Posts: 16
Threads: 24
Joined: Jul 2007
I am going to send an idea up a flag pole and see who kicks it around.
I am now seeking to find ways to slow the growth on Big Island and get those who do come more vested in the community. The idea is this, "You come and build but if you sell within 7 years, the county takes half your capital gains." Or something to that effect, the number of years and the percentage taken is up for discussion but essentially the intent is to gid rid of folks building homes with the intention of turning around and selling them for a profit. racheting up the values at whose expense? Some would argue, but this increases the value of people homes, their land. But that is only going to matter if somebody wants to sell and get out, otherwise it just makes it more expensive to live here as taxes and services continue to rise. So, your feedback is welcome and better still your ideas.
marlin
marlin
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
Good idea marlin, there are Hawaiian movements to accomplish the same thing, and they should have a right to. But with more organic results.
Gordon J Tilley
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
I would fight it to the highest level. If government wants to control growth, do it through the legal process of planning and zoning, not through a knee-jerk attempt via taxes. If it does pass, (never will unconstitutional) you've opened Pandora’s Box like you wouldn’t believe.
Want to reduce pollution? Anything over a 4 cyl is taxed at 20 times the current rate.
Want to improve public education, tax every family with a child between 5 - 18 years old a rate of $1,000 extra a year per age.
Want to control solid waste, add a tax of $20 to each plastic package.
It amazes me how so many people want government out of their lives yet are willing give government exceptional authority so long as it applies to the other person.
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
Hawaii is more 'resident friendly' than many states, as it offers a number of graduated homeowner exemptions, and a minimum property tax of $100 per year. It is however somewhat biased against 'offshore owners' with regard to taxation. Possibly something like California's Prop 13 would be helpful, in that the base cost of property is frozen at time of purchase, and re-evaluated upon sale. Possibly there could be a requirement that in order to get the exemption one would be required to designate a specific owned property as a residential home site. This would eliminate the situation which affects a large number of prospective residents who bought lots upon which they plan to build retirement homes at a later date, only to be affected by the 'land boom' which has increased the tax base up to 500% over their purchase price. This results in high tax on vacant land, and obligates the offshore owner to contribute highly to services from which they derive no benefit.
Fortunately, I am at the point of being able to switch from 'offshore land owning swine' to the sanctimonious 'resident who no longer wants any further changes' (That's a bit harsh, but it is a sentiment I've seen and heard over the years)
That said, I love Hawaii, the Big Island and Puna. I can't wait to make the move.
Posts: 8,467
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
In the 1960's and '70's Florida was heavily impacted by out-of-state speculation in real estate. The Florida legislature responded with a law requiring (as I recall) residential properties to be owner occupied for a minimum of six months prior to resell.
I don't know if this tactic was defeated in court or not. I am aware of it because an aunt and uncle retired to Florida at that time. My uncle died of a heart attack a week later and my poor aunt was forced to stay in their retirement home for a half year before she
could put it on the market and return to Connecticut to her family and friends. I was down there helping her with the situation.
I thought it a practical strategy to deal with outside speculation.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Don't know about Florida, but its common practice for states to have owner-occupancy requirements when reduced taxes are involved. Typically, people apply for some form of exemption or reduction of property taxes and that exemption or reduction may have owner-occupancy requirements. You want the lower taxes, you agree to the terms of the legislation. Unfortunately, many people only see the money reduction and seldom examine the requirements that come with that reduction. Most times, people are able to abide by the restrictions but there are times when things don't go as plan and that's when they find out the privilege of reduce taxes comes with a price.
But forcing property holding without recourse for sale at inflated tax rates would probably be declared unconstitutional. That's basically the same as a government taking of rights. You are denied the ownership rights of purchase and sale of real property based on government desire to do what - reduce speculation? It's a fundamental abuse of government power. Government has the ability to control growth through planning. If government can't use that most basic tool to the people’s advantage, maybe new government is needed. To place an uneven tax burden on the very basics of land ownership and the sale of that property as one sees fit, Oh what a slippery slope we’re building!
Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
Government has the ability to control growth through planning how exactly??
Anything they do, given the last decade or two of legal precedents nationwide - upzoning, downzoning, rezoning, etc. - can be taken to court as a "taking" if it has any impact on the "right" of the property owner to maximize whatever profit they imagine they can get from that property.
"Rights" to privatization of and speculation with the 'aina is deeply embedded in our culture and until that changes, we'll continue to get what we get.
John S.
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
Good point china, plus their drug control and official corruption laws work,(instant death).
The tax freeze for offshores would work if future sale doesn't exceed the original land rate at freeze. House resale taxed 50% before lived in for 10 years or rented at 50% of going rent , plus repayment of tax reduction span. Would slow speculation.
Gordon J Tilley
]