2 property tax bills: 1 for condo, 1 for parking space

By C.W. Nevius : sfchronicle – excerpt

When a tax measure to help pay San Francisco Unified School District teachers was proposed in 2008, Richard La Rose was an enthusiastic supporter. As a teacher at a private institution, La Rose wouldn’t directly benefit, but he didn’t mind paying the annual fee, which he says is $259.20.

He just didn’t expect to pay it twice.

La Rose, like some other residents, is taxed once for his one-bedroom condo and a second time for his parking space. Since the parking spot was sold separately it has its own deed, which is now a common practice among developers. That means he is considered to have two parcels.

“I went to the tax office, and I said I didn’t see why I should have to pay twice,” La Rose said. “They said, ‘Yeah, we get that complaint all the time, but there’s nothing we can do.’”… (more)

RELATED:
An Unintended Consequence of Unbundling Parking from Housing
Transportation and affordable housing advocates advocate unbundling parking from housing to provide an incentive to own fewer vehicles while reducing housing costs and increasing supply. But should parcel taxes be applied to parking spaces?... (more)

Compare SF (Most Expensive Parking Tickets in the Western Hemisphere) with Downtown San Mateo (50 Cent/Hr Parking Meters)

sfcitizen – excerpt

Compare A with B, as seen in the City of San Mateo:

But the SFMTA wants more more more, so it’s hatched a plan called Prop A, to raise your rent (literally) and/or take your property taxes to pay for, among other things, cost overruns on the entirely unnecessary pork-barrel project called the Central Subway.

Hey, speaking of which:

“During a pair of recent presentations at city political clubs, MTA commissioner Cheryl Brinkman, arguing on behalf of Prop. A, stated that a City Attorney’s opinion concluded that, when it comes to bond language, the terms “shall” and “may” are identical.
Huh.
Brinkman now says she’s not entirely sure what she said. Multiple witnesses are more certain: ‘She did say that!’ recalls Potrero Hill Democrats president Joni Eisen.”… (more)

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

Letter to barbarycoastnews – excerpt

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The Ordinance’s legal language makes no definitive commitment to any specific work:  “Projects to be funded under the proposed Bond may include but are not limited to the following: 

Then, for eight project types, all eight begin with:  “A portion of the Bond may be allocated to…” 

In financial decisions, never sign a contract when the terms and deliverables are ambiguous.

Throwing billions of dollars at bad Muni projects hasn’t worked... (more)

Are San Francisco voters likely to raise their property taxes and rents to pay for more Muni projects?