The NIMBYs should pay for the other side’s legal fees. Frivolous lawsuit.
You can say that, but can you really blame the people living in the area to not want it to turn into another Tenderloin? If they move the drug addicts to the new housing there, will they magically turn into better human beings? Is the thinking that because Tenderloin is such a sinkhole that good people are turned into bad ones when they go there so they need to be able to place them somewhere else?
You need to have some sympathy to the residents there too, not just the homeless. It’s easy to label the residents as NIMBYs but sometimes there might be a valid reason for the resistance.
All the NON primary home owners should pay market rate property taxes 
. Also take away depreciation benefits for them when used as a rental. I think everybody will agree with this right, especially the YIMBY slumlords??? 
Having people poorer than you living in the same neighborhood will turn it into another Tenderloin? Are people who can’t afford 1M+ houses all drug addicts?
Where should they live then? Should they just not exist so they don’t inconvenience anyone?
Tenderloin is not your typical low-income neighborhood. I think you would agree with me that you don’t want to see Sunset to look like Tenderloin. Low-income people need to have a place to live of course, but if you associate low-income housing with Tenderloin, it’s hard not to start imagining drug addicts roaming around.
I am not saying this project should not move forward. I am just saying that it’s very understandable for the residents to put up a fight because of this Tenderloin association with this project, and it’s not necessarily NIMBYism.
Why cannot people who have big homes and lot of properties to rent house some of these poor. Practice what you preach. You should have big heart at least as big as your home. It is so easy to leacture others.
So depreciation only when left vacant for speculation?
I think you would also agree that local residents put up a fight on any and all building projects larger than a SFH. We have situation in the past where a project was blocked because it places a shadow over existing buildings. Or a laundromat can’t be torn down because it’s somehow a historic building worthy of conservation.
So maybe this Sunset project in particular is problematic or maybe it’s not. My base case default assumption is going to be that it’s not. I will assume it’s just another case of NIMBYism until proven wrong. History suggests it’s the most likely cause.
Is there depreciation when left vacant(non primary) now? Asking, because I assumed depreciation only against rental income.
I do agree that locals put up a fight on all projects, but still it’s not right to stereotype. For the same reason we are not supposed to mention the race of certain offenders because it would lead to stereotyping. Can’t have it both ways.
Looks like only for business use, so vacant can be business use I guess?
Left wants identity when it works in its way but wants identity to be hidden otherwise. For example, use race for admission and jobs, but not for searching/prosecuting criminals.
OMG I totally agree. I don’t know if you are kidding, but I am not…
If I become serious on that post, there will be too many hurt people on this forum 
My only point for that post was to point out the hypocrisy coming from certain quarters.
.
In TX, instead of directly discounting property tax, it has homestead (Primary residence), Age 65+ and disabled exemption to the assessed property value. Lower property value means lower property tax.
A modified approach can be implemented in CA e.g. No prop 13 for rentals. There will be a sharp rise in rent if implemented.
This one is complicated. Rental is considered to be a business, is why can have depreciation.
our landlord charged market rate, but paid prop 13 (she bought in 1980, was paying $400 property tax on 1M townhome)
We need prop 13 on all kind of taxes. I do not understand purpose of funding a big and bloated government.
Progressive utopian proceduralism doesn’t improve government but renders it absurd.
Many of San Francisco’s streets abound with people who have nowhere to live. Pedestrians routinely walk past used needles, human waste, and parked cars whose windows have been smashed in burglaries. Is hyper-attentiveness to whether parklets are up to a stringent code a defensible priority?