More Thoughts on ‘Yes on A’

By Dave Rice

Is Measure A going to affect a significant number of properties? Is it going to affect affordable housing in any meaningful way? Come now, let’s not be dense – this hits a handful of rich people who can absolutely afford to drop $10K in the city coffers if they’re leaving a vacation home vacant on purpose – let’s say that’s their civic contribution that would be realized in other ways if they actually lived, worked, and shopped here full-time.

Or it hits STVR hosts, who can either factor the cost into their business model or give it up if margins are really that thin (maybe not everyone needs to fancy themselves an amateur hotelier). But let’s not kid ourselves and believe the kind of housing this will free up will be plentiful or affordable.

In the exceedingly rare instances where someone might be eligible for an exemption, will it be too hard to apply for? That’s something we can argue and refine but that’s the bathwater, or just the little bit of it that splashes out of the tub, not the baby. An argument that the whole proposal is DOA because military members are too stupid to file for an exemption is either dismissive of or telling tales out of school about what we really think of military intelligence.

Poor, poor grandma who needs a home near her doctor? If she’s really poor why does she have multiple houses, and if she’s not does this really affect her? I live in a neighborhood where “aren’t you afraid you’re going to get shot?” is the first thing outsiders ask me about where I’m from, and if Grandma has owned her mostly-unoccupied vacation house for any significant time I probably pay a lot more property tax than she does. You couldn’t trip over the limbo bar to gain my sympathy, it’s buried a few feet deep.

This is a tiny nod toward taxing the rich, but that’s all. It’s not significant or meaningful, it won’t do a lot, most of the housing stock in question even if returned to actual residents won’t make a dent in the astronomical cost of living in or anywhere near this city. But it’s a tiny step in the right direction – and watching how hysterical the moneyed class is about the rest of us asking for even the tiniest drop in the goddamned bucket we’re trying to fill without their help is telling.

Source
Author: Source

1 thought on “More Thoughts on ‘Yes on A’

  1. Just a correction, Dave, the Airbnb lobby raised $2.5mil to torpedo Measure ‘A’ and Elo-Rivera exempted them. So, the ‘for profit’ sector is exempted from this proposal.
    Meanwhile, homeowners who pay their taxes and their homeowners fees and also spend money when they are in town are being penalized under the guise that it will help what? When Elo buys his second property with his executive salary that we are paying, he’ll change the rules to satisfy his ‘Ego-Rivera’.

    I doubt seriously this will do anything to satisfy your desire to ‘soak the rich’. I’d much rather have the wealthy be benefactors for our city and not subsidizing the city’s bloated staffing and salaries. Measure ‘A’ will coddle the city to live way beyond its means at taxpayer expense. Not sure how that’s o.k.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *