Are Oakland's property taxes a rip-off?
Public Bulletin Submission
06.18.2007 | 
Robert
Hi all,
great website!
I’ve been wanting to ask a group of dimond/glenview locals these following questions for some time. this post is not meant to become a flame war, just looking for some insight:
1. do you rent or own in Oakland?
2. do you think that renters should be allowed to vote on measures that ONLY financially impact property owners? meaning through property taxes. for example, when my wife and i rented, we usually voted on improvement measures because they didn’t cost us anything (landlords and homeowners paid for it through property taxes).
3. do you feel, as property owners, that you are getting a good return on your investment? meaning, do you think your property tax dollars are being well spent in Oakland? would you like an open book assessment of “where the money is going?”
here’s my thoughts:
Oakland and state taxes are roughly 1.45%(including assessments). so, the state is 1%, that’s .45% for Oakland. Oakland does tack on a lot relatively compared to other cities. and to think we will be paying this ever slightly escalating amount every year until we sell or die is sorta hard to grasp. i mean we aren’t talking a few grand anymore. people are paying $10,000-$13,000 A YEAR. and to say they are all rich is absurd. many, like us, are middle class employed (at least for now) folks that understood the cost of property taxes, but not the personal impact. it’s far different when you come to realize you will be paying this large sum forever.
and the common response of “well, you can write them off, along with your interest - so stop complaining). well, true, but unless you make A LOT of money, your salary is not even close to high enough to reap the maximum benefits of the write-offs. you can’t get back more than you pay into income tax. for example, if you have a big mortgage and high property taxes, but are unemployed. you get NOTHING back. because you have put nothing torwards income tax.
as home values in the bay area, and Oakland specifically, have nearly tripled since the late 1990’s, so have city and state income from property taxes. yet the city incessantly keeps claiming they are broke. i just don’t get it. our infrastructure is damaged. our schools are in disarray (aren’t they still state controlled?), crime is on the rise, yet property tax income has been soaring. where is the money going?
homes that were $280,000 in 2001 are now being put back on the market for $630,000 (I’m not inventing these numbers). lets say this is fairly common (and it is). that means the city’s revenue for this typical dimond home went from $4,060/year to $9,135 and up FOREVER (barring a collapse of housing prices).
my main point is housing prices have nearly tripled in Oakland, yet what are we seeing for the money? do you feel any safer? are your children getting a better education? are Oakland’s public areas getting beautified? the common city response is well we need more measures and assessments because Oakland doesn’t have the money to provide these things with the present budget..
and so yet another assessment or measure gets thrown on the ballot, only to be SOLELY paid for by property owners. sucking off property owners is a one trick pony that has got to stop. my wife and i are seriously thinking of selling our home and renting again. rents are still relatively flat and the relative rent our home would go for is about HALF of what we pay for in a mortgage NOT including property taxes.
another common response being “well that’s the price of ownership - and you will reap the benifit of ever increasing property values.” well, maybe, but when home prices have far outstripped wages, i doubt homes will keep rising period, let alone at the brisk clip they’ve been screaming in the last 5-7 years.
in closing, i don’t profess to be an expert. in fact, i want you to NICELY critique my thoughts and educate me as well.
thanks,
Robert
great website!
I’ve been wanting to ask a group of dimond/glenview locals these following questions for some time. this post is not meant to become a flame war, just looking for some insight:
1. do you rent or own in Oakland?
2. do you think that renters should be allowed to vote on measures that ONLY financially impact property owners? meaning through property taxes. for example, when my wife and i rented, we usually voted on improvement measures because they didn’t cost us anything (landlords and homeowners paid for it through property taxes).
3. do you feel, as property owners, that you are getting a good return on your investment? meaning, do you think your property tax dollars are being well spent in Oakland? would you like an open book assessment of “where the money is going?”
here’s my thoughts:
Oakland and state taxes are roughly 1.45%(including assessments). so, the state is 1%, that’s .45% for Oakland. Oakland does tack on a lot relatively compared to other cities. and to think we will be paying this ever slightly escalating amount every year until we sell or die is sorta hard to grasp. i mean we aren’t talking a few grand anymore. people are paying $10,000-$13,000 A YEAR. and to say they are all rich is absurd. many, like us, are middle class employed (at least for now) folks that understood the cost of property taxes, but not the personal impact. it’s far different when you come to realize you will be paying this large sum forever.
and the common response of “well, you can write them off, along with your interest - so stop complaining). well, true, but unless you make A LOT of money, your salary is not even close to high enough to reap the maximum benefits of the write-offs. you can’t get back more than you pay into income tax. for example, if you have a big mortgage and high property taxes, but are unemployed. you get NOTHING back. because you have put nothing torwards income tax.
as home values in the bay area, and Oakland specifically, have nearly tripled since the late 1990’s, so have city and state income from property taxes. yet the city incessantly keeps claiming they are broke. i just don’t get it. our infrastructure is damaged. our schools are in disarray (aren’t they still state controlled?), crime is on the rise, yet property tax income has been soaring. where is the money going?
homes that were $280,000 in 2001 are now being put back on the market for $630,000 (I’m not inventing these numbers). lets say this is fairly common (and it is). that means the city’s revenue for this typical dimond home went from $4,060/year to $9,135 and up FOREVER (barring a collapse of housing prices).
my main point is housing prices have nearly tripled in Oakland, yet what are we seeing for the money? do you feel any safer? are your children getting a better education? are Oakland’s public areas getting beautified? the common city response is well we need more measures and assessments because Oakland doesn’t have the money to provide these things with the present budget..
and so yet another assessment or measure gets thrown on the ballot, only to be SOLELY paid for by property owners. sucking off property owners is a one trick pony that has got to stop. my wife and i are seriously thinking of selling our home and renting again. rents are still relatively flat and the relative rent our home would go for is about HALF of what we pay for in a mortgage NOT including property taxes.
another common response being “well that’s the price of ownership - and you will reap the benifit of ever increasing property values.” well, maybe, but when home prices have far outstripped wages, i doubt homes will keep rising period, let alone at the brisk clip they’ve been screaming in the last 5-7 years.
in closing, i don’t profess to be an expert. in fact, i want you to NICELY critique my thoughts and educate me as well.
thanks,
Robert
06.28.2007 | Craig (okradingle@yahoo.com)
Craig (okradingle@yahoo.com) I agree. I am not an anti-tax person, but I ask the same thing. My taxes are 13k-14k per year, but Oakland’s solution to potholes was to spray-paint around the hole? That’s an awful lot of spray paint!
I even get annoyed at the “volunteer to clean your sewers” campaign. WTF? Don’t we have a Public Works Department for that?
Where does ALL THAT MONEY GO? Oakland is great; it’s a beautiful part of the country….but it could be better.
Didn’t we approve the extra cops already? Where are they?
07.2.2007 |Robert
Craig (okradingle@yahoo.com)
I even get annoyed at the “volunteer to clean your sewers” campaign. WTF? Don’t we have a Public Works Department for that?
Where does ALL THAT MONEY GO? Oakland is great; it’s a beautiful part of the country….but it could be better.
Didn’t we approve the extra cops already? Where are they?
07.2.2007 |
Robert Right on Craig!
anybody know how i can get my topic on the front of the site? seems like a lot of people would chime in if it were easier to find.
anyway. yes, I’m not anti-tax either, but i do expect something for my “tax investment.” damnit, yesterday marks the 3-4th night in the past week i heard gunshots. are you kidding me? i ain’t blowin’ over $12,000/year to have morons try and kill each other within ear-shot!
don’t get me wrong, i dig Oakland a lot, but i think this town is taking a step backwards with Dellums in office. i saw Dellum’s speech to some Oakland business committee. he spoke for 45 minutes and did not say one specific thing about how he’s going to change Oakland or it’s business climate.
quite impressive actually. i don’t think i could speak for 45 minutes and not mention at least one specific plan of action. he was just so vague. definitely a professional politician ;-)
he talked about his “task forces” once again. WTF are those damn groups and what do they do? he won’t even say. the guy’s actually got task forces to control smaller task forces? huh? and my property taxes are paying for this?
then he goes into how together we can make Oakland this grand place that won’t be secondary to San Francisco. that’s great Ron! how about first getting our schools out of the gutter and prevent the escalating violent assaults (especially in the Laurel) first????
the best part is he ended his speech by saying “you know i had this young black child come up to me and say make me proud mayor Dellums. i began to cry….” i can’t remember the speech exactly, but i STARTED TO LAUGH!
WTF does this have to do with anything? puleeze, stop with the heart string tugging AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING RON!!!!
i actually miss Jerry…
see ya,
Robby
07.3.2007 | anybody know how i can get my topic on the front of the site? seems like a lot of people would chime in if it were easier to find.
anyway. yes, I’m not anti-tax either, but i do expect something for my “tax investment.” damnit, yesterday marks the 3-4th night in the past week i heard gunshots. are you kidding me? i ain’t blowin’ over $12,000/year to have morons try and kill each other within ear-shot!
don’t get me wrong, i dig Oakland a lot, but i think this town is taking a step backwards with Dellums in office. i saw Dellum’s speech to some Oakland business committee. he spoke for 45 minutes and did not say one specific thing about how he’s going to change Oakland or it’s business climate.
quite impressive actually. i don’t think i could speak for 45 minutes and not mention at least one specific plan of action. he was just so vague. definitely a professional politician ;-)
he talked about his “task forces” once again. WTF are those damn groups and what do they do? he won’t even say. the guy’s actually got task forces to control smaller task forces? huh? and my property taxes are paying for this?
then he goes into how together we can make Oakland this grand place that won’t be secondary to San Francisco. that’s great Ron! how about first getting our schools out of the gutter and prevent the escalating violent assaults (especially in the Laurel) first????
the best part is he ended his speech by saying “you know i had this young black child come up to me and say make me proud mayor Dellums. i began to cry….” i can’t remember the speech exactly, but i STARTED TO LAUGH!
WTF does this have to do with anything? puleeze, stop with the heart string tugging AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING RON!!!!
i actually miss Jerry…
see ya,
Robby
Craig (okradingle@yahoo.com) Better yet would be a PHPBB type forum. I think it would attract more people and we could actually get something done.
RE: Dellums, the jury is still out. I’ll give him a chance yet, but there is an inherent problem with those who’ve held higher offices and then “stoop” to manage city affairs (that includes Jerry).
Are you sure it was gunshots? Maybe it was illegal fireworks (which potentially could kill thousands!) :)
As an aside, when I lived in Chicago, every fine or fee I got assessed felt like it was money towards flowers or other beautification projects. Here, it feels an awful lot like graft or corruption.
I am easy. Make the city a little better, buy me some flowers and I’ll stop complaining. Make me pay (a lot!) AND give me no services AND ask me to “pitch-in”? Then we’ve got problems.
RE: Dellums, the jury is still out. I’ll give him a chance yet, but there is an inherent problem with those who’ve held higher offices and then “stoop” to manage city affairs (that includes Jerry).
Are you sure it was gunshots? Maybe it was illegal fireworks (which potentially could kill thousands!) :)
As an aside, when I lived in Chicago, every fine or fee I got assessed felt like it was money towards flowers or other beautification projects. Here, it feels an awful lot like graft or corruption.
I am easy. Make the city a little better, buy me some flowers and I’ll stop complaining. Make me pay (a lot!) AND give me no services AND ask me to “pitch-in”? Then we’ve got problems.
07.3.2007 | Robert
Robert
Posted on 07.7.2007
by
k.
in dimond, oakland, dimond district, real estate, glenview, public opinion, hostility, PUBLIC FORUM, public bulletin
|
5 Comments
k.
in dimond, oakland, dimond district, real estate, glenview, public opinion, hostility, PUBLIC FORUM, public bulletin
|
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Liberal non-leaders in leadership positions are usually the root causes of problems. They like to spend, spend, spend--with no solutions to the real problems plauging a city. Then they spend time talking about federal issues they cannot impact like the Iraq war...
Prop 13 is another problem--the squeeze is on us new homeowners; because everyone else has lower rates grandfathered in.
yeah, I'm a neophyte when it comes to understanding more than the basics of prop 13. but, i agree. i think prop 13 is valid, but only for people who need it. such as Larry Ellison does NOT need prop. 13. the 80 year old woman down the street from with living in a house in shambles, DOES need prop 13.
in exchange for this provision, I'd want new homeowners to pay .5% OR at the very least, freeze the number so it doesn't rise 2% every year.
i don't know, what do you more educated folks suggest?
you can't screw with it too much or you'll collapse the California housing market. and you know what people do when their house value crumbles, right? they throw the keys back to the bank and tell them to go STICK IT!
this creates a domino effect and it would just be very, very ugly. the housing crash in the early 90's in los angeles would be NOTHING compared to this one.
Robby
it is prop 13.....folks who have owned their home for the past 25 years are payin $600 a year in taxes...you should go after them... and they are all going to vote to keep it the way it is. Why not think about the whole thing differently...instead of sending our income taxes to DC to pay for wars etc. Why not send at least 1/2 of it to our local government so we can get real services - like schools that work and healthcare for all.
ALSO commercial property owners are also in the prop 13 exemptions...so go after them too.
thanks,
Robby