February 5, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go?

Last week, we introduced the proposed tax as a key element in the fundamental ongoing  restructuring of the city’s commercial and residential balance, as well as the long-term  implications of this restructuring. We discussed the inexplicable conversion of Downtown into  residential when Downtown comprises 4.5% (0.38 sq mi) of Santa Monica’s geography and  generated 35% of the City’s taxable sales as recently as 2015.  

It is not a stretch to say that if competent DTSM and City management, in partnership with  property and business owners of our commercial Downtown, had fostered growth of between  3% and 5% since 2015, related annual incremental sales taxes of up to 60% of reasonably  anticipated revenues under this proposed tax could have been realized by 2027. And, such sales taxes are not easily circumvented as a transfer tax can be, so future tax growth is  assured. Intense refocus on Downtown and the Promenade could still deliver the majority of  these benefits in the long term, albeit with headwinds caused by the loss of Parking Structure 3. 

So, this week, we focus on the proposed transfer tax itself, the rationale, implementation  issues and why it’s a bad idea for Santa Monica.  

Is this tax entirely incremental? No. 

Despite the marketing, this tax is not entirely incremental. It will create reductions in the rate  of growth of property tax revenues for both the city and school district. How? The size of this  tax will encourage avoidance while the objective is designed to accelerate the rate of affordable housing additions. Both outcomes reduce property taxes.  

Does Santa Monica need more tax revenue? No. 

Santa Monica is one of the highest taxed cities in the country. It has a spending problem, not a  revenue problem. In a survey of 38 California cities, including all cities with populations  greater than 200,000, Santa Monica ranked third in total annual revenue per resident at  $6,400, behind only San Francisco and Beverly Hills. In a national survey of 120 cities with  populations over 200,000, Santa Monica would have ranked sixth in revenue per resident. Santa Monica needs to make much better use of the revenues it receives. 

Why a Real Estate Transfer Tax? 

The underlying assumption is that those that are selling expensive properties have huge gains  and can easily “afford” such a tax. But, for every seller there is a buyer. At the initiative’s $8  million threshold, it will add an immediate $400,000 liability on any sale, regardless of how  long the property has been held, even if only for one week.  

Are there any exclusions to this tax? 

The only exclusion is for sales that result in the properties becoming essentially deed restricted affordable housing. Churches and other non-profits would be subject to the tax.  These excluded sales will essentially remove the properties from the property tax rolls. 

Who will pay this tax? Primarily single-family homeowners. 

Residents will disproportionately shoulder the tax burden, for two reasons. First, in Santa  Monica there is a far higher turnover of qualifying single-family residential real estate in any  given year than there is commercial.  

By one estimate, there were 45 qualifying transactions in the last 12 months of which  residential sales accounted for around 79% of the total real estate sales value. Of that total,  there were 34 single family residence sales accounting for around 78% of the residential sales  value while five apartment house transactions of 5+ units represented about 21%.  

Second, ownership of commercial and multi-family properties is likely easier to structure as a  partnership or a corporation to reduce the chance that it will be subject to this tax since share  transfers could be structured over time that would not trigger the recording of an ownership  change. That said, as a potential indicator of single family residential ownership structure  flexibility, a recent Washington Post analysis noted that 24% of 2021 recorded ownership  transfers in the 90402 ZIP code were not to individuals.(a) 

How significant, and damaging, are the loopholes to avoid this tax? 

The higher a tax is, the more incentive there is to avoid it. Avoiding this tax means transfers  would not be viewed as a sale. The harm associated with this avoidance is greatly amplified  since it would also automatically avoid property tax reassessment. 

This initiative keeps in place key loopholes to escape this tax and explicitly acknowledges one  of the most common, ownership by partnership. Partnerships allow interests to be  transferred tax free if they meet IRS guidelines. Other examples include using a corporate  structure to transfer control of properties with stock sales. This is best illustrated by the  infamous 2006 Dell acquisition of the Miramar which was never recorded as a sale and no  property tax reassessment occurred.  

Other strategies include subdividing property where the parts are less than the whole, very  long-term ground or other leases such as was proposed for the abandoned Plaza deal and  delaying collection indefinitely by triggering the payment of tax based on recording deeds.  

What, exactly, is the justification being provided? 

The draft initiative’s narrative frames high property values in the city as being a consequence  of the “ongoing quality of the community and taxpayer funded services in Santa Monica,  including public educational programs.” Reality is completely unrelated to this narrative. 

Is Santa Monica real estate value appreciation unique? No. 
Appreciation of real estate values in this city is part of the increasing regional unaffordability. It is the result of regional economic and investment forces impacting all Southern California  cities and coastal areas more specifically.  

Do real estate values reflect a community of increased services and safety? No. 
Home values in Santa Monica have benefitted from these regional trends despite continuing  cutbacks in resident-funded services, continuously elevated crime levels and the daily impacts  of failed homeless policies. 

Are public schools a key driver? No. 
School district enrollment, of which approximately 20% is out-of-district  permitted students, has been steadily declining. The district projects further declines of 18%  to 24% from 2020 to 2030.  

So, what about the idea of “Homelessness Prevention”?

This is a talking point on “prevention.” It does not address the chronically failed homeless  policies. It is defined as “ongoing or emergency income assistance to Santa Monica households that are  both rent burdened and either Extremely Low-Income Households, Very Low-Income  Households or Low-Income Households.”  

There are no criteria for “ongoing” or “emergency” and no delineation of funding for either.  All of that is left to a new politically appointed commission. So, the more “ongoing” there are,  the fewer “emergency” resources there would be.  

Applicability is opaque since the definitions of the income categories are flexible depending on  the geographic reference point (SM, LA County, LA City, etc.). Today, the city of Santa Monica  lists an individual income of up to $94,700 as eligible for a below-market-rate unit.  

The actual risk to Santa Monica residents of becoming homeless has never been either directly  researched or documented by the City. Instead, the City has relied upon high-level, federally  sourced extrapolations of sample data with potentially high margins of error.  

The annual homeless count data also has no reference relevance. The count is neither  statistically valid nor does it allow the collection of demographic information. Thus, the city  has no documented idea if any of those homeless are formerly housed Santa Monica  residents. Anecdotal information from service providers indicates that there are likely no  formerly housed Santa Monica residents among the City’s homeless population.  

If such a significant tax is to be levied on residents for a stated purpose, we should expect to  see an actual, robust, and methodologically valid analysis of actual city needs PRIOR TO  proposing such a tax as well as plans for mandatory systemic ongoing analysis to assess  effectiveness. None of that is present in this proposal.  

While a transparent and objective process for the awarding and administering of any such  funds is critical and mandatory, it has been disregarded in favor of a future political process.  

Finally, the structure of the tax is unsuited to an ongoing benefits program. With funding  based on market-driven qualifying annual transactions combined with the measure’s incentive  to reduce those qualifying sales transactions, funding variability could result in reductions of  committed assistance in years of reduced tax receipts. 

What About Affordable Housing? 

It would be very hard to find another city with such historically focused priorities on housing.  Under the historically balanced commercial / residential city revenue mix, the city has been able  to dedicate $1.4 billion on housing and community development (HCD) since 2004. The city  spend on HCD has averaged about $60 million per year over the past 6 years, excluding 2021.  In 2021, the amount was $40 million.  

This record has provided our mayor, on multiple occasions, with the confidence to verbally  challenge California’s HCD proposed enforcement with the point that no city has done more  than Santa Monica for affordable housing.  

That said, there has been no local, systematic and valid needs analysis by the City, or the state, to determine how much affordable housing is actually appropriate for Santa Monica as the  issue is regional in origin. A March 2022 state audit report(b) of the state’s high-level model driven Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) program that assigned the 6,158  affordable housing unit mandate to Santa Monica has been found to have used unverified  data, was judged deficient in adequately considering key factors required for housing needs  assessments, and was insufficiently reviewed. 

What about the “additional” funding for schools? 

The tax will not be entirely incremental to the schools despite the language in the measure since it could result in significant reductions to property tax growth from two factors. First, a key objective of this tax initiative is accelerated additions to the affordable housing stock which eliminates those properties from the tax rolls. Second, the size of the tax will  incentivize legal avoidance, reducing reassessments.  

Property taxes represent about 81% of net District unrestricted general fund revenue. The  proposed annual $10 million allocation from this tax represents a ~10% supplement to the  existing property tax receipts which will likely function as a buffer for anticipated future  declines in growth.  

Even at current levels of funding, the school district does not lack revenue. One of the  premiere global ratings agencies in the world, Standard and Poors, noted in a 2019 bond credit  review that the SMMUSD had “…supplemental revenue, which is unusual in the state…. These  sources generated a combined 25.6% of general fund revenue in fiscal 2018.” 

So, despite being one of the best-funded districts in the state, the district cannot manage its spending.  

Are there spending controls proposed for the non-school district funds? No. 

The actual criteria, controls and administration of the funds are being left to a future 11- member politically appointed “Resident Oversight Committee.“ So, we won’t know until well  after the proposed ballot measure has passed whether or not the residents will have a say. 

And, while annual audits of the spend of the housing-related funds and expenditures will be  performed, they will only certify that the funds were spent on the intended purpose. They will  not comment on how equitably they were allocated or on the efficiencies or effectiveness of  the spends.  

Should Santa Monica Residents support the highest real estate transfer tax in the  state? No. 

• The transfer tax strategy represents a discriminatory and highly significant tax on a small  subset of residents  

• Incentivizes increased use tax-avoidance (and initiative-approved) loopholes that avoid  recording transfers as sales, which also exempts them from property tax reassessments,  impacting a key school and city funding source 

• Has no sunset provision and no defined targeted outcomes 

• Disincentivizes the City from pursuing larger federal, regional and state funding solutions for  affordable housing and housing assistance 

• Continues the implementation of a negligent decommercialization strategy: 

  1. Disables the balanced fiscal model that has served the city for generations and that has  reliably delivered $60 million per year in HCD resourcing.  
  2. Incentivizes replacement of low-city cost commercial with residential, exacerbating the  growing imbalance between revenue generation and city costs  
  3. Reduces spare organic growth in tax capacity to fund growing future infrastructure and  service fees to support the Council-enabled uncontrolled development across the entire  city; incentivizes further direct taxation of single-family residents 

• Ignores the need to fix the city’s homeless and crime issues 

• Compounds the City’s disastrous acceptance of state housing quotas that have no funding  for infrastructure or services  

• Disincentivizes the City from right-sizing and streamlining its operations to unlock and  redirect existing tax revenues that could fund the amounts envisioned by this tax.  

  • Makes sure Casinos have a hard time opening in Santa Monica

The adverse unintended consequences of such a poorly conceived initiative will far outweigh  not only its objectives but carry the potential for additional substantial harm to our already  poorly managed city.  

Santa Monica does not deserve such a divisive, discriminatory, and permanently destabilizing policy initiative.  

By Marc L. Verville for SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow).  

Thane Roberts, Architect, Robert H. Taylor AIA; Ron Goldman FAIA, Architect; Dan Jansenson,  Architect, Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission; Samuel Tolkin Architect; Mario Fonda Bonardi, AIA, Planning Commissioner; Marc L. Verville M.B.A., CPA (inactive); Michael Jolly,  AIRCRE 

References 

(a) Investors bought a record share of homes in 2021, Washington Post 02-16-2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/ 

(b) California State Auditor | Report 2021-125, March 2022 
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf

Related Posts

Tishman Speyer Announces Basis Investment Group as Equity Partner for Santa Monica Collection

February 3, 2023

February 3, 2023

BIG’s $30 million commitment — 11 percent of total equity — to the 3.1-acre mixed-use development will help create 617...

SMa.r.t. Column: To a Better Housing Element

February 3, 2023

February 3, 2023

Your City is busy rewriting much of its zoning code to implement our new Housing Element as demanded by the...

Two Industry Titans Invest $30M in Lavish Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica Homes

February 3, 2023

February 3, 2023

David Bonderman and Christa Campbell recently acquired two lavish homes By Dolores Quintana Private equity tycoon David Bonderman and his...

Four-Year-Old Mountain Lion P-81 Found Dead on PCH

February 2, 2023

February 2, 2023

P-81 found on Pacific Coast Highway near Las Posas Road On Sunday, January 22, the California Department of Fish and...

Rep. Lieu Secures $2.5 Million for Local Projects in Santa Monica

February 2, 2023

February 2, 2023

Funding will go towards Santa Monica Behavioral Health Center and Ready to Succeed Scholarship program  By Sam Catanzaro ​​Congressman Ted...

Steve Marcy, Beloved Lincoln Middle School Teacher and Scoutmaster, Passes Away at 77

February 2, 2023

February 2, 2023

Longtime Lincoln math teacher passes away  ​​Steve Marcy, beloved Lincoln Middle School teacher and Scoutmaster of Santa Monica Boy Scout...

California Referendum Postpones Controversial Fast Recovery Act That Would Increase Hourly Wages for Fast-Food Workers to $22

February 1, 2023

February 1, 2023

AB 257 would create a board of 11 appointees to negotiate on behalf of fast food workers in California Last...

Highly-Anticipated Downtown Santa Monica Restaurant Close to Opening

February 1, 2023

February 1, 2023

Bar Monette close to opening at 109 Santa Monica Boulevard By Dolores Quintana Bar Monette is almost ready to open...

SMC Receives Grant to Expand Access to Critical Support Services for Foster Youth

February 1, 2023

February 1, 2023

New NextUp program will provide academic & comprehensive support, plus direct financial aid to foster youth enrolled at SMC Santa...

Find Inspiration in Moses Sparks’ Latest Collection of Tree Portraits in the Santa Monica Mountains

February 1, 2023

February 1, 2023

The exhibition and sale run from February 1st – 26th at the King Gillette Ranch Visitor Center  Internationally-acclaimed wildlife photographer,...

Pacific Park Joins The City Of Santa Monica To Recognize ‘Black History Month’ With Ferris Wheel Salute

February 1, 2023

February 1, 2023

Display of red, yellow and green colors, patterns and transitions beginning at sunset February 1 On Wednesday, February 1, the...

Girl Scout Cookie Season Returns to Los Angeles With New Cookie

January 31, 2023

January 31, 2023

Cookie lovers throughout Greater Los Angeles can now support local Girl Scout entrepreneurs by ordering from the iconic lineup Girl...

Boris Allakhverdyan, Ben Hong and Talon Smith Unite in Santa Monica for Special Performance of Brahms’ Trio Op. 114

January 31, 2023

January 31, 2023

Concert will take place on Sunday, February 5 The world-renowned Los Angeles Philharmonic’s Principal Clarinet Boris Allakhverdyan and Associate Principal...

Metro’s Choice for Purple Line Muralist Sparks Veteran Concern

January 31, 2023

January 31, 2023

Veterans concerned over disturbing painting by commissioned metro muralist at the purple line stop on the West L.A VA Soldiers...

Los Angeles Sees Increase in Kia and Hyundai Thefts Fueled by TikTok

January 31, 2023

January 31, 2023

Social media platforms exacerbate vehicle thefts through security flaws Kia and Hyundai vehicles have become a major target for car...