to answer your questions: 1. Yes; 2. No; 3. Yes. we have the same problem here in the bay area. teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc., cannot afford to live in many cities. the result is increased traffic. especially in a city like santa fe where i'm guessing the public transit system is not up to par. if the average home costs $650k, then this amounts to a one-time fee of $6,500. that's not a whole lot of money. i think it's a great idea.

add to the already $6,000 of property taxes (a third the value of the house multiplied by .025), I'd say $12,000 might put a dent in some pockets --- no?

It's interesting...

If there are as many homes in the $650,000 plus price range as the article seems to indicate, I doubt this will pass.

Yep, I agree syako. Although, I do understand the dilema. However, again back to agreeing with sy, it's not like they aren't already paying a tax, it's additional.

I used to live there. I have family there too. They're libs. I know they'll be happy with this. Until, the tax actually hits them too. Ha! That's what cracks me up. They're all for the idea until it includes them.

Ummm...why not pass laws for more affordable housing in the area? you know, mixed use housing? And have a certain percentage of affordable housing set aside for public servants???? C'mon now, it's not that hard!

Nica, now THAT'S a good idea!

actually, it is hard. we have a regional planning body here that requires cities to build a certain amount of affordable housing (per capita) but getting them to actually comply is not very easy. no one wants poor people living in their neighborhood. THAT's the problem. these are not poor people - they are working class! and this isn't a tax - it's a fee.

True that YY, i see what you're saying. Sigh...well they should still try!

I think it's troubling (although not surprising) that something like this should be necessary, and this is a relatively decent solution. My first reaction was that perhaps the monies raised should simply go to pay raises for public servants, but I actually like this idea better: it ensures that the funds are going where they're meant to go. I can understand why this would be upsetting for people, though. As with anything else that benefits one group at the expense of another, no matter how worthy the benefit, there are pros and cons.

Now, if we could just find a way to make sure that public servants are adequately compensated for the contributions they make to society and their communities, we wouldn't have to come up with solutions like this

So Sante Fe has created this city and community with nice houses but if you want to buy one you have to plunk down an extra $6,500 or $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 depending on the price of your house. Because the police and nurses want to live there too and can't afford it. Is that the fault of the people who are trying to buy property? No. but for some reason it's seen as okay to try to take some of their money. The officers and nurses should be fighting to get their salaries increased instead.

There are a lot of expensive cities with expensive real estate all over the country. NYC, Boston, Cali.
In Boston, I highly doubt any police officers or nurses own any property in the city proper. Nor does anyone who can't afford a 1 bedroom for $500,000. Does that mean they should take money from all the wealthier people who can afford it so they can buy a condo?

And what about the teachers, government workers, and everyone else who has a low paying job that is service or community related? What about them? This is just a bizarre proposal and I still can't get my mind around why some assume it is okay to take away money from someone because some guideline has declared them "wealthy". There should be a 1% tax on all properties sold, if anything. Or better, create more affordable housing.

I agree red. I also think mr. goldwater said it best himself:

"Government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth and no more."

I absolutely agree that it is beneficial to have the majority of a community’s police force live in or immediately adjacent to the community they serve.

Here in California property tax has always been one of the means of funding emergency services which includes police. However, this is specific to housing for the police. I don't think I would mind it at all but as a legislator I would also put a cap so that household incomes below $75,000 are exempt from this particular tax amendment.

Why don't we just call ourselves North Mexico and get it over with already.

In an emergency, if there aren't any regular cops around, the rich in Santa Fe call hire private security firms. When gas costs too much for it to be worthwhile for nurses to drive from their homes to work in Santa Fe, the rich can hire private live-in attendants. And they can home school, hire tutors or not have children to educate. Who needs that pedestrian city council and those bothersome, do-gooder public servants anyway?

This is a bad idea. Why would the rich want to move somewhere where they have to pay an extra fee, just because they're rich? There are better communities elsewhere. I see this driving people away.

Having thought about it a little more. This is one way to keep the housing prices down. I can see many houses being sold for $649,990

This is a great idea.