BAHFA is simply the latest in a long line of predatory legislation whose impact is to increase displacement pressures on low-income multi-generational Black homeowners. I have 2 fundamental issues with BAHFA which is why I am not supporting it. I have previously supported every parcel and property tax that came down the pike, but at some point, I must stop being complicit in the exploitation of my community, and stand up for justice and equity.
BAHFA had the choice between choosing a parcel tax or an ad valorem property tax. They choose the predatory ad valorem property tax. The difference? Parcel taxes can allow for low-income and senior citizen exemptions, while the ad valorem property tax does not. Property taxes are, therefore, predatory.
My mom is a retired school teacher with income of just over $40K/yr. She cannot currently afford her property taxes, and BAHFA - and the raft of other property/parcel taxes slated for the Novermber ballot - are increasing the pressure on her to sell her home because she cannot pay them without borrowing. Social security pays just over $36K/year. While the low-income exemption is set at the too-low amount of $35!K, she would qualify for some relief under the senior exemption. We must increase the low-income exemption and index it to CPI so that it increases in time.
My Mom lived in Oakland for 75+ years before being forced out. Is that what BAHFA is meant to do - displace our longest term, lowest income homeowners? I hope not, but that is the impact.
Given the fervor I've heard from some YIMBY's for getting rid of Prop 13, I wouldn't be surprised to hear some YIMBY's in favor of this result. Additionally, it raises real estate transfer tax and higher property taxes by reassessing her former home to market value upon sale. I know some YIMBY's, and others, support this result of forcing turnover of homes that have a low assessed value. It has been a common theme in Oakland, and elsewhere, to reduce property ownership by Black property owners in order to recapitalize our properties at higher values.
Secondly, renters must contribute to affordable housing. I have now asked a number of renters if they would contribute directly to the affordable housing trust fund. None have said they would. While there is almost universal support amongst renters for BAHFA, no one wants to make a direct contribution. Renters are a majority of Oakland's population, and must begin to directly contribute financially to mitigate the impacts of the gentrification and displacement caused by newer arrivals.
What sense does it make to tax low-income homeowners making < $50K/yr, while exempting council members with household income of $250K/yr. This is predatory, unjust, and inequitable
I implore you to reject BHAFA until 2 changes are made:
- reject BAHFA until they come back with a parcel tax rather than an ad valorem property tax
- implement a mechanism so that renters are contributing their fare share directly
BAHFA is simply the latest in a long line of predatory legislation whose impact is to increase displacement pressures on low-income multi-generational Black homeowners. I have 2 fundamental issues with BAHFA which is why I am not supporting it. I have previously supported every parcel and property tax that came down the pike, but at some point, I must stop being complicit in the exploitation of my community, and stand up for justice and equity.
BAHFA had the choice between choosing a parcel tax or an ad valorem property tax. They choose the predatory ad valorem property tax. The difference? Parcel taxes can allow for low-income and senior citizen exemptions, while the ad valorem property tax does not. Property taxes are, therefore, predatory.
My mom is a retired school teacher with income of just over $40K/yr. She cannot currently afford her property taxes, and BAHFA - and the raft of other property/parcel taxes slated for the Novermber ballot - are increasing the pressure on her to sell her home because she cannot pay them without borrowing. Social security pays just over $36K/year. While the low-income exemption is set at the too-low amount of $35!K, she would qualify for some relief under the senior exemption. We must increase the low-income exemption and index it to CPI so that it increases in time.
My Mom lived in Oakland for 75+ years before being forced out. Is that what BAHFA is meant to do - displace our longest term, lowest income homeowners? I hope not, but that is the impact.
Given the fervor I've heard from some YIMBY's for getting rid of Prop 13, I wouldn't be surprised to hear some YIMBY's in favor of this result. Additionally, it raises real estate transfer tax and higher property taxes by reassessing her former home to market value upon sale. I know some YIMBY's, and others, support this result of forcing turnover of homes that have a low assessed value. It has been a common theme in Oakland, and elsewhere, to reduce property ownership by Black property owners in order to recapitalize our properties at higher values.
Secondly, renters must contribute to affordable housing. I have now asked a number of renters if they would contribute directly to the affordable housing trust fund. None have said they would. While there is almost universal support amongst renters for BAHFA, no one wants to make a direct contribution. Renters are a majority of Oakland's population, and must begin to directly contribute financially to mitigate the impacts of the gentrification and displacement caused by newer arrivals.
What sense does it make to tax low-income homeowners making < $50K/yr, while exempting council members with household income of $250K/yr. This is predatory, unjust, and inequitable
I implore you to reject BHAFA until 2 changes are made:
- reject BAHFA until they come back with a parcel tax rather than an ad valorem property tax
- implement a mechanism so that renters are contributing their fare share directly
My Mom thanks you.
#TaxTheRichNotThePoor
#RentersFairShareTax