Property Taxes During The 1970's: A Case Study

Political forces, which are controlled by the government, can majorly influence and change the way people live their life. From the Federal Housing Administration, which enabled citizens to become homeowners by underwriting mortgages, to the Interstate Highway Act, that change the route of expressways, political forces can dramatically change the way a city runs and functions. Wilson (2011) states, “In short, public housing became a federally funded institution that isolated families by race and class, resulting in high concentrations of poor black families in inner-city ghettos” (pg. 14). Wilson describes political forces as

With Massachusetts State spending on affordable housing and open space at a historic low, when considered as a percentage of the total budget, the production of dwelling units and the conservation of land have become the responsibility of local government, but cities and towns do not build housing, except in rare circumstances. As well they do not routinely buy expensive tracts of open land,

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

Those who cannot afford the high prices of housing are often forced out into the streets where they face a very uncertain future due to the number of abuses they encounter daily from all walks of life, with the most damning being the vagrancy laws that come into vogue in areas that are getting gentrified, which many cities have passed to “protect” their newfound assets and tax base from the “lowering” of property values. Furthermore, when cities such as Los Angeles demand that property developers set aside affordable housing for lower income people, they get sued in court, such as in 2009, when real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer successfully sued in order to overturned an ordnance which required that. This was also the same man who also proposed building a footbridge connecting two of his buildings to minimize contact with people he deemed undesirable (Davis).

California’s housing situation is severe compared to the rest of the United States. California is included in the top three states with the most “housing cost burdened individuals” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2015). In a list of 20 cities where rents were highest compared to income, 10 of the 20 cities were in California with Los Angeles, CA topping the list (Dewan, 2014). Opponents might say that households in poverty could never afford housing due to their impoverished state but poverty measures of California show that the abnormally high cost of housing in California makes matters more severe and causes the amount of households that are severely cost afflicted to increase. Furthermore, when poverty measures take into account California’s uniquely expensive and insufficient housing supply, the results show that housing costs contribute significantly to poverty. For example, when housing costs were included in the California Poverty Measure as well as federal Supplemental Poverty Measure, the poverty rates rose substantially (Wimer, Mattingly, & Levin, 2013) (Short, 2015). And when high housing costs were artificially substituted with low housing costs, poverty rates significantly dropped (Bohn, Danielson, & Levin, 2013). And it’s not just the poor who are affected! Even those who are moderate income earners are becoming financially burdened by high housing costs. Those who are moderately well off compared to low income earners are financially burdened by rent costs in expensive cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,

As much as Proposition 13 has received criticism, it still has its advantages. The proposition has increased stability in the community and allowed predictability for property owners. Progressive income tax has an impact on higher incomes, whereas property tax affects those in the lower income bracket. Therefore, high property taxes affect those that have highly valued property, but earn low incomes. Reducing property taxes for such people is a great advantage to them. Furthermore, the proposition has enabled Californian taxpayers to save billions of dollars over the years (Smith, 1998).

Affordable housing has become the paramount issue of cities and dense urban areas. San Francisco is the posterchild of an unaffordable city that regardless of immense investment from blue chip firms like Google, Facebook, and their ilk of startups evaluated at $1 billion or more, policymakers and elected officials must wrestle with the housing affordability crisis that is considered endogenous to swaths of homelessness and record statistics on crime. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has made affordable housing the centerpiece of his legislation and championed the cause as a social justice issue—neighborhoods must remain affordable to maintain diversity for all races, ethnicities, and low-income families. A small sample of 827 New Yorkers by the NY1-Baruch College City Poll found the main concern of respondents was affordable housing while crime, jobs, and homelessness were peripheral problems (Cuza, 2016). The public discourse on how to address housing across the United States has pointed to negative externalities that surround rent-regulation and homeownership. Conversely, for this essay I will present various cases in order to illustrate the housing crunch is influenced less by housing and land regulations, or antagonistic homeowners but is induced by global market forces.

In the constantly changing economy of cities, the growth of city housing is oftentimes neglected. In “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification” Timothy Williams recounts how gentrification has evolved over the years. Mentioning how cities have changed in order to appease the younger professionals, Williams shows how the city itself is in jeopardy due to the tax increases. Slowly loosing their faithful residents as well as historic culture cities face a big deal. Williams gives quotes from faithful residents, “…long time homeowners are victims of the success story”, (Williams 346). In “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification”, Williams uses his credible quotes and modern statistics to generate the reader’s emotions, with desire to change how city officials go about gentrification in culturally infused cities.

Housing allocation determinations and planning review powers were also passed down from the state to Councils of Government (COG), which served as regional planning commissions that were thought to be closer to municipal governments and less likely to be perceived as encroaching on local land use decision-making (Ramsey-Musolf para. 7). The need for regional, as opposed to decentralized housing policies, is significant: shortages of housing in one area simply push housing burdens to adjacent cities, exacerbating statewide levels of inequality. Unfortunately, a study cited in the Journal of Planning Literature found that this well-intentioned legislation has only created a production imbalance between LIH and MRH: though collective housing element compliance may have increased between 1990 and 1997, a sample of 53 California municipalities only produced 32% of its

The Leno Amendment can help solve some of the issues that surround the act, by imposing new restrictions and regulations that will hopefully reduce the number of “casualties”. In imposing fines for violations of the act and limiting the number of times the act can be enforced, California is headed in the right direction. However, it has some missteps, such as the lack of time extension for evicted tenants to find new homes. Despite this, the Leno Amendment is the right choice for California. As the Leno Amendment attempts to aid the financial situation of the tenants by giving them more time to relocate, as well as being paid relocation fees, the state of California is attempting to even out the wealth gap. The landlords gained the most money and made up smaller, but wealthier end of the spectrum, whereas the tenants gained the least, and made up the poor majority while the Ellis Act is in place. However, with the aid of the Leno Amendment, California is not only addressing the issue of greed and high tenant evictions, it is also taking a progressive step forward in the fight against the wealth

Adding to the inequalities and misfortunes within communities of color, gentrification has taken the Bay Area by a storm. Gentrification is the purchasing of deteriorated urban homes and areas, then the renovation by higher-end and middle class communities. An abundance of high-end people rush into the Bay Area and purchase up the real estate. Incoming middle and higher class take the Bay Area real estate and revitalise it into up-and-coming neighborhoods, then increase rent prices. Therefore, reducing affordable housing for communities of color. Therefore, this revitalization is changing the character of communities because the Bay Area may appear nicer, the communities of color are unable to afford the standard of living. Communities of

Yet another effect of gentrification is its effect on senior citizens. Seniors often live in the same unit for many years. As a result, rent control has kept their rents well below market rate, and landlords stand to gain the most from evicting them. For example, in the Mission District of San Francisco, many seniors live on a fixed income, and cannot afford market rate rents once they are evicted. "They lack mobility, and have difficulty

Chinatown, Olvera Street, and Compton all contributed to culturally diversity and the expansion of Los Angeles. Although Los Angeles has become rich in cultures, its evolution did not go without racial tensions and segregation. With the arrival of blacks from the south, white-Los Angeles did always recognize the minority community. Angelenos did not always embrace diversity with pride, but perhaps the sad part is not the fact that racial segregation took place, but the fact that it was not created by just the individual, but also by the organization. Federal programs like the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Homeowner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) divided up Los Angeles into a complex socio-economic racial-class system. The influences of the local level influenced the federal level and revolutionized the finance industry. (Avila, lecture 2/5/02) These federal organizations blatantly labeled minorities as derogatory, uneducated, second-class citizens that brought down property value in “white” neighborhoods. Latinos and Black were often labeled as a “minority problem” and even as a “disease” on official HOLC documents. The HOLC implemented strict government guidelines and kept maps of white neighborhoods confidential. It also devised a formal and uniform style of appraising homes by breaking neighborhoods into race classifications by letter. As Waldie states, “The Montana Land Company made it clear that lots were

It is disenchanting that California is no longer recognized as the golden state, instead, California converted into a state of dependency, built over twenty-three prisons to keep inmates locked away, and has high taxation levels for its citizens. Consequently, citizens converted into mindless consumers, falling into the state fabricated paradise, and giving up their own independence. More than the aforementioned above, where could such a complications originate from? Poverty? Incarceration? Illegitimacy? Monetary Contraction? Indeed, none of these problems were behind the demise of California, for the perpetrator that obliterated California’s golden glory was social welfare programs!

The 1950’s were a decade of great change in various ways. For example the American minorities, the women, and other outspoken ethnic and other groups of society, decided to stand up and fight for their rights. The Great War had ended, and men were coming back home. As this happened the demand for economic homes increased, and families began having children due to the economical stability and prosperity in which the United States of America was amidst. The nationwide home demand gave birth to one of the most comfortable and affordable ways of living: The suburban home. These neighborhoods were planned for young middle-upper class families who wanted to have, or already had children. These families were living the