May 17, 2022 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.  

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

Man Who Murdered His Family Members Pleads Guilty To Five Other Killings

May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

Escobar injured an additional seven other people as well.  By Dolores Quintana A man, Ramon Escobar, has pleaded guilty to...

The price of gasoline in Los Angeles County Has Experienced The Largest Increase Since February

May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

Gasoline prices in Orange County Have Also Increased By Dolores Quintana Regular self-serve gasoline in the county of Los Angeles...

Santa Monica Travel Summit Of 2022 Returns To Take On Tomorrow

May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

The Event Was Held At The Jonathan Club On Santa Monica Beach By Staff Writer The 2022 Santa Monica Tourism...

City Council Extends Santa Monica’s Parklet Program: Santa Monica Beat – May 16th, 2022

May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

Local news and culture in under 5 minutes.* City Council Extends Santa Monica’s Parklet Program * Santa Monica High School Students...

1221 Ocean Avenue Complex Sold For Record Price

May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

Sold for a record price of $330 million. By Dolores Quintana The Irvine Company has sold 1221 Ocean Avenue to...

Office Construction Is Starting To Rise In Los Angeles

May 15, 2022

May 15, 2022

Property vacancies are still affecting growth.  By Dolores Quintana In March, the Los Angeles Metropolitan area had 3.2 million square...

Santa Monica City Council Selects Doug Sloan as New City Attorney

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

At its meeting this week, the Santa Monica City Council appointed Doug Sloan to serve as Santa Monica’s next City...

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Landmark Theater Closing in Former Westside Pavillion

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Theater will close at the end of month By Sam Catanzaro The Landmark Pico theater at the former Westside Pavillion...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Community Policing at the Heart of Beat Four

May 11, 2022

May 11, 2022

The Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Program thrives through community involvement and collective work. Today we hear from Officer Aaron Alpert...

Santa Monica High School Among Top-900 Schools in Country

May 10, 2022

May 10, 2022

SAMOHI ranked 829 out of over 18,000 total schools By Staff Writer Santa Monica High School is among the top...

Pico Marketplace Changing Small Businesses Access to Retail Space: Santa Monica Beat – May 10th, 2022

May 10, 2022

May 10, 2022

Local news and culture in under 5 minutes.* Pico Marketplace Changing Small Businesses Access to Retail Space* Grunion Fish Seen...

Video: Westside E-Scooter Injury Rate High Than National Rate for Motorcycles

May 10, 2022

May 10, 2022

The Westside’s injury rate for e-scooters is higher than the national rate for motorcycles, a new study has found. Learn...

Douglas Sloan Set to be Santa Monica’s New City Attorney

May 9, 2022

May 9, 2022

Sloan would be first permanent person to hold post in two years By Dolores Quintana  The next Santa Monica City...