Rent Control for Homeowners? Acquisition-Value Assessments and Housing Costs

被引:1
作者
Strickland, James M. [1 ,3 ]
Overstreet, Dallin [2 ]
机构
[1] Arizona State Univ, Sch Polit & Global Studies, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ, Watts Coll Publ Serv & Community Solut, Phoenix, AZ USA
[3] Arizona State Univ, 925 S Myrtle Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
关键词
housing; property taxes; proposition; 13; save our homes; acquisition value; PROPOSITION; 13; PROPERTY TAXES; STATE POLICY; SALES TAXES; REVOLT; CAPITALIZATION; FISCALIZATION; CALIFORNIA; PRICES;
D O I
10.1177/10911421231214886
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
We assess the effects of two citizen-initiated proposals on housing costs in California and Florida. In 1978, voters in California approved of Proposition 13. In 1992, voters in Florida approved a similar measure, the "Save Our Homes" amendment. Both proposals instituted acquisition-value assessments: for tax purposes, real property is assessed based on its value at acquisition. We argue that such assessment practices should inflate home costs by spurring demand immediately (via property-tax capitalization) and reducing supply gradually. Effects on supply occur due to the locking-in of residents and land-use fiscalization. Using synthetic-control analyses, we find that Proposition 13 increased home costs in California after 1993 when local costs diverged from national trends, but no effect occurred in Florida prior to 2008. At its peak, the variable effect of Proposition 13 increased California residential value added by more than 50 percent.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 295
页数:29
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method [J].
Abadie, Alberto ;
Diamond, Alexis ;
Hainmueller, Jens .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2015, 59 (02) :495-510
[2]   Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program [J].
Abadie, Alberto ;
Diamond, Alexis ;
Hainmueller, Jens .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 105 (490) :493-505
[3]  
Allen MT, 2009, J REAL ESTATE RES, V31, P81
[4]   Property tax limitations: An interpretative review [J].
Anderson, Nathan B. .
NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL, 2006, 59 (03) :685-694
[5]   State Policy Innovativeness Revisited [J].
Boehmke, Frederick J. ;
Skinner, Paul .
STATE POLITICS & POLICY QUARTERLY, 2012, 12 (03) :303-329
[6]   PROPERTY-TAX CIRCUIT-BREAKERS RECONSIDERED - CONTINUING ISSUES SURROUNDING A POPULAR PROGRAM [J].
BOWMAN, JH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY, 1980, 39 (04) :355-372
[7]  
Burt Saunders, 2005, SARASOTA HERALD 1011
[8]   Who supports portable assessment caps: The role of lock-in, mobility and tax share [J].
Cheung, Ron ;
Cunningham, Chris .
REGIONAL SCIENCE AND URBAN ECONOMICS, 2011, 41 (03) :173-186
[9]   The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco [J].
Diamond, Rebecca ;
McQuade, Tim ;
Qian, Franklin .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2019, 109 (09) :3365-3394
[10]   A DYMIMIC MODEL OF HOUSING PRICE DETERMINATION [J].
ENGLE, RF ;
LILIEN, DM ;
WATSON, M .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 1985, 28 (03) :307-326