The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If you stay in the same place for 60 years discrepancies can crop up. Poor neighborhoods can become wealthy neighborhoods. (Cabbage town in Toronto for example). In effect this type of policy hits the poor and elderly quite hard.
Of course you could do worse and follow California's proposition 13.
aspiring to genteel poverty
Are you advocating rent control as well?
I'm not sure where this comes from, but the answer is - As a retired landlord specializing in lower working class tenants - hell yes. There are again particular problems - including the possibility of pricing rents so low that repairs to buildings become impossible but that must be weighed against throwing people out into the streets, and the importance of avoiding the boom bust building cycle that leads to gluts of rental accommodation and landlords being unable to make repairs as they go bankrupt. A regulated rental market is necessary to provide the highest quality housing to those who are unable to afford to buy and don't have the clout or money to challenge their landlords.
SInce you are obviously not one of these, I basically agree with you, except that you would be exempting the poor person from tax increases (which are partly needed to pay increased salaries to city workers etc.) so that their heirs can cash in. One solution might be to allow people below a certain income level to postpone tax increases until selling, and then pay back taxes at that point.
Incidentally, I know people in NY (with strong rent control on older buildings) who have invested quite a bit in improving their own apartments. But this may be due to the combination of rent control with lack of rent control on newer apartments, so that they know they'll probably live in the apartment for the rest of their lives.
I paid the property taxes on my building, not the tenants. Rent control did not limit property tax increases in Ontario. I believe that if you lease a property you typically pay property taxes, but not for renting.
Maybe property taxes on rent-controlled buildings simply doesn't go up much? After all, the "value" (in the normal, vague sense, not the fashion of using it as a synonym for price) of a rent-controlled building, in the sense of the income stream it provides, doesn't go up much, whatever happens to its price. So maybe the law has two ways of determining value, either based on purchase price, or based on rental value.
There was (is?) something similar with faculty housing. NYU attracts potential faculty with inexpensive housing. Back in the 80s, tax reform meant that the difference between the rent and market value (a lot...) would become taxable income. But their lobbyists managed to insert into the law an alternative way of calculating the size of the subsidy, namely the difference between the university price and similar, non-subsidied apartments in the same building. They just happened to have a few rent-controlled tenants from before they bought the building that they hadn't managed to evict.....
by Oui - Jun 25 38 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 24 2 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 16 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 15 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10 15 comments
by Bernard - Jun 6 23 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 6 4 comments
by Oui - Jun 8 104 comments
by Oui - Jun 2538 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 242 comments
by Oui - Jun 232 comments
by Oui - Jun 23
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 20
by Oui - Jun 1915 comments
by asdf - Jun 183 comments
by Oui - Jun 184 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 1612 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1512 comments
by Oui - Jun 1310 comments
by Oui - Jun 1240 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1015 comments
by Oui - Jun 95 comments
by Oui - Jun 8104 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 64 comments
by Bernard - Jun 623 comments
by Oui - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 524 comments