The one that works, Culver City's Measure RE transfer tax, is providing some corrective to Prop 13, It's capturing some of the unearned value gains when long-held properties finally sell. And it does not appear to be discouraging such sales.
Any analysis, or your own thoughts, on comparison with San Francisco's transfer tax, which has been tweaked over the years -- increased by voters in 2020, then partly waived to encourage res conversion in 2024 (I think?).
And b/c Measure ULA appears to have caused sales to plummet on high-value commercial, industrial, multifamily & single-family parcels in LA, it's taken away the primary mechanism by which assessed prop tax valuations climb to market levels. Billions of potential public revenues, gone.
Measure ULA has devastated sales of properties >$5 million since it took effect in 4/23. Average quarterly sales volume has dropped by 70%. (orange line)
How do we know it's b/c of ULA? By looking at properties NOT subject to ULA (<$5mm or outside city of LA). Those sales have gone up.
Looking at multifamily properties specifically, ULA's effect is pronounced. 75% fewer multifamily transactions closed per quarter in the year following ULA's effective date than in the year prior. (Again, note the orange line.)
Comments
If Prop 13 gives owners an incentive not to sell, Measure ULA has almost made it a requirement.
It's also created an unfortunate penalty for investing in development or other improvements.
Any analysis, or your own thoughts, on comparison with San Francisco's transfer tax, which has been tweaked over the years -- increased by voters in 2020, then partly waived to encourage res conversion in 2024 (I think?).
How do we know it's b/c of ULA? By looking at properties NOT subject to ULA (<$5mm or outside city of LA). Those sales have gone up.