> After all, what’s $500 when
> you’re taking out a whopping
> great mortgage anyway?

It's $500, that's what it is. It goes into your kid's college fund, or for a couple of car payments, or for health insurance. It's not your money, so get your grubby hands off it. Pay for your own damn housing. We do not live in a communist country, if you hadn't noticed.

i dont know many people who would feel comforatable with this. why street roots? or i would be for choosing a charity the 1% goes to. i can think of a lot of other things the money could go toward before street roots

> So it’s not going to affect many of us
> who rent.

This will certainly affect many people who rent. Their rents will go up to pay for the increased monthly payments of the property's owners to pay for the increased cost of their mortages to cover the extra 1% that Streetroots wants. Depending on how the ordinance is passed, it may well affect apartment dwellers as well, who pay rent to property owners who also pay a mortgage. Renters will pay extra.

It looks like Street Roots is just championing the idea, not actually taking the money. The one percent goes to affordable housing.

I like that the Communism boogeyman is still trotted out as a reason not to help poor people. This is a new millennium; you're supposed to find a way to suggest that this tax will help terrorists (less money in your hands == the terrorists have already won?). And anyway, most people these days refer to it as Socialism when they're on their anti-tax soapbox. You gotta update your schtick.

The rate would not effect renters, and it would only be a one-time fee.

i think the $100,000 exemption is too low. at minimum, i think it should be pegged to an "affordable house price", and everything above- a "luxury house" if you will- should be taxed. affordable house being anything a median income family can afford.

one of the best way to raise people out of poverty is home ownership. a low income family renting in portland can get lots of assistance and get themselves into a home, but its usually cutting it close. that $500 plus for portland homes might cut some people out. thus hurting people it is trying to help.

but another way to look at this is, why not just raise property taxes slightly? property taxes in oregon i think are sinfully low. i say this as a property tax payer.

Isreal Bayer wrote:
> The rate would not effect renters, and
> it would only be a one-time fee.

Economics 101: Anything that raises a buyer's costs get passed on to his customers.

Yeah, this really is more like socialism. And Kevin, if you hadn't noticed, we do live in a country where taxes not only are legal — they even occasionally get levied! (It's true! Check your paystub!)

Anyhow, people, try actually reading the article! It's not that long! The money wouldn't go to Street Roots. They're not even proposing a real estate transfer fee (RETF) at this time, since they're prohibited. They're proposing a repeal on the ban on RETFs. At which point we would then have a debate about how much and to whom.

That said, we sure do put a lot of tax burden on home owners/buyers here. I've tended to vote for most of those taxes, but homeowners are not a limitless supply of free money.

No One in Particular:
This is classical communism: take from those who have and give to those who do not.

Those who do not have can work as hard and as smart as the rest of us in order to afford a higher standard of living, if that is what they desire. It is not my responsibility to pay for their housing.

This was just sent to Street Roots. And my only response to people who own homes who wouldn't consider the idea of pitching in to support affordable housing are fine pay more taxes to support shelters systems, warehousing people in jails, and visits to the emergency rooms due to the elements of sleeping outside. You pay far more now than you would ever pay to house people!

[Rest of the original message removed at the request of the commenter--ed. ]

kevin,

time to take more econ classes then just the intro. "Anything that raises a buyer's costs get passed on to his customers." its just aint tru.

its SOMETIMES tru. but in a rental market there are lots of forces that would outweigh a $500 one time transfer fee.

Matt, if the $500 isn't a big deal, I'm sure you'd gladly cover it for those of us to whom it matters... right?

Oh. I guess it is a significant amount of money then, isn't it...

david,

sorry, but i dont get your argument.

your money, via taxes, is already going to affordable housing. this is no different.

this really has nothing to do with a forced charitable donation. unless you think all taxes are "forced charitable donations".

"Matt, if the $500 isn't a big deal, I'm sure you'd gladly cover it for those of us to whom it matters... right?
Oh. I guess it is a significant amount of money then, isn't it..."

man, that is like a 2nd grader's argument. it makes no sense at all. complete non sequitur.

Kevin, welcome to America! Sorry no one told you, but we actually have quite a lot of socialist tendencies (free public education, taxation, labor laws, Medicare, etc.)

"It is not my responsibility to pay for their housing." The IRS would like to disagree with you, at least in part, about that.

Just sent to Senator Brown and Representative Merkeley.

Senator Brown:
Representative Merkeley:

You should know that a recent letter you received from a certain David Appell is a fraud and forgery. I know David Appell, he's a regular at the Sandy Hut, or Slut as we affectionately call it. He's a stone cold communist himself as well as a bit of drunk, mostly friendly though. The David Appell I know would never write the kind of conservative drivel you just received. It has to be some so called Realator TM in disguise, probably drunk too.

Sorry, we edited Rocketpoetry's comment at the request of the commenter, and unpublished two comments that directly referenced it. We're not in the habit of censoring comments, but this was a special case.

Reality check: Most people in need of housing the can afford ARE WORKING. Check this summary of wages versus housing cost (http://www.oregonhousingalliance.org/_downloads/ Multnomah%20Co%20profile.pdf) before casting falsehoods on those who "should work harder and smarter to afford the housing they desire." The housing costs in Oregon have moved out of reach of many gainfully employee Oregonians.
Deeper still: The biggest source of housing subsidy in the U.S. is mortgage interest deduction. . . not something earned, but a tax break given by the gov't to wealthy. Mortgage interest deductions are currently 4 times the amount of money allocated to the U.S Dept of Housing and Urban Development (http://www.wraphome.org/ wh_press_kit/ press_release_wrap.html). Of these mortgage interest deduction subsidies, almost all go to the richest of Americans. A recent bi-partisan presidential advisory panel on taxation found that over 70% of tax filers received no benefit from mortgage interest deduction, and more than 55% of federal expenditures in this program go 12% of taxpayers with incomes above $100,000.
Conclusion: USA-style state sponsored wealth distribution funnels money to wealthy.
The transfer fee is a great way to recapture this government give away program to the wealthy. It makes me sick to thinking of working people living in cars when some fat cat is collecting major dollars in mortageg interest deductions on 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes.
Learn more about a real estate transfer fee: http://www.retf4oregon.com/

a 1% fee on 100,000 is $1000
5% on 100,000 - $5000
math - priceless, as they say

The discussion should be what problem are we solving and for how long? Certainly the single room occupancy hotels that are affordable and owned by Central City Concern are a good thing. There are many other public housing issues that might be addressed.

An approach for the down payment issue is shared equity - say the public puts in the down payment in exchange for 5% of equity. When the house is sold, presumably at a profit, the public gets back 5% of the profit.

"typically less than 1 percent — on the sale price of a home that is dedicated to fund affordable housing. For example, a 5 percent transfer fee,"

It's a .5 percent transfer fee...

Our bad.

The lack of perspective needed to compare a fee on new home purchases to help people in need with communism is stunning. I promise you that if you lived in an actual out-and-out communist country, the least of your gripes with the system would be a .5 percent surcharge on a home purchase.

Wow, I had no idea home ownership was such a fundamental part of the American dream. Perhaps I should have figured it out from the book I received at the Portland Housing Center's homebuying class last weekend, "Fulfilling THE American Dream."

I stand by this being a great idea, and wish Street Roots good luck with it. And if the tax passes, I'd be more than happy to fork over $500 out of my mortgage to fund affordable housing.

I was called a Communist yesterday because I revealed that I drive less than the average American and thus pay less in gas taxes than other people who drive more than me. Somehow, I'm "forcing" them to pay a greater share of the gas tax.

Anyways, I digress, in the spirit and interest of "affordable housing," how about linking the .5 percent transfer fee to the $$ portion of the house that is above the median cost of a house in that respective city? I think that would eliminate any potential conflict of interest arguments that I think will inevetibly come up from certain sectors. i.e. the line: "you're making houses more expensive to make houses more affordable?!?!"

I’m not a big fan of this proposal. In my case when I bought a house, I had X number of dollars set aside. That money had to cover all of various closing costs, and what was left over went into a down payment. The more fees and surcharges, the smaller the down payment would have been. In this example, the $500 fee, at 6% over 30 years would work out to a cost of over $2800. Finding new funding for affordable housing may be a good thing, but paying some bank $2300 in order to provide $500 dollars of funding sucks.

"People in need" ? That is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Gods, what a running self-parody Portland truly is. Anyone who has ever known any of these bums is hip to the endless scams they run, and now they want to dupe you naive Socialist bleeding-heart idiots yet again, aided by the might of our bloated local gocernment. If you care so much about the world's winos and derelicts, write your Mommy and have her mail them a check out of your trust fund if you must. You have no right, however, to force others to give them their money just so you can feel a little less guilty about your wealthy backgounds. It is no coincidence that most of the Comintern was recruited from upper-middle class families. Some things never change.

Screw these professional beggars. I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who make it their life's ambition to live solely off of the hard work of others without ever lifting a finger themselves. They will never get a dime from me. These parasites should all starve to death in the freezing fucking cold, and I mean that without a trace of irony.

It's funny, the more people use words like "communism" and "parasites," the more credibilty you give us. Lets see, would you rather work with someone who provides a valid solution, or someone who degrades people by saying they, "should starve to death in the freezing cold."

Obviously, you have not a clue about the history of Communism, it's methods, aims, and goals, nor a clue about these professional parasites you seek to lionize.

Spend weeks and months living on the street among these degenerates, like I did when I was younger, before you open up your spoiled piehole about things you are wholly ignorant of.

Another thing. Wherever you find absurd stretches of the vile scam that is Socialism like this, you will inevitably find agents of the international people, plying their ancient trade; that of living very well indeed off of the naivite of upper-class bleeding-heart fools.

Again, you are free to give the bums ALL of your money if you want. No one is disputing that. It's retarded, but it is your right. What makes people's blood boil is the unbelieveable chutzpah you display by attempting to force this tax, clothed in the cloying and cliched rhetoric of charity for the downtrodden, upon all of us regular working-class people, whether we can afford it or not.

Cabbie, I don't mean to be rude, but I grew up on the block too - so I'm anything but spoiled.

And we're not really into giving "bums" money, we are into giving people on the streets a professional product 10,000 community members buy every issue...

I have to agree with Lance on this. It's unfair to expect home owners to carry a 500 dollar loan @6% when money could (if it passed) be taken from agencies like PDC-just boost the budget of PDC by .5% and leave home owners out of it.

As a future (hopefully) home owner that will need to shake the couch of every last nickel to make it happen, I'd like that extra 500 plus interest thanks.

Ah, so I see Ayn Rand has been reincarnated as "Cabbie".

Funny that conservatives like him whine and cry about programs that help the average person, like public schools and single-payer health care (calling them "Socialism" or "Communism"), but say nothing about corporate welfare.

Methinks Cabbie wants to piss on the homeless so much that he is willing to take everyone else down with him.

Who are the parties turning profit off a real estate transaction? 1) The seller. 2) The broker. 3) The lender.

If a tax is instituted, shouldn't it be levied from one, or all three, of these parties? It doesn't seem entirely appropriate to tax the buyer.

Perhaps a percentage of the increase in value of the property over years of ownership would be suitable for taxation. Or the interest that the lender makes! That is where the real money lies.

I'm not certain if I am in favor of such a tax in any circumstance, but taxing the homebuyer certainly seems wrongheaded. Especially first-time homebuyers; they need all the assistance they can get!

Maybe it's a fee the seller could pay instead? Or perhaps first time home buyers could be exempted?

I'm in favor of it, but can see it might be a tough sell, so perhaps some modifications would have to be made.

We had to pay one when we bought a place in Washington. Some of the money went back to the city, which used it for neighborhood projects that improved our community. Really, it was all part of the taxes and fees involved with closing costs, so we didn't finance it—if anything, we bought a place that cost a few hundred bucks left, as we too had a limited pot of $ for all those charges.

I'm all for taxing the top 60% to support the bottom 10% (just rough estimates) but would rather see it focused on housing profits made on home sales (say 50% profits adjusting for inflation). The double-digit year-over-year housing inflation rate we've been seeing in Portland could be pulled down if that money -- and it would be a lot -- was spent on public housing projects and other housing investments to get the rental occupancy rate down from the high-90s to the high-80s where we'd begin to see drastic reductions in housing costs.

We could also just tax the hell out of the rich.

How about a compromise?

Residents living in condo projects that are a part of the ten year tax break program can host residents that can't afford housing.

Or, we could just remove the locks from all those buildings. That would end the terrible cycle of the rich feeding off the working man.