myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Nutty California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 143, 144, 145, 146, 147  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coachg,

You make some valid points, but the issue is that the tax could hit all vacant properties regardless of the reason. Is that fair?

Trolling? California seems to be a leader in nutty propositions pushed by liberal thinking. I don't think sharing information is trolling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10038

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Come on techno900, you are well known here for actively highlighting your biases, particularly about California, a state that you have not lived in since the late 60s. But I have to admit, you're tireless in your attempts to crap on California. No doubt, the left wing "liberal" boogeyman lives big in your world. I have to wonder whether you're fearful that it will eventually start creeping into your southern state.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16256
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
coachg,

You make some valid points, but the issue is that the tax could hit all vacant properties regardless of the reason. Is that fair?

Trolling? California seems to be a leader in nutty propositions pushed by liberal thinking. I don't think sharing information is trolling.


Trolling is posting provocative pieces without actually vetting them, using a credible source, or starting a discussion about what they mean. In Oakland, as of the census data on January 16, 2020, there were 5898 vacant homes. Other estimates derived from the census put the number of vacant homes at 46,000 for the 5 county Bay area. Add in the number of second units that have been converted to Air B and B, and you have enough vacant housing to house the homeless.

I know it is not as simple as putting the homeless population in these vacant units. But you righties always rant about the homeless population in California--where the climate is relatively benign--without suggesting any solutions. You in particular always rant about liberal thinking--without any apparent understanding that the free market has failed to provide solutions.

Riddle me this oh great thinker from the deep south. What economic tax measures make it advantageous for property owners to leave so many units vacant rather than lower the rents until they are occupied? What tax measures make it attractive for firms to buy vacant rental properties, make minimal improvements, and then flip them? What should private industry and/or government do about the homeless problems?

Try to be part of a discussion, not just a troll.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac,

You may have issue with the sources that write negative things about Calif., but you almost never question or debate the purported facts in the story, you just dump on the source. I can see that unkempt properties that no one wants to rent is an issue, but is it fair to tax ALL vacant housing owners?

So, for all you on the left out there, will you, do you support taxes on vacant housing in your city? Where's the debate on San Francisco moving to this taxation program? Since many seem to be moving out of the city, is it a good thing to tax all the property owners if they can't find renters? Is Oakland happy with the program?

I also have seen that Calif. is considering a new tax on gun and ammunition purchases to make them more expensive to reduce the number being purchased. Of course, that talk will only cause expanded buying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3065

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno,

"Could hit" is a bit of a reach. There would have to be a lot of "ifs" before that could happen. "If" the city targets all vacant properties, "If" the city denies all properly filed verifications, etc...

And yes, trolling. What makes a liberal position or law "nutty"? Based on your opinion? Show me evidence that the law is being abused & then I won't accuse you of trolling.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coachg said:
Quote:
Show me evidence that the law is being abused & then I won't accuse you of trolling.


It's just starting in Oakland, so time will tell. If I owned a rental property in SF and got hit by a tax because no one could afford the rent, and if I dropped the rent, I would lose money - I figure I would be being abused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16256
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--you are pretty batshit. You answered none of my questions and your fact supposition is dead wrong. All property, whether occupied or occupied, pays property taxes to local government. So there is no particular incentive to somehow score additional taxes. The issue is the impact of vacant housing and speculation on rental costs and homelessness. You apparently have no insight, or concerns about that which are worth sharing.

If you actually read a few pieces of analysis, not just your hard right sources that make your knee jerk, you might someday post something constructive. I'm not holding my breath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3065

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
It's just starting in Oakland, so time will tell. If I owned a rental property in SF and got hit by a tax because no one could afford the rent, and if I dropped the rent, I would lose money - I figure I would be being abused.


Fair enough, but why did you leave out the other possibility? You are an absentee landlord with a property that is not safe to live in & you refuse to make it livable, just sitting there for drug dealers to occupy with trash & shoulder high weeds all around?

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coachg wrote:
techno900 wrote:
It's just starting in Oakland, so time will tell. If I owned a rental property in SF and got hit by a tax because no one could afford the rent, and if I dropped the rent, I would lose money - I figure I would be being abused.


Fair enough, but why did you leave out the other possibility? You are an absentee landlord with a property that is not safe to live in & you refuse to make it livable, just sitting there for drug dealers to occupy with trash & shoulder high weeds all around?

Coachg


Okay, there is a problem, that's not the issue. The issue is taxing the conscientious landlord because he can't fine renters to solve the problem of the absentee landlord. Will the conscientious landlord find an exemption from the list below? If not, is it fair for him to pay the tax?

In Oakland these are the exemptions to keep from paying the tax:

A. “Very Low Income”
B. “Financial Hardship”
C. “Demonstrable Hardship Unrelated to Personal Finances”
D. “Exceptional Specific Circumstances”
E. “Active Construction”
F. “Building Permit Application”
G. “Low Income Senior”
H. “Disabled Owner”
I. “Non-profit Organization
J. “Substantially Complete Application for Planning”


Last edited by techno900 on Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3065

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:

Okay, there is a problem, that's not the issue. The issue is taxing the conscientious landlord because he can't fine renters to solve the problem of the absentee landlord.


Oh contraire mon frerem, that is the issue. I have only read about this law being applied to absentee landlords. Do you have proof that this abuse is occurring to support your claim or are you just trolling for things that are vaguely possible; like the Sacramento Kings winning the NBA championship or Donald Trump being honest?

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 143, 144, 145, 146, 147  Next
Page 144 of 147

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group