PROP 13 & commercial properties

Prop 13 keeps property taxes low for residential and commercial properties by only allowing governme

  • yes - Commercial properties should be excluded from prop 13. (pay more property taxes)

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • no - Commercial properties stays the same with prop 13 protection. (same as today)

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • I need more information

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23
Who would vote for this!?  If this wins someone is stuffing the ballot boxes.

This is a slippery slope and clear progression for CA to get rid of Prop 13 for residential properties.
 
The original intent of the measure was to prevent Grandma from being taxed out of her paid off home.

I don't see why that protection should be afforded to corporate owners of commercial properties.


 
I don't disagree with you misme, but prop 13 makes me rich.
If I didn't own property from years ago, I would try to weaken prop 13.

But I vote with my pocketbook.
 
Kings said:
sounds like a great way for CA to drive more businesses out

Agree. 

One reason some of manufacture business can still survive in CA is due to low commercial property tax if their property was bought decades ago.  But if this pass, it will be the final straw for a lot of business.

It will also affect a lot of strip mall operators.  A lot of older strip mall will need to raise rent significantly to cover the tax increase and their tenants will pay for it.  And alternatively, we the consumer will pay for that. 

Long time ago I was all for abolishing Prop 13 for commercial properties but more I think about it, more I'm against it.
 
I am not for a blanket abolishment of Prop 13 for commercial properties. I think that the loophole of keeping the low rate after a sale for commercial properties should be done away with.
 
Don't tenants pay market-rate rents? 
Why should long term property owners like the Irvine Co. be allowed to pay something like $1000/yr on property tax for commercial property valued well over $1M.  They should be paying $10,000/year like everybody else.  Its why there are mello roos and high gas taxes and high income taxes and high sales taxes in CA.  I'm all for equalling tax liabilities on similarly valued commercial properties for new and long term owners.  Newly owned commercial property taxpayers subsidize the tax liabilities of longterm commercial property owners is, in my opinion, unjust and unfair.
 
The ballot should be to remove prop 13 alltogether. I would be paying about 4-5k less per year in taxes (property Taxes + mello Roos) than if I just paid 1% on the value of my house
 
qwerty said:
The ballot should be to remove prop 13 alltogether. I would be paying about 4-5k less per year in taxes (property Taxes + mello Roos) than if I just paid 1% on the value of my house

If prop13 is repealed, mello roos gets reapealed too?
 
zubs said:
qwerty said:
The ballot should be to remove prop 13 alltogether. I would be paying about 4-5k less per year in taxes (property Taxes + mello Roos) than if I just paid 1% on the value of my house


If prop13 is repealed, mello roos gets reapealed too?

No they don't.  Mello Roos are a product of the Community Facility Act of 1982. 

You will get market rate property tax and Mello Roos on new builds.
 
Park said:
Don't tenants pay market-rate rents? 
Why should long term property owners like the Irvine Co. be allowed to pay something like $1000/yr on property tax for commercial property valued well over $1M.  They should be paying $10,000/year like everybody else.  Its why there are mello roos and high gas taxes and high income taxes and high sales taxes in CA.  I'm all for equalling tax liabilities on similarly valued commercial properties for new and long term owners.  Newly owned commercial property taxpayers subsidize the tax liabilities of longterm commercial property owners is, in my opinion, unjust and unfair.

Big Boys TIC got it completely worked out to their favors. These are not charities organization. That?s why they are a long long term prop holders  :) :)
 
Many retail commercial centers are on nnn. The increase in property taxes will be passed to the tenant, then to the consumer. Sort of like these tariffs...enjoy.
 
qwerty said:
The ballot should be to remove prop 13 alltogether. I would be paying about 4-5k less per year in taxes (property Taxes + mello Roos) than if I just paid 1% on the value of my house

Minor nit, prior to prop 13, property tax was just short of 3% on average much like other States.

That $880,000 median list price of homes in Irvine would be looking at an average $27,000 tax bill on the pre-Prop13 tax rolls.  As would every existing owner.

I did receive a call the other night for a survey on the proposed ballot initiative, test floating pro/con arguments on fixing Prop 13.  The questioned from proposed names on the ballot to for and against arguments and how well they were received, schools played a prominent roll as did big bad business getting a free ride and small business getting screwed because of triple net leases.  (Yes, they actually referenced triple net leases).

For a side note, Tustin is putting another School Funding bond on the ballot.  Asking for 0.03% assessment to fund Elementary School updating in non-mello roo areas. 

That will be in addition to the prior 3 SFIDs that passed the ballot to Rehab High Schools, Middle Schools and roll out Technology to the schools.  Assessments for priors weigh in at 0.03%, 0.018% and 0.016%.    All total under 0.1% SFID funding directly to the schools.  On an equivalent million dollar home that's a $1000 in additional taxes. Far lower than the typical Mello Roo associated to new builds at that price point.
 
I'd consider it worth voting for if they tied the initiative to a conversion of all State of California pension obligations to no more than minimum wage x 40 hours per week total, allow anyone who doesn't like it to opt out of their pensions, then everyone with less than 10 years in the pension system booted off and offered 401k plans.

Changing the taxation of property is the stick. What's the carrot here? For me, it's pension overhaul. Something has to be done with these hyper unrealistic obligations sooner rather than later. 

My .02c
 
Just like Social Security, those currently employed are paying the benefits for the retired. Yes, the amounts are very different, but the result is similar. Of course the districts are on the hook per bargaining for a much higher percentage. CTA has too much influence on elections.

I would call for an audit on all school dollars and how they are spent. So much money is wasted at the district admin level and does not reach the students directly. Indirect money should be limited to 5% and the other 95% should go directly to any program IN the classroom; not advisors, administrators, TOSAs, District office employees, etc. I would make any ?me too? clause illegal in collective bargaining.
 
If it makes the ballot, please vote no.
It?s impossible to determine market value for commercial property after initial purchase price. You can have 2 single unit buildings across the street from one another and the rents will vary greatly. 1 may be on nnn, one may be starbucks where the rent increases once every 5 years, the other on an annual basis. The price per sq ft will vary greatly.
Depending on the lease, tenant, city, cap rates  will fluctuate, as well as cap rates fluctuating to the market. What would end up happening is everyone would fight their valuation, and the extra tax revenue would go to additional gov agency payroll and pensions to investigate valuations and I?m sure they?ll create addl fees for you to dispute. Plus as I stated earlier, taxes will be passed to tenants, then to the customer. 99% of Irvine leases are prob nnn. Prop taxes for commercial are also already taxed at a higher rate. Also how fast would valuations change if/when you sign tenants to a new lease at a higher rate or a tenant leaves and there?s a vacancy. This will impact the market value of the property greatly. Point is, it?s impossible to determine market value wo access to rent rolls and p&l. Even guesstimating market value of residential real estate is impossible even though it should be easier...just look at how off Redfin/Zillow estimates are as proof.
The economy is booming and yet gov still wants more money and it seems more people are in need. What happens during the next recession.
 
So you favor public school teachers having to pay their 10% contribution in order to receive half the payout of social security?  in your 401k scheme, is their employer matching?

personally, I think that punitive approach will result in a big decrease in the quality of teachers.

Soylent Green Is People said:
I'd consider it worth voting for if they tied the initiative to a conversion of all State of California pension obligations to no more than minimum wage x 40 hours per week total, allow anyone who doesn't like it to opt out of their pensions, then everyone with less than 10 years in the pension system booted off and offered 401k plans.

Changing the taxation of property is the stick. What's the carrot here? For me, it's pension overhaul. Something has to be done with these hyper unrealistic obligations sooner rather than later. 

My .02c
 
Back
Top