Proposition 13 could go "buh-byee" with new SCOTUS ruling

[SoCalDem]

Here's how:

Some bold city council just has to OK demolition of a bunch of old, but pricey homes that currently sit on expensive, but under-taxed lots.. Usually these are in places like San Francisco, BelAir, Brentwood, . These are owned by rich older folks who pay a pittance in taxes.

Let's bulldoze those homes and put up some high-density housing that will be appraised at current values, and pump some moolah into the city coffers..or maybe a walmart right smack in the middle of Beverly Hills.. Those righ folks don't really need all that land anyway..:evilgrin:

or re-assess them for the proper taxation.

If it's just about money...nothing personal :evilgrin:

There's got to be a city somewhere that's controlled by some gutsy people..and who have a bunch of rich republicans who are TAX CHEATS :)

[Gyre]

1. Yeah, I saw that and I'm smokin' pissed.

Those fat fucks could use a little Constitutional reality check. Emminent Domain to benefit private corporations; that's nice! The so called "supremes" are a bunch of hogs at the trough. This is just further evidence.:(

Gyre

[davekriss]

2. Nonsense

Since the occupants of those upscale neighborhoods are the substantial contributors to the campaign coffers of the politicians, the latter will instead raze the homes of the middle and lower classes. We live in a plutocracy, government by and for the monied elites.

[SoCalDem]

3. I know it's unlikely, but the logic of the argument is the same

If XYZ rich neighborhood is paying 100K in taxes due to prop 13, and a business-park or multiple homes at new assessments would bring in 400K, the same logic SHOULD apply.. fire up those dozers:)

[davekriss]

5. I can't agree

I do not think "better use" is a valid justification for the "taking" of property, even when fairly compensated, or even when the owners of the taken property are rich and not paying their fair share of taxes.

Taking should only be used when, in the absence of alternatives, land is needed to build a public necessity, like a water treatment plant, or a prison to house various neo-cons.

[SoCalDem]

6. The case that prompted the ruling was for a business that promised jobs

and tax money..

I agree with you...but taken to the extreme, my scenario makes as much sense as the ruling's case:(

[SoCalDem]

7. You and I agreee.. It's the supremeos who interpreted it differently

I don;t think anyone's home should EVER be taken from them to "
benefit" a different entity..

Kansans went through this when I-70 was built.. many farms were bi-sected through eminent domain..

[Cleita]

4. I wouldn't want to see middle income retirees caught in that

because that is what got us proposition 13 to begin with. Old people were losing their paid for homes from property taxes they couldn't afford on a fixed income. People actually voted for proposition 13 thinking they were helping old people. They didn't realize what the ramifications would be.

How about we tax second homes, vacation homes, people who have a home in California but live in another state, people who live in a foreign country but have a home in California (hey you can nail the whole Saudi family and most of Beverly Hills with this one)?

I think you will get a lot of revenue from those alone.