Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:02 PM Jun 2014

Voters could slam S.F. house flippers with major tax

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2014/06/17/sf-house-real-estate-flippers-tax-ballot-measure.html?page=all

Flip a house, get slapped with a tax.

That is what a group of San Francisco supervisors have proposed in an effort to punish real estate flipping, the practice of buying, renovating and then quickly selling property....

If approved, the proposal would impose a steep transfer tax on people who buy and sell multi-unit buildings within a five-year period. The rate starts at 24 percent if the sale takes place in the first year and lowers to 14 percent after five years.

The idea of imposing an anti-speculation tax was first backed by former Supervisor Harvey Milk in the 1970s. It was one of the final pieces of legislation he was working on prior to his assassination, according to The San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition, a group of tenant organizations.


4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Voters could slam S.F. house flippers with major tax (Original Post) KamaAina Jun 2014 OP
Maybe the tax code is overly favorable for this approach exboyfil Jun 2014 #1
In SF these days, "renovating" means KamaAina Jun 2014 #2
No, it's not sweat equity in this case...they are evicting tenants and most of the gain in value CreekDog Jun 2014 #3
No, actually that is not the case here. Hell Hath No Fury Jun 2014 #4

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
1. Maybe the tax code is overly favorable for this approach
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:13 PM
Jun 2014

but I am not sure penalizing it is a good idea. These individuals are putting sweat equity into a distressed property making it suitable for future housing needs. These individuals do not want to manage properties - they want to fix them up. It seems like a reasonable division of labor to me. What is the scenario when those without the cash or skill that own these properties cannot sell them. Do they further decline in suitability for habitation?

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
2. In SF these days, "renovating" means
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:15 PM
Jun 2014

installing granite countertops, high-end appliances, etc. Very few of the properties involved are real fixer-uppers.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
3. No, it's not sweat equity in this case...they are evicting tenants and most of the gain in value
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

is getting rid of rent controlled tenants, especially disabled and seniors, who have even more protection under rent control.

refurbishing the buildings is secondary.

the practice is forcing moderate income San Franciscans out of the city.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
4. No, actually that is not the case here.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jun 2014

I live in SF and have seen this first hand. SF is simply not a town with any truly distressed housing. The vast majority of houses in SF that are flipped are NOT in any way "distressed". They are usually just dated in terms of finishes. And, too often, a perfectly good smaller single family home is simply torn down to make way for a larger house that is out of scale to the neighborhood.

Lots/Housing in SF are so tight that there isn't a house in this town of ANY condition that could not sell quickly and in As Is condition.

This is about housing as commodity instead of housing as a "home".

I completely support this tax.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Voters could slam S.F. ho...