This is a response to the two Letters to the Editor which were published in the Oct. 8 edition. In the first, the writer recommends a ‘No’ vote on Measure RE. She cites a transfer tax cost of $25,150 if she were to sell her house in Culver City for $1,500,000. While the transfer tax would actually be less at $22,500, the revenue generated would continue to provide for Culver City’s services and amenities, including our superb schools, police, and fire departments, which the homeowner has enjoyed, and which generated and supported the high value and sale price of her home.
Moreover, if she were to lower the selling price of her home by one dollar, her sale would move to the lowest tier of transfer tax (still only .45%), and her obligation would be only $6,750. But, whatever the amount due, real estate negotiations over price allow the seller to raise the price of the home to recoup any “loss” to taxation by passing it on to the buyer
In the second letter, the writer claims to be mystified that state legislators Holly Mitchell and Karen Bass would endorse Measure B. Recall that the CC City Council passed a modest rent control measure with an 80% majority vote after lengthy hearings which gave all sides the opportunity to comment.
The measure protects “Mom and Pop” property owners who rent their properties and responds to the likelihood of massive evictions and/or steep rent increases, as Washington remains gridlocked and Sacramento’s Prop 21 on rent control struggles for air.
As a Culver City homeowner, I vigorously endorse these measures, which will help fund our city’s legitimate expenses and keep renters in their homes.
— Bruce Lebedoff Anders
The opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of the Culver City News. If you would like to share your opinion in a future issue, send your letter to firstname.lastname@example.org, and it will be considered for publication. All submitted materials, including Letters to the Editor, will be subject to editing for space, libel, and obscenity.