Reject Sausalito’s Measure X for revised zoning standards

The Sausalito ballot Measure X for revised zoning standards on the November ballot would appear to open the city to unfettered development. I worry it will transfer the power of voters to a simple majority of the City Council.

I suspect many small businesses in the Marinship neighborhood will be priced out of Sausalito. According to my calculations, the square footage of buildings Marinship can, under Measure X, increase by over 600%.

It is presented as a replacement of existing protections, the very protections that saved Sausalito from becoming a waterfront in the style of Miami Beach. But removing the existing codes could expose Sausalito to massive development.

Removing safeguards is not progress, it is reckless. Measure X would change the character of Sausalito. Two hundred acres of Marinship could end up developed to the lowest standards, without any plans or protections.

Losing view corridors on the waterfront doesn’t improve Sausalito. Increasing the allowed density of Marinship doesn’t improve Sausalito. Increasing the height limitations 50% doesn’t improve Sausalito.

Measure X is a well-organized program presented as something it is not. I think the only thing it will do for certain is improve property values. City officials established the current codes in 1985 with input from residents and the city planning department, not just from a small private group that I think is trying to dupe residents into thinking it will make Sausalito new and improved.

The character of Sausalito doesn’t need improvement, it needs protection. A no vote on Measure X is a yes for Sausalito.

— Emmet Yeazell, Sausalito

Families need to know about home valuation rule

With Bay Area home prices skyrocketing over the decades, local families are sitting on a massive amount of real estate wealth. Unfortunately, many grieving widows and adult children are stumbling into a silent financial trap because of a lack of interest in educating the public.

When a spouse or parent passes away, the law allows the surviving family to reset the property’s tax “purchase price” to its current market value. This is known as a “step-up in basis,” and it eliminates massive capital gains taxes when the home is eventually sold.

However, this reset is not automatic. If a widow sells the family home 10 years after her spouse passes, the IRS will demand official proof of the property’s value on the exact date of death. Standard online estimates and real estate agent flyers are completely rejected under an audit. Without a certified appraisal from the time of the death, the IRS can default the taxes back to the original low purchase price from decades ago, triggering unnecessary six-figure tax bills.

The fix is simple: families must proactively hire a licensed appraiser for a “date-of-death valuation” within months of a loss.

Failing to get a timely, certified estate appraisal can force the IRS to use the original purchase price as the basis. This wipes out the step-up in basis and can trigger massive capital gains taxes. An accurate retrospective appraisal solves this risk. The government does not send out alerts about this. We must protect our neighbors by sharing this information before it is too late.

— Jennifer Coleman, San Anselmo

Vote yes on Proposition  40 for wealth tax of billionaires

In his recently published Bay Area Voice commentary (“Billionaire tax measure risks long-term growth for a sugar-high solution,” Aug. 18), Ahmad Thomas argued against the Proposition 40 5% tax for billionaires. He cited the risk that the tax will cause an exodus of billionaires, thus weakening the tax base.

I will be voting for Prop. 40 and against the undercutting propositions 41 and 42.

Maybe Thomas is correct that the billionaires have become so powerful that we touch their accumulation of wealth at our own peril. If that is so now, then it will be ever more so in the future and their accumulation of wealth will become indefinitely more extreme. We and our children will live in a world of technological feudalism.

They need to be cut down to size in order to make room for more innovators and more companies who will make better use of the intellectual resources of California that made them rich in the first place. We will be far better off with 10 “hundred millionaires” than one billionaire.

Maybe there will be a price to pay, but if our creating a model wealth tax motivates other states to do the same, then it will be well worth it for the future of all.

— Chet Seligman, Point Reyes Station