idealism is on the wane these days becuase most of its goals have already been accomplished. It may rise again if liberals attempt to revive, or augment, the welfare state, but for now it is in hibernation mode. A lot of liberals unfailrly characterize this form of conservative idealism as a desire to roll back the New Deal and take us back inot the the guilded age, but I think this charge is overblown and very unfair. No one has ever called for an end to unemployment compensation, disability insurance, etc.; today's conservatives accept the social safety net as a fact of life, they just think it should be made as unpleasant as possible in order to force people to work for a living.

The second form of conservative idealism is not really idealism, it is a form of pragmatism. Conservatives think that some liberal initiatives, such as social security and single-payer medicine, are good ideas intended to address genuine social problems. However, these thigns are either unworkable in practice (see, e.g. Social Security) or have costs that outweigh the beneifts (many conservatives fear that national health care plan will function about as well as the DMV or the post office, which is to say not very well.) Therefore, conservatives are always on the lookout for private alterantives to these government programs, or at least a way to inject some elements of competition, accountablility, etc. into them. Social Conservatives see security privitazation, for example, as the best response to an impending crisis. We are well aware that some people are unlucky/shortsighted/stupid and will actually fare worse under a privatized system, but we think that on balance most people will benefit.

The third form of conservative idealism is social. Many conservatives believe that the destruction of the family, the de-emphaisis of religion, and trends such as divorce and illegitmacy have profound and terrible social costs. Conservatives basically want to roll back the clock and reverse these trends. This is probably the most idealistic form of conservative philosophy. Liberals sometimes denegrate these social conservatives as people who "hate gays," wish to keep women "barefoot and pregnant," etc., but I think this is a very unfair and unreasonable criticism.

The last type of conservative is one who believes that government should keep out of the daily life of the average person. President Bush is one of these conservatives. It is why you do not see him calling a press conference whenever a good piece of economic news comes out, rushing to the scene of every car accident and promising federal aid, etc. He believes that these things are none of government's business; the President's job is to oversee the cabinet departments and the military, he is not the Great Father of the nation who will wipe away every tear and eas every burden.

Actually, there is a fifth type of conservative idealist. A lot of your conservative intellectuals fall into this category. These people beleive that conservative priciples can be used to transform the lives of the poor and oppresed for the better. The neocons are the most obvious example of that. They believe that we can help the people of Iraq by liberating them from dictatorship and bringing freedom, democracy, and free market capitalism to that nation. I myself believe this, and think that in 200 years, Iraq will be seen as one of America's proudest achievements. Other conservative intellecutals have similar idealistic notions regarding domestic politics. The proponents of school vochers, for example, believe that poor children will benefit from a competitive educational marketplace.

Anyway, there are plenty of conservative idealists. In fact, as someone who is very active in GOP poliitcs, I would say that most conservatives fall into one, and usually more than one, of the above categories. The MSM is always loathe to portray conservatives as idealsits, choosing instead to label us as selfish, bigots, fools who vote against our own self-interest becuase we are easily distracted by wedge issues, etc., but IMO the truth is that conservatives are very idealistic.

Here's a 'What If'

What if the bankers understand that adjusting ARM will cause a calamity on their hands and a high inventory of homes on their books and do not adjust the ARMs as high as they should? In effect, they'd be less profitable than they could be if all the adjusted rates were collectable, but it would be for their own good. They would knock off some of the lunatic fringe, but could keep collecting interest on a larger percentage.

Is this a possibility?

Wow, sorry about the extreme length of that last post. I am very passionate about this subject and think, as one of the few self-identified Republicans here, that it is my duty to explain my views fully since I am in the minority.

smb_gaiden,

Uh, no.

That is considered "charity" and it's something that banks just don't do. Besides the loans have already been packaged and shipped off to investors via GSE's so unless you can get a "note" from all of them saying it's O.K for you to cut in line I can't see that happening. I don't mean to be rude but.......

Joe,

No apologies needed. I, and I'm sure others, appreciate your thoughtful post. The wonderful thing about forums like this is we are all talking to one another in a reasoned manner. This is one of the few bright points that break through my daily cynicism and cause me to be optimistic about the future. From what I've read here over the past 1.5 years, the community of Patrick.net would operate reasonably well as a political coalition -- at least much better than what we're stuck with today.