Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12393)	8/15/2003 6:21:49 PM
From: David Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

....great we have somebody who has the power to kill it once and for all... And who is that?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12393)	8/15/2003 6:29:29 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

Lizzie, you have not heard a single word when you keep repeating this stupid age discrimination thing. that has NOTHING to do with prop 13, NOTHING, repeat after me, NOTHING. It just happened to be a by product. Name ONE single law, tax, regulation, ordinance, that is fair to every group. There is no such thing. You seem to have great difficult comprehending simple concepts so let me try a different approach. Answer this question: Would you, Lizzie Tudor, be happier if the old lady living next door to you, in an identical house, has to pay exactly the same amount as you pay in property tax, except both of you now have to pay double what you paid before? Furthermore, each year from now on, you no longer have any idea what your property tax would be? Is that what you would rather have, just so this old lady has to pay more? Lizzie, give it some thought. Trust me, it does not hurt to be more open minded.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12393)	8/16/2003 4:05:55 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

RE: "how about this- the old folks can stay at present rates if they actually LIVE in the house." Hi Lizzie, So true. In Palo Alto, there are quite a few older people who rent their homes because they are intelligent enough to recognize the great deal they are getting, while they live somewhere else. A speech writer that was helping me out, was renting a house in Palo Alto from an older lady. She had the ins/outs on who was renting their property and who wasn't. I asked her why so many owners kept their properties while they lived elsewhere, and she said it was because the property taxes they were paying was so (shockingly) low (compared to new comers), that it created a great financial deal for the owner to keep the property and continue renting it. There are quite a few older residents who do this according to her - this may have put great upward pressure on the homes in Palo Alto by artificially reducing the number of available homes to workers here. Just think of the money the State of California could get with the city of Palo Alto alone. Your tax dollars are basically being used to subsidize real estate investors that do not live in their homes in Palo Alto. Getting rid of Prop 13 would also help businesses by making homes more affordable for employees. The next group of employees we eventually hire at some point in the future, will most likely be in the Bay Area as costs become more reasonable here. Getting rid of Prop 13 is a great thing for startups and high-tech. It's not good for our community and our businesses if employees and contracors can't afford a house because prices are propped up artifically high through demand for real estate by investors that hold an unusually high number of homes here due to the low property tax, rather than local residents. Prop 13 is a benefit for real estate investors. It harms high-tech. Time to get rid of it. Buffett is beginning to grow on me. Go Buffett! Regards, Amy J