That is not a fair comparison. The law was supposed to compensate people who's property values went down for whatever reason AFTER they bought it.<br /><br />If you bought your property zoned commercial and planned on putting in a shopping mall, and then the state changed the zoning to residential, you would be compensated for the loss in value. That is completely fair and reasonable.<br /><br />That would be like buying a truck with a 10,000lb tow rating for a 10,000lb boat, then Ford has a service bulletin that says the truck is only safe to tow 4,000. If that happened alot of people would sue Ford and get compensation.<br /><br />The state also had the option to lift whatever restriction that caused the value to go down on a case by case basis. This way they wouldn't have to pay out a cent in compensation.
<br /><br />Rule #1...The state knows what is best for you.<br /><br />Rule #2...The state is always right.<br /><br />Rule #3...You have the right to agree with the state, If for some reason you do not RE-READ RULE'S #1 AND #2 <br />
Hmmm! why am I not surprised that this is your position PW? The only difference here PW, is the messes that our legislatures leave behind are expected to be dealt with by us. Usually in the form of increased costs.<br /><br />What is so chaotic about paying up if the government changes the value of your land while you own it? The only mess created here is the one where the politicians have to decide which of their favorite pet social projects they have to give up.
It allows the people to take action without having to wait 2-4-6 years to vote the bums out & fix things, A/K/A GWB......If these laws were passed in '73, how many people would this really affect? How many people have actually held onto their land since these laws passed? Now that urban pressure has made the land much more valuable, people want to cash in...Here's what I think should happen: If you are the individual who was on the deed when these laws passed,(not your kids, grand-kids, nieces,nephews,in-laws, out-laws)....Then, the remaining few should be re-examined for re-zoning on a case by case basis....As far as voting yourself money out of the state coffers, neat trick, but unfair for those who pay taxes in,say,.... downtown Portland...If they built a third runway for the airport next to your house, should you get compensation from the government because your property value went down? I think not! We pick where we want to live...If we make a poor choice then we should not expect someone else to pay for it....JK
<br /><br />Look at all the slime ball left wing whacko legislators that Californians have elected.I think this is a pretty responsible interpretation and ruling. If this initiative is what the residents want, then plan for it. Too many things were left unprepared according to the article. Like enforcement, standards, etc. The article mentions nothing about the example you gave of buying commercially zoned land and then it being rezoned residential and decreasing in value. If you buy a 10 acre parcel and it's worth $500,000, then a residential development goes in next door and your "paradise" suddenly drops to $350,000 because of the density change, does that give you claim to compensation? The area was zoned residential. Or say you bought a small store operating as a general merchant. Two miles away Walmart builds a store and sucks your customers away. This intense commercial competition surely will drop the value of your commercial property, does this give you claim to compensation? The zoning did not change, but development within the same zoning and restrictions in place when you bought lowered your land's value. <br /><br />Suck it up, accept that misfortune happens. If you don't like it, do something (intelligent and with aforethought) about it. But don't expect someone there to pay you for your suffering.
There's that terrified right-wing mud slinging again. Don't like, don't agree with it, call it names and try to drive it's self-esteem as low as yours. The intimidation and name calling is losing it's power over the masses, and that had the redumblican party nervous. And maybe I am a troll, but I'm a proud Independent Thinking troll.Originally posted by Boomyal:<br /> Kalian, it's just the price you pay when the inhabitants turn the state into a 'peoples republic'
Ignorance is bliss Bassman. You've conveniently left out the rest of the story. As has been mentioned, California property tax has been limited to 1% of the purchace price. Once you purchase the property your annual taxes cannot be raised more than two percent a year. <br /><br />Sounds pretty reasonable to me. When you buy, you know what your tax will be to start and you know what to count on as the years go by. No more taking 9-11% annual increases out of your pocket. If you have a problem with that then you have your head screwed on backwards.<br /><br />Furthermore the property turnover rate is very high in California, so the state gets to catch up on current evaluation every 6-7 years.<br /><br />I also sorely doubt that Buffet has a 4 mil piece of property that he only pays $2200 a year on. Besides that, he doesn't cost the government any more than the guy in his $135k condo anyway and he probably contributes plenty to the state in other ways.
