Now, If the city wants a park across town homeowners of a tract of home on the other side of town pay for it and the total community benefits.
Besides taxes, some other burdens of home-ownership are the following: dealing with excessively petty code-enforcement officials (more on this later), dealing with HOA mafia-like leadership, fighting eminent-domain issues, dealing with property line disputes, etc.
Several years ago in Bedford (a suburb of Cleveland), a man was jailed for 30 days for letting his grass grow an inch to high. The irony was that he had actually complied with the order to cut his grass, and the inspector who had cited him actually had a rental property where the grass was far more overgrown. The city was embarrassed when he got a local news crew to go out and film both properties; however, that inspector never ended up serving any time. This is yet another example of an inequity resulting from the burden of home-ownership.
HOAs can fine an owner for not cutting one's lawn or fixing one's windows, but an owner can't also fine the HOA for any deferred maintenance. HOAs can foreclose on a property if an owner doesn't pay the dues, but an owner has no reciprocity if the HOA doesn't live up to it's end of the agreement. Even worse, HOAs can require owners who already paid their dues to pay "special assessments" to cover the unpaid dues for other owners. These are all other examples of inequalities resulting from the burden of home-ownership.
One of my relatives got cited for having overgrown trees a few years ago, and was order to trim them. The irony was, although the overgrowth of that tree hanged on my relative's side of the property line, the tree itself was on the neighbor's property. Plus, the law on the books required the neighbor to trim that tree on his property. Yet, my relative was STILL forced to trim the tree anyway. (I think the neighbor might have obtained a constructive easement for this.) This is yet another example of the inequality resulting from the burden of home-ownership.
I believe that's a big problem. I'm so grateful for Prop 13, and it's one of the reasons I don't move. I could use my equity and probably get my ocean view, but the property taxes so offend me, that I'm just not going to....I love my house and for the difference, I can travel to the ocean :).
I complety understand that it's a big problem is some areas....of course the flip side for California, is that we are broke. Yet....I think it's also why our income taxes are so high...and that is more of a fair spread.
I have to be so careful when I speak on issues like this.....I am only familar with my own area and I realize that this is a different issue across the country.
Some people actually had to sell their house because they could not afford the taxes. I could not afford the taxes in NJ on a condo that I could buy for cash. I remember a few years ago there was an article in the local paper where the city of brewer manager said he was proud to announce that the mil rate would be dropping that year. Irate citizens wrote editorials that basically said who cares, you increased the property valuation and my tax bill is still taking more money than last year.
Taxes are a definite problem in many parts of the country. They can take so much money that people can not afford to live in their own paid for house. In fact property taxes will be a deciding factor in my buying decision along with sales taxes.
I saw the almost perfect house a few months ago. It was in annieville (township) arkansas. 40 acres and a ranch with about 40 acres for about $160k. After homestead exemption property taxes were $69 a year. It was 40 miles from nowhere next to nothing but those taxes made it sound fantastic!!! I could afford that no matter what happened.
A home owner pays for everything that happens to a house. That is fair. A car owner is responsible for everything that happens to a car, that is also fair and expected.