oakland taxes - readers comments
Continuation from Are Oakland’s Taxes Too High?
Reader Comments (5)
07.11.2007 | 
Frank (frank.lynn@sbcglobal.net)
And I thought San Leandro’s taxes were bad. Sheesh!
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.
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.
07.12.2007 | Robert
thanks for putting this top on the front page!
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
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
07.23.2007 | Dimonder
Yeah….
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.
07.23.2007 | Dimonder
PHPBB is a terrible piece of software for ‘regular’ folks to use. Please do not think it will help get things done. It creates vacuous forums.
07.24.2007 | Robert
interesting Dimonder. wehen you say comercial property owners, do you mean landlords that own stores or apartment buildings? i assume you mean storefronts.
thanks,
Robby
thanks,
Robby
07.26.2007 | Robert
Thanks for bumping this to the top again!
again, I’m merely like you folks that are feeling the burdon of property taxes. yeah, we knew what we were getting into when we bought our place, but maybe didn’t fully take into the consideration the fact that we’ll be paying this ever escalating amount forever. and property owners are largely responsible for funding local services (and of course sales tax).
and given the recent hike in violence and the marginal schools, what have those THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in assessments gotten any of us? where are the extra cops we voted to pay for (well everyone voted, but property owner solely paid for them).
we still love the area, but walking back down MacArthur two nights ago, I’m getting sick of seeing drunken morons loitering on the streets. not many, but they are there. and on a weekday.
maybe we should start a discussion and go through EACH OAKLAND ASSESSMENT on our property tax bill and discuss if it’s A. useful and B. is actually happening. meaning is Oakland just taking the cash and doing nothing to support the assessment?
I’ll look at my bill tonight and post each assessment. then, we can discuss if it’s useful and worth it. sound good?
those assessments stay on your bill FOREVER unless you can get 5,000 signatures to get the measure back on the ballot. where it may or may not get voted back in.
worth a shot though?
Robby
again, I’m merely like you folks that are feeling the burdon of property taxes. yeah, we knew what we were getting into when we bought our place, but maybe didn’t fully take into the consideration the fact that we’ll be paying this ever escalating amount forever. and property owners are largely responsible for funding local services (and of course sales tax).
and given the recent hike in violence and the marginal schools, what have those THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in assessments gotten any of us? where are the extra cops we voted to pay for (well everyone voted, but property owner solely paid for them).
we still love the area, but walking back down MacArthur two nights ago, I’m getting sick of seeing drunken morons loitering on the streets. not many, but they are there. and on a weekday.
maybe we should start a discussion and go through EACH OAKLAND ASSESSMENT on our property tax bill and discuss if it’s A. useful and B. is actually happening. meaning is Oakland just taking the cash and doing nothing to support the assessment?
I’ll look at my bill tonight and post each assessment. then, we can discuss if it’s useful and worth it. sound good?
those assessments stay on your bill FOREVER unless you can get 5,000 signatures to get the measure back on the ballot. where it may or may not get voted back in.
worth a shot though?
Robby
Posted on 07.25.2007
by
k.
in dimond, dimond district, real estate, user comments, reader comments
|
3 Comments
k.
in dimond, dimond district, real estate, user comments, reader comments
|
3 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Bottom line on taxes: Accountability.
I want a pie graph that shows where it all goes (similar to the one that shows how the Federal budget is mostly Pentagon pork)
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/images/spending_2005_half.gif
Wonder what Oak-town's graph would look like?
my wife and i really busy at the moment, but maybe when things calm down, you and i (and our significant others) can get together and think about what to do, eh? then, once we have a plan of attack, we could try and get a group to take action.
at this point, i think the best idea is to figure out what exactly each one of these assessments do and are they actually getting done? or is the city just pocketing the cash?
it takes 5,000 signatures to get each measure back on the ballot, where it may or may not get voted back in. if we do nothing, each assessments stays indefinitely.
email me at centaurus3200 at yahoo.com
see ya,
Robby
I own, and I bought recently, meaning I pay more than owners who bought in the 1970s (but who somehow still complain about being taxed on their $45,000 assessed value).
Of course renters should vote on bonds and other things. Tenant rents pay for property and business taxes. Indeed, even under Oakland's rent control, a landlord can increase rents based on increased operating costs (including taxes).
What I find is that people who complain about high taxes aren't complaining about high taxes, per se, but rather are unhappy with where they live. If everyone paid 200% more taxes, but had great schools, safe streets, free healthcare, etc, only a few zealots would complain.
The problem isn't taxes, it's City services.