Posted on 08/27/2017 5:29:27 PM PDT by rey
Same here in Merryland
Stupid. The owners of second homes don’t demand much in public services. They don’t send kids to the schools and increase the need for teachers. They don’t clog the roads. They don’t commit crimes. They are good for the community, and the town is getting a great deal if they pay the regular property tax rate.
Looks highly unlikely under California law. “ Proposition 218 prohibits any local government from imposing, extending, or increasing any general tax4 unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. Proposition 218 also prohibits any local government from imposing, extending, or increasing any special tax5 without the approval of two-thirds of the electorate. Proposition 218 also gave voters the power to reduce or repeal any local tax, assessment, or fee through ballot referenda (Article XIII C, Section 3). Furthermore, it subjected local assessments to a host of new procedural and substantive requirements (Article XIII D, Sections 4 and 5) and defined a new class of property-related fees that are subject to a number of limitations and requirements (Article XIII D, Sec. 6).
“.
For many years Minnesota has had some type of homestead tax break. If you are a Minnesota resident, you can declare your principal residence in MN eligible for a tax break. Non-homesteaders pay about twice as much.
Yes, it does.
This usual answer is: They can afford it.
Cynical but accurate: if they found the additional tax a burden, they would buy their investment property or vacation house elsewhere.
Socialists and islams both want to jism tax all into submission.
I suggest telling them to FOAD and either shoot or STFU.
“It’s a major problem if there are empty, or rarely used second homes at a time when people are being driven from their homes,” said housing activist Robert Nuese.
= = =
It is NOT a problem.
These empty homes are available to put Mooslime refugees into.
Didn’t they start doing that in Germany, or maybe Sweden? Ugh.
Ps to my prior note - since she’s already defjbee or explained her proposed added tax in terms of a special tax per California law, it would require a 2/3 voter approval Seems unlikely to say the least, imho It appears this is just another politician yacking to get press coverage for herself
CAN’T vote.....
The Founders saw the wisdom of giving only those who had a stake in the game, landowners, the right to vote.
Real estate taxes are inherently evil. Even when one pays off their mortgage they still don’t own the property free and clear. Just miss paying real estate taxes and see how long before the local government sells the property out from under you. Real estate taxes need to be abolished. Local governments need to find a more equitable way to pay for the few basic services they are responsible for like fire and police protection, streets and sanitation. Paying for schools is not a legitimate function of civil government.
Am I missing something? If she’s concerned that the second home owners are driving up the price of property isn’t that a good thing? I.e. higher property values equals higher taxes. And everyone knows higher taxes solve everything!
I suppose if they passed it and it miraculously worked as she thinks it will... And the taxes go down, she can just say, “Hey, our tax revenues are down. We need to increase the tax on second home owners to cover the shortfall.”
In a liberal’s mind every issue’s solution requires more taxes.
“She said it could take the form of an annual 1 percent tax on the assessed value of a home if it is neither someone’s principal residence, nor leased to a full-time tenant, similar to a tax that’s levied in Vancouver, British Columbia. Healdsburg voters would have a final say over any such proposed tax.”
Well, she’s come hard up against Prop 13, coupled with the generally accepted law that property taxes are levied to provide property-related services. Then there’s always the issue of “equal protection under the law.”
It’s really an amazing stretch. We have a second home elsewhere in California. Although we do rent it, it’s a vacation rental and in a good year is rented for 6 months out of the year a month or two at a time. Now our municipality can be pi$$ed off that we’ve owned it for more than 20 years, and as a consequence of Prop 13 our property taxes are nowhere near what they would be if we had just purchased the place, but the idea that somehow a lack of occupancy is “costing” the city money is ludicrous.
“According to city-data.com, mean price of a detached home in Healdsburg is $640,012. This would be yearly tax of $6,400 on top of property taxes the owner is already paying.”
Under Proposition 13, property taxes are set at 1% of purchase price, and they can be raised a maximum of 2% of that value per year, plus the debt service on any voter-approved bonds. That’s it. The idea that Healdsburg can unilaterally double the base property tax from 1 to 2% isn’t going to happen. And the last time I looked, it was perfectly legal to own real property and not live in it all the time, or any time at all.
>>>Paying for schools is not a legitimate function of civil government.<<<
The populace loves the public funded babysitting services. They even go out of their way to buy into the right neighborhoods with the highly rated babysitting services.
I think public education is the primary tool of the leftist, but just about everybody likes them.
Besides, we can’t educate our own kids, that requires a certified professional doncha know that?
What more does she want?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.