Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The message seems to be clear landlords not welcome in Oakland .
No doubt if this passes other “progressive “ cities like L.A will likely try the same thing to “capture” revenue from landlords .
Landlords in Oakland aren’t making big bucks based on current property prices .
Also 1% today and then they’ll say they need 2, 3% ..
It is the politicians that allowed the homeless situation to get out of control with their liberal policy of homelessness as a lifestyle choice .
—-
OAKLAND — As the Bay Area struggles with an alarming homelessness crisis, voters may soon decide whether to force Oakland’s biggest landlords to pay up to help house the city’s most vulnerable residents.
Oakland Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan wants to impose an extra 1 percent annual tax on rental revenue that exceeds $200,000, and use that money to fund homeless shelters, help homeless residents secure permanent housing and clean up the sprawling encampments that line many of the city’s sidewalks.
The city needs more money to tackle the problem, and collecting it from Oakland’s biggest-earning landlords makes sense, Kaplan said. Rising rents are pushing people out of their homes, but at the same time, landlords are raking in cash, she said.
“We’re capturing revenue where it is,” Kaplan said, “and we’re capturing the revenue that has a relationship to the problem of homelessness.”
Oakland Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan wants to impose an extra 1 percent annual tax on rental revenue that exceeds $200,000, and use that money to fund homeless shelters, help homeless residents secure permanent housing and clean up the sprawling encampments that line many of the city’s sidewalks.
Well, there's three reasons right there to raise rent even higher.
Problem is they are ending up taxing many middle class Americans to subsidize the poor. Having a home where rental exceeds $200,000 a year is not upscale as apts are expensive out there.
I have friends who live out there and even with the husband's good salary - they are starting to come up short due to the increases in property tax and the taxes.
Problem is they are ending up taxing many middle class Americans to subsidize the poor. Having a home where rental exceeds $200,000 a year is not upscale as apts are expensive out there.
I have friends who live out there and even with the husband's good salary - they are starting to come up short due to the increases in property tax and the taxes.
When you say "having a home" do you mean "having a tenement with a bunch of units?" $200K/year is $17K/month in rent. That's the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on a $3M property in a high-tax area. There aren't many middle-class folks who can qualify for a mortgage on a $3M property.
They should tax the anti-development, anti-density Nimby's 10% instead, as they're behind the lack of housing in the entire Bay area.
We don't want you to build here, or there, we don't want the added traffic, we don't this building to block our views of the Bay, we don't you to build it too high, we don't want you razing that building because it has historic significance, etc. etc. etc.
I think it's a great idea. CA citizens keep electing these idiots and they deserve what they get.
Maybe when taxes are through the roof they'll get pizzed off enough to wise up that Libs don't know how to run Governments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.