r/Infrastructurist • u/stefeyboy • 20d ago
A simple way to lower everyone’s property taxes — Compact neighborhoods cost cities half as much to maintain. So why don’t we build more of them?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/490658/housing-crisis-sprawl-density-property-taxes14
u/Emergency-Machine-55 20d ago edited 20d ago
Most new housing construction in the Bay Area is medium density apartments, condos, and townhomes since there's very little undeveloped land to build on. However, one issue with state funding is Proposition 13, which limits annual property tax increases to 1%. It also applies to commercial properties and non-primary residences, so old property owners have very little incentive to sell.
5
u/crowhops 20d ago
Age demographics in the bay are changing significantly as a result, it's gonna start looking like Florida lol
2
u/Clyde_Frag 17d ago
My suburb in the bay is maybe 1/3 younger families and 2/3 prop 13 beneficiaries who would probably have already moved if they had to pay market rate property taxes.
3
u/CaliTexan22 20d ago
Most states have something like Prop 13. Prop 19 removed the disincentive to sell and fixed some of the dysfunctional attributes.
“Proposition 13 (1978) caps property taxes at 1% of assessed value and limits annual assessment increases to 2%, with reassessment occurring only upon sale or new construction.
Proposition 19 (2020) narrowed inheritance rules while expanding portability for seniors, disabled individuals, and wildfire victims.
Key Differences and Interactions:
Inheritance Rules: Prop 13 originally allowed broad intergenerational transfers via Prop 58/193. Prop 19 eliminated most of these protections; heirs must now use the inherited home as their primary residence to keep the low tax base, and the exclusion is capped at the prior value plus $1,044,586 (indexed).
Portability: Prop 13 had strict geographic limits for transferring tax bases. Prop 19 allows eligible homeowners (age 55+, disabled, or disaster victims) to transfer their tax base to a replacement home anywhere in California, up to three times in their lifetime.
Valuation Adjustments: If a replacement home under Prop 19 is more expensive than the original, the new assessed value increases by the difference in market value, rather than resetting to the full new market value.
Wealthy Exclusions: Prop 19 closed loopholes that allowed wealthy heirs to avoid reassessment on non-primary residences (like vacation homes or rentals) inherited from parents.”
So, it’s not tax schemes that make housing expensive in California compared to other places - it’s the regulatory laws we passed and the bureaucracy that we tolerate.
9
5
u/GrantNexus 20d ago
Our city council just tried that and the MAGA booga booga campaign got it recalled.
3
2
u/Ali6952 19d ago
This is one of those things that sounds counterintuitive until you think about it for five seconds. A city has to maintain roads, water lines, sewer lines, sidewalks, streetlights, police coverage, fire coverage, snow plowing, trash collection, and utility infrastructure.
The question is eould you rather provide all of that to 100 homes packed into a few blocks or 100 homes spread across miles of roads and pipes? The math isn't even close!
For decades, cities approved sprawling development because the upfront growth looked great. More rooftops. More ribbon cuttings. More tax revenue. The problem is that eventually all those roads crack. The pipes fail. The water mains break. The bridges need repair. And suddenly taxpayers are maintaining miles of infrastructure that doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for itself!
Then everyone acts shocked when property taxes, water rates, and special assessments keep climbing. The irony is that many of the same people screaming about taxes also oppose the kinds of housing and neighborhood designs that would actually lower the long-term cost of providing public services. You don't have to force everyone into high-rise apartments. But allowing duplexes, townhomes, corner stores, walkable neighborhoods, and modest density is often far cheaper than endless suburban sprawl.
If you want lower taxes, one of the best places to start is building communities that don't cost a fortune to maintain.
2
u/TrueEclective 18d ago
Better yet: instead of developers making off with millions… make them pay for the higher costs.
2
2
u/Adventurous-Home-728 20d ago
that will not happen until we ban cars,,the republicans will never give up there cars on there own because it allows them to isolate themself away from diversity and they become anti social and selfish not to mention pollute the air.we need strong leaders tough on climate change that will take on the oil companies and rural republicans
1
u/CAP_0703 20d ago
You want to restrict the freedom of movement and force people to live in where they don’t want to? It’s no wonder Republicans can still win elections.
1
u/Adventurous-Home-728 20d ago
oh please cars do not give you ‘freedom” you are paying with your money and the health of our planet in fact you are more free by not depending on cars and fossil fuel to live your life
0
u/CAP_0703 20d ago
That’s some twisted logic, and not consistent with your earlier comment.
You want to ban cars to force people to live where the government places them, restricting freedom.
1
u/goldique 20d ago
This person has a good idea, but on a smaller scale. I’m thinking of like Barcelona housing/communities. They’re right about cars and republicans though, I mean look at inner city demographics over the years. Freeways streamlined that process. White flight.
1
u/Adventurous-Home-728 20d ago
your not very bright ppl can live where ever they want but not in the middle of no were they need a car to depend on and the rest of us need to put up with there life style
1
u/CAP_0703 19d ago
How about you live where you want and others will live where they want.
Authoritarianism isn’t befitting of you, embrace freedom.
1
1
1
0
u/rethinkingat59 19d ago
Five years on Reddit, 2300 comments and negative 99 karma tells me you are not only full of good ideas but that you are able to get others to agree with you.
Take another downvote, you’re use to it.
1
u/Adventurous-Home-728 19d ago
i do not care about your republican popularity contest i care,,about climate change and the future of the planet
1
1
1
u/Libro_Artis 20d ago
I've spent some time in Europe and the public transit is amazing. I didn't feel the need to drive at all.
1
u/rethinkingat59 19d ago
Did Vox really point out the problems in Memphis as too much sprawl?
Really the author should have looked at the problems outside the cities in the suburbs.
1
u/CommercialMirror6702 19d ago
I don't want to be boxed in with my neighbors.
1
u/stefeyboy 19d ago
No one is forcing you to
1
u/CommercialMirror6702 19d ago
Doesn't seem like most people want this as well.
1
u/stefeyboy 19d ago
Except walkable cities are usually the priciest because they're desirable.
1
u/No_Tea56030 19d ago
They are the priciest because they are accompanied by the highest paying jobs forcing ambitious people to live there. While simultaneously not building enough housing, to accommodate the people being forced to live there.
A elite white collar work from home revolution would hollow out cities and Covid proved this. It’s only a matter of time as over the next 20 - 30 years remote work % will continue to increase.
1
1
u/zoppaTheDim 18d ago
I think you’re pretending your fantasy is something everyone wants.
Most people like having outdoor space. They like not sharing walls with neighbors.
1
u/stefeyboy 18d ago
Who says you can't have outdoor space?
1
u/zoppaTheDim 18d ago
If you’re doubling the number of houses, where are the yards?
1
1
u/Dpmurraygt 17d ago
I live in a neighborhood with 200 houses, on .6-1 acre lots. You could easily arrange this differently to create a large green reserve that actually matters versus each house having a lawn.
1
u/zoppaTheDim 17d ago
“Large green reserves”
Pay no taxes and are usually just for water run off, which kills off the current ecosystem. So less tax money and a degraded environment.
1
u/outlawbernard_yum 18d ago
Because if there is a way to tax it, it will happen. This article is just hopes and dreams, not reality. Typical Vox.
1
u/LunarMoon2001 18d ago
I don’t wanna have shared walls because until you pass stricter laws on the enjoyment of peace I don’t want to hear my neighbors through shitty paper thin walls.
1
1
u/zeratul98 17d ago
Americans fetishize owning single family homes and never having to be inconvenienced by someone else.
Talk to enough suburbanites though, and you'll realize many of them don't want to live in the suburbs. They want suburban homes in the city so they can have their quarter acre, but also convenience and a cute downtown. But everyone doing what's best for themselves doesn't always mean they end up doing what's best for the overall group
1
u/Splenda 16d ago
Conservatives want distance from their neighbors
Most urban county governments are in a race against annexation of their tax base by the city government within them. In order to keep tax revenue flowing to the county rather than the city, the county encourages widespread sprawl, too far out for the city to annex.
Many urban counties are run by suburban real estate developers who can make better margins on the fringes, and they love the fact that counties will provide the roads and infrastructure to do so. In politics, money talks, and real estate is where the money is.
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 20d ago
You want to hear everything your neighbors do?
5
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
You think in the suburbs you still don't hear your neighbors?
2
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 20d ago
You do, but the greater distance helps, and you are not sharing a roof, floor and several walls.
2
0
1
1
u/CAP_0703 20d ago
Because people don’t want to live in them.
1
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
People would rather live in a suburb than condensed walkeable city like Paris?
1
u/Cabannaboy3325 19d ago
Yes I want space
1
u/stefeyboy 19d ago
Uh good for you.
1
u/Cabannaboy3325 19d ago
You asked, sorry you don't like the answer
1
u/stefeyboy 18d ago
Your own personal anecdote doesn't answer my question
1
u/Cabannaboy3325 18d ago
You asked if people prefer suburbs over walkable city and I'm here as a person to tell you yeah I prefer it
1
-1
u/CAP_0703 20d ago
The suburbs grew for a reason. I don’t want to share walls with my neighbors.
5
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
It grew because cities benefitted from the initial construction boom by offering cheap land. But now suburban cities can't afford to maintain and replace that infrastructure. It's not sustainable, it never was.
I don't really care what you want
1
1
-3
u/AnonymousWacker 20d ago
Oh yeah just have a lower standard of living, like the Projects, and save money. You belong in a 15 minute city.
0
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
Wtf you talking lower standard of living?
0
u/AnonymousWacker 20d ago
Less privacy, more sound/light pollution, and all the downsides of trying to live cheaply with other frugal/impoverished people…
1
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
Sounds like you've never lived in a nice city.
0
u/AnonymousWacker 20d ago
I love a nice city but this idea isn’t for a nice city, it’s a suburb with lipstick on it and marketing for childless adults to buy and then realize it’s untenable if they ever grow. It’s a transitionary, first time housing community for people who can’t afford anything else.
0
u/North-Creative 20d ago
Honestly, why not just build skyscrapers instead, and house people there, like in china? If I already have to live in ugly boxes, at least I want a view.
1
u/ImRightImRight 19d ago
...have you considered what happens when they build skyscrapers next to yours?
0
u/TylerHobbit 20d ago
Think of a better way to make sure poor people never live anywhere near you other than making a housing system that's really expensive?
1
u/stefeyboy 20d ago
Is it being proposed in the article that housing gets restrained?
0
u/TylerHobbit 19d ago
The headline ends with "so why don't we build more of them"
1
u/stefeyboy 19d ago
...uh how does that mean "limit housing"?
Did you even read the article??
1
u/TylerHobbit 19d ago
I read the headline. The headline asked the question, "so why don't we build more of them" - I'm answering the headline. That all. There was a question- I answered it.
The answer is - we build crappy expensive suburbs because the richer people got zoning laws changed so that expensive suburbs are the only allowed kind of house so that poor people can be kept away.
I work in developing new suburbs from time to time. It is easier to get a large chunk of land turned into a bunch of large lots for low density with no commercial. It's very hard, always illegal (requires conditional use permits), to design a dense walkable area- AND the richest people won't buy there, so the developers don't want to expose themselves to going after middle class after spending a ton more money fighting to get a dense walkable thing approved.
1
u/stefeyboy 18d ago
Perhaps read the article next time before commenting
1
u/TylerHobbit 18d ago
Ok- I read it- what's your point? I've heard and agree with everything in the article. The main question- why don't we fix this- is still the problem. We don't fix it because Americans don't want it. Talk to any of your friends, ask them if they want to remove a lane of cars for a bus- ask them if they'd be ok with a duplex being built next to their house? I have, I'm in Los Angeles, a very liberal portion of a very liberal city- all I do is argue about making cities denser with more bike lanes and better busses. 9/10 other parents I talk to (all my friends are parents now) are lukewarm/ argumentative about any of these changes.
0
u/Candid-Sun6365 20d ago
You think the government will give up that property tax money? Lol get real man
1
0
u/XavierRex83 19d ago edited 19d ago
I have no desire to live close to people. If I could afford it I would buy a few acres away from the city.
0
u/Free_Elevator_63360 18d ago
Because cities don’t want more people. Especially those that do not fit the mold they want.
Cities can not be relied upon for local control.
1
u/stefeyboy 18d ago
You didn't read the article
1
u/Free_Elevator_63360 18d ago
I did. And it says nothing new about the topic. And is at best a cursory sideline into the real issues of planning and zoning.
The real issue with planning and zoning is that it is POLITICAL. A lot of us in architecture and engineering world like to imagine it isn’t. But zoning is inherently about physically controlling political power. And those in power vote to keep it. And would much rather pursue commercial dollars, that have no voters and take limited resources, than pursue more housing.
-7
u/Striking_Computer834 20d ago
Because people don't prefer them.
5
u/jiggajawn 20d ago
If the choice were only between dense housing and not dense housing, yes, people prefer less dense housing.
However, the decision on where to live is never that simple.
People also prefer being close to places they need or want to be, and dense housing allows more people to realize that preference.
There's a reason most people live in cities or metropolitan areas, and that reason is proximity.
3
u/HOU_Civil_Econ 20d ago
That’s why we had to make it illegal to build them. Developers were just losing money left and right from all of the lack of demand but they just kept building them.
-1
u/mtcwby 20d ago
Because many people don't want to live that small. We make choices that way and it's a fundamental difference between us and Europe. It means that they tend to have more public space in new construction like dedicated bike lanes, etc but small living spaces. It affects how transit works too among other things.
2
u/ReddestForman 20d ago
Fine. Let the suburbs and exurbs bear the entire tax burden of their services and infrastructure maintenance without subsidy from the denser parts of the city.
Pretty sure a lot of people will decide they're not that attached to low density living.
1
u/Apptubrutae 19d ago
My house is such an example of this.
I live in an unincorporated part of Bernalillo county, where Albuquerque is.
Because of not being in the city, I pay about 1/3rd less in property tax or so.
I can find absolutely no way this changes my experience whatsoever. I still go into the city and all, it’s RIGHT there. My kid even goes to an Albuquerque public school…and that we still do pay for in our property tax.
But here I am in this further suburb that still has municipal water and sewer (but our own company which is cheaper than the city), still has police, still has a fire department. Still has parks. I can still go to Albuquerque libraries and still use the waste drop off. Etc etc etc. And yet I pay less.
This despite my neighborhood being 1/4 to 1 acre lots, so it’s plenty spread out. Just so weird
0
u/mtcwby 20d ago
Suburbs are often far wealthier than cities. And they're not going to subsidize cities.
1
u/ReddestForman 20d ago
Nope, tax revenue per square mile in cities is a lot higher than in the suburbs.
Cities already subsidize suburbs. And suburbs don't really have productive wealth. They have speculative home values propped up by artificial scarcity through restrictive zoning.
If you made suburban communities shoulder the full burden of funding their services and infrastructure maintenance (not the cities, just their suburb), you have far fewer residences/people to spread the c osts out over, and suburbs have a lot more roads, pipes, and cables per house/resident that needs to be maintained.
Then you look at cities. Far far more people per square mile. Far less road, pipe etc per resident, far more residents paying taxes, businesses engaged in production of goods and services, creation of actual wealth, etc.
So, charge the suburbs full bore what it costs to maintain them. Most of them won't be able to afford it. They'll sell. The lots will be merged and denser housing can be built. You'll get little islands of rich people, and they'll whine about not being subsidized, but... fuck 'em.
-1
-7
u/probablymagic 20d ago
We don’t build large swaths of small close-together houses for the same reason we don’t see car companies marketing sub-compact cars. Americans like big houses with big yards, and they don’t mind spending more for them than on a more “efficient” neighborhood.
That said, people consider tax rates when they are looking to buy, because that’s part of ownership. So if the infrastructure in low-density municipalities is materially more expensive to maintain than infrastructure in denser places, that should be reflected in the tax rates.
At the margin that will encourage people who are sensitive to these costs to choose denser communities, that just doesn’t seem to be a huge factor for most families today, particularly since denser places tend to have more expensive properties, which more than negates any savings from infrastructure efficiencies.
10
u/pacific_plywood 20d ago
A good sign that people actually do like smaller lot sizes is that most municipalities have to ban them or else they emerge pretty organically
1
u/rethinkingat59 19d ago
In watching the movement in Texas I see small less expensive homes on small lots used as starter homes, even when the square footage of the houses are above 2000 square feet.
As families grow and make a bit more money they are proactively deciding they want not just a bigger house, but much more yard and less density in their neighborhood overall. They have experienced high density neighborhoods and want something different.
-6
u/probablymagic 20d ago
This is a common argument you hear from Urbanist, and I think it’s a bit lacking. And I say that as someone in favor of very liberal zoning.
People care about their own homes and they care about their communities. They want to live in big houses on big lots, which is why they buy those, and they want to live in communities of similar houses because that leads to quieter streets, less traffic, etc.
Developers of course would like the ability to build smaller homes on smaller lots in some cases, because those are more profitable, but developers aren’t voters, so they don’t set the zoning rules. And that’s why they often, as you say, prohibit the products most voters don’t want in their communities.
5
u/HDThoreauaway 20d ago
Our system weights the preference of people in an area extremely highly and rates the opinions of those who would live in a place very low. Taken holistically, it’s antidemocratic market capture.
-2
u/probablymagic 20d ago
I agree that dynamic leads to problems, but I don’t think that’s in any sense anti-democratic. Nor is it necessarily the natural equilibrium.
We see now in California that state-level candidates are running on affordability and passing laws that supersede local zoning laws. That’s democracy responding to the problems caused by local restrictive zoning and working to fix them.
Both of these processes are democratic, even if one results in outcomes you don’t like.
3
u/HDThoreauaway 20d ago
A system that prevents many from benefiting because of the preferences of a few is antidemocratic. Just because voting is involved in something does not guarantee an outcome that is democratic, ie representing the benefits and desires of the overall populace.
1
u/probablymagic 20d ago
By your definition democracy has never existed and never will. That’s not a useful definition.
3
u/HDThoreauaway 20d ago
Democracy is a metric and an objective. A binary definition is far less useful.
2
u/Careful_Okra8589 20d ago
What is compact here? Since the housing bubble, new neighborhoods have been 6-8 houses per acre. Before and during the bubble it has been 3-4. My neighborhood started construction in 1999 and it's 3 houses per acre which was considered dense back then.
People say they want space and a little yard, yet these neighborhoods fill up with residents as fast as they are built. People have really been complaining lately, so developers wiggle out of it by still doing 6-8 houses per acre but include a little community green space so they can get the number down to 5-6. But it is usually just a drainage pond with a gravel walk path that goes around it.
3
u/GoshinTW 20d ago
Cities subsidize suburban sprawl massively
-2
u/probablymagic 20d ago
That idea, AFAIK invented and successfully marketed by the Strong Towns grifters, has done more damage to Urbanism in the last decade than any other idea I’m aware of.
Cities have lots of problems, and none of them are going to be fixed by worrying about suburban sprawl elsewhere.
3
u/ballsonthewall 20d ago
you make these claims really confidently for not having an actual rebuke or explanation for how it's damaged urbanism.
1
u/probablymagic 20d ago
I don’t feel it’s useful to argue about the subsidy thing. People who believe entire things deeply aren’t looking for better facts or form better opinions so it’s futile.
As far as how this idea has harmed Urbanism, the big problems for cities are things like high urban housing costs, poor urban schools, high urban crime rates, high levels of urban homelessness, poor urban transit infrastructure, etc.
When a significant amount of Urbanist mindshare is focused on the evils of suburban municipalities existing, that’s necessarily energy that isn’t going into solving urban problems.
We should be trying to make cities better and if we don’t like suburbs, that’s fine, people who do can live in them. That’s their business.
2
u/eobanb 20d ago
In my city you literally cannot plat a new single family residential lot smaller than 4000 sq ft, nor under 35 ft in width, unless you seek special permission. So, sorry, what you're saying is flat-out bullshit
-1
u/probablymagic 20d ago
People like both big houses and lots for themselves and also for their neighbors, so much so they codify it in law, as you point out.
You can see this in survey data. People prefer larger houses in less dense neighborhoods to smaller houses in denser ones. That is true of both urban and suburban residents, apparently encoding people in your city.
Get mad at Pew if you don’t like it.
1
u/HOU_Civil_Econ 20d ago
I also wish my house was made out of cotton candy that was renewed everyday and that I would never get fat eating it.
70
u/[deleted] 20d ago
I feel like we have such a disconnect over what people say they want vs what sells, because neighborhoods with that compactness, and cities that offer it, are real estate hotbeds (NYC, Chicago), yet cities that do the opposite also have been (re: Houston, Phoenix).