Prop. 19 will reduce or eliminate some generous tax breaks that families get when property is transferred between parents and children. But it won’t change the rules for trusts themselves.
Some transfers are exempt from reassessment. Transfers between spouses are always exempt.
Another exclusion applies to transfers between parents and children, and between grandparents and grandchildren if the parents are not alive. For simplicity, we’ll assume here the transfer is from parents to children, but it also works in reverse.
Under current law, parents can transfer — by sale, gift or inheritance — their primary residence to their children and it won’t be reassessed, no matter how much it’s worth or how the kids use it.
In addition to a primary home, each parent can transfer “other property” — such as a vacation home, rental or commercial property — and exempt up to $1 million in assessed value (not market value).
Prop. 19 changes these rules on parent transfers that take place after Feb. 15 in the following ways:
It abolishes the exemption on “other property.”
It preserves the exemption on primary residences, but only if the child also uses the home as a primary residence and to the extent the difference between the home’s assessed value and market value does not exceed $1 million (indexed for inflation)
If it does exceed $1 million, it will be partially reassessed, but not to full market value. If the child does not use the home as a primary residence, it will be reassessed at market value.
Prop. 19 is not retroactive and won’t apply to any property until it is transferred (or deemed transferred) after Feb. 15.
The U-T asked their twelve real estate experts about the effects of Prop 19:
Q: Will Prop. 19 substantially increase home inventory in California?
Of the local experts, 11 out of 12 said NO, and the justification for the one YES answer could have been just as easily been reasons to say NO. Gary’s answer above was the best and most-accurate. See the rest here:
I thought that Prop 19 would get lumped together with Prop 15 and cause voters to consider them both to be a change/threat to the original Prop-13.
Though Prop 15 is losing, it appears that Prop 19 has passed:
California Proposition 19
(100% reporting)
YES: 51.5%
NO: 48.5%
If passed, the initiative goes into effect on April 1st, so we should see seniors start to list their homes for sale in March. Look out for those tens of thousands of housing opportunities!
We can expect that the government entities will be trying to jam affordable housing into every possible nook and cranny from now on. The idea of redeveloping larger areas, like Kearny Mesa, and include a nice compliment of affordable housing into an overall plan to uplift an entire area makes more sense to me:
Let’s continue to watch how the quaint old beach town of Carlsbad is being redeveloped by big money and a laissez-faire city council – so far, it looks like a grab-bag (an assortment of miscellaneous items):
Bill and I were talking about Prop 19 yesterday, and we both agreed it doesn’t seem to have much chance of passing because the California Association of Realtors, the authors of the initiative, haven’t been pushing a clear case of why it is important. The C.A.R. has every realtors’ email address, yet I had not seen much effort to even convince us, let alone the public.
Literally minutes after I said that, an email comes from C.A.R. with their latest TV ads. Both feature the same wildfire victim and are remarkably similar:
Let’s note that if it does pass, the start date is April 1, 2021. If wildfire victims and baby-boomers rush to replace their old home and take their ultra-low tax basis with them, it would add more to the Frenzy of 2021. But I am skeptical that many boomers will decide to move just because of this initiative. The other reasons to move play a bigger part (grandkids, cash-out, more suitable house, etc.) and taking the old tax basis will just be a sweetener.
There is a limit of adding up to $1 million to the old tax basis too.
CARLSBAD — The city finalized its policy regarding accessory dwelling units to reflect changes in state law.
During its Sept. 1 meeting, the City Council approved amendments to the zoning and municipal codes, in addition to the Village and Barrio Master Plan and Local Coastal Program.
The changes to the city’s municipal code align with six new state laws aiming to spur construction of ADUs, or “granny flats,” and create more affordable housing options for residents.
Don Neu, Carlsbad city planner, said ADUs are secondary residential units on an existing property and the city’s recent approval is keeping in line with the new state laws.
The latest California laws (AB 68, AB 881, SB 13, AB 587, AB 670 and AB 671) allow for ADUs on any lot with single-family or multi-family dwellings to include junior ADUs — units within the walls of a single-family home with a maximum size of 500-square feet — along with ADUs, which are detached units up to 1,200-square feet.
Other changes include setbacks, heights, lot coverage allowing for 800-square-foot units and prohibiting ADUs being used as short-term rentals, Neu said. Also, homeowner’s associations must allow both types of ADUs and state-mandated Housing Elements must include incentives for ADUs, Neu said.
“The processing time to act on a permit request for an accessory unit has been reduced from 120 days to 60 days,” Neu said.
The council also approved the attached ADUs to be 50% of the main dwelling or a maximum of 1,200-square feet, whichever is less. For detached units, 1,200-square feet is the maximum, which is in line with state law, Neu said.
These new guidelines also regulate height limits, which are 16 feet for both detached and attached units, and the city will default to the height allowed by the current zoning. As for landscaping, city ADUs must apply the same requirements as applied to the development of the property, while the architecture must be consistent with the main dwelling.
As of Nov. 2019, Neu said there were 425 ADUs in the city with rent running between $1,416 for a studio and $1,618 per month for a one-bedroom unit. Of the 425, there are 184 that are deed-restricted for lower-income residents and the rest are counted as affordable to moderate-income households.
“These were accessory units that were constructed to satisfy the inclusionary ordinance,” he said.
According to the staff report, the new state law also includes a requirement for the California Department of Housing and Community Development to review the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance for compliance.
The city will be given 30 days to respond and indicate if it will either change the ordinance to comply with the state housing department’s findings or adopt it as-is. If no response is made within 30 days, the state may notify the attorney general the city is in violation of state law.
Peter also noted this detail which should help to appease the NIMBYs:
Title 21 Zoning Chapter 21.10.030 ADUs has a unique permit requirement:
2g. An owner signed and notarized a notice of restriction, to be recorded against the property, declaring that:
The property owner(s) shall reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit, unless a lessee leases both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit; and
The obligations and restrictions imposed on the accessory dwelling unit per the chapter are BINDING ON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS.
For a city that has $100 million-plus in the bank and paid $16 million in 2001 for the Farmers Insurance building that still sits vacant, spending $3 million on this must be seen as pennies?
CARLSBAD — Questions about safety, costs and the possibility of flooding appear to have stalled plans to dig a pedestrian tunnel beneath Carlsbad Boulevard to connect the Tamarack State Beach parking lot with trails along Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The Carlsbad City Council agreed last week to proceed to the next stage of work on a proposal to build two access ramps to the beach, but they decided to hold off on the $3 million tunnel portion of the project until they have more information about other options.
Councilwoman Cori Schumacher said she was “uncomfortable” with the tunnel. Over the years, it could be affected by storms and sea-level rise, she said, and she asked whether a road-level pedestrian crossing would require less long-term maintenance.
Other council members also had questions about including the tunnel in the beach access project.
“My main concern is the maintenance,” said Councilman Keith Blackburn, who asked about lighting, public safety, graffiti and trash in the passageway.
