Don't Californicate my State? (how much, new home, employment)

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Some of the things you listed are legitimate complaints. Oh, and the thing you missed????....the smug vibe Californians give off and which comes through in your post.

Which is no different than the smug vibes that come off in others' posts - who happen not to be Californian. Try to pigeonhole all you want. Californians don't own the patent on being smug - I've learned that first hand. If you look around, you'll see people being just as smug when talking about Californians.

[Clarks]

Clarks, why the h*ll do you think it costs so much to rent an apartment or buy a house here????? It's largely because of the enviro-Nazi's and NIMBYs who scream about any and all new development.

The problem with legalism and regulations is that the effects are not directly apparent. They show up in the prices of things, but a lot of people don't make the connection.

Economics 101 dictates that high demand + low volume results in high prices. It has nothing to do with Nazis. Now, let me ask you this, should developers have the right to build where they please?

I will give you an example. There is a stretch of coastline from Gaviota to Point Conception. This land was Ranchland for many years and is a pristine section of coastline. There is tremendous pressure to develop this today.

Do you think the developers have the right to develop it? Or, should it remain one of the few remnants of pristine coast in SoCal?

That is the crux of your argument, those whom you disparage would like to see the land remain pristine. It seems like a no brainer to me.

Apparently not so much to you.

The net result of the enviro nazis and the NIMBYs is, freedom, that is, freedom to walk upon god's green earth. If you think that is a bad thing, I hear real estate is darned cheap in Chernobyl, Russia.

The high demand for housing in CA is the result of CA being a desirable place to live. The great influx of population came in from 1940 to 1970, fortunately those people largely settled in the uninhabitable portion of CA, SoCal, and of course, made it even more uninhabitable.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Clarks, why the h*ll do you think it costs so much to rent an apartment or buy a house here????? It's largely because of the enviro-Nazi's and NIMBYs who scream about any and all new development.

The problem with legalism and regulations is that the effects are not directly apparent. They show up in the prices of things, but a lot of people don't make the connection.

Some of the most expensive areas in CA are the ones where there is no room to expand - there is only so much land to build on. The supply doesn't meet the demand. The SF Bay Area falls into that category. The further away you get from the Bay Area, and subsequently, the jobs and the amenities in that region, the cheaper it gets. Yet, many of the same environmental regulations still apply. It comes down to desirability more than it does the regulations. If nobody wanted to live there the prices would reflect that.

I'm not saying regulations don't play into it some. I'm just disagreeing that they play into it as much as the region's desirability does. The more desirable areas will always hold their value better than the less desirable areas, even in this massive housing crisis - hell, you still can't find much in Los Gatos (not Los Gatos Mountains) for under $900k. I'm sure the same holds true for SoCal. The combination of supply and demand PLUS the environmental regulations PLUS the state's mismanagement, all make CA very expensive. But comparing prices in places like the Bay Area to places like Sacramento will show you that it's basic geographical supply and demand that drives up the ridiculously high prices more than anything else. If demand were to drop, which it has, prices will drop as well. They just haven't dropped as much as people had thought they would so far (me being one of them).

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Clarks

Economics 101 dictates that high demand + low volume results in high prices. It has nothing to do with Nazis. Now, let me ask you this, should developers have the right to build where they please?

I will give you an example. There is a stretch of coastline from Gaviota to Point Conception. This land was Ranchland for many years and is a pristine section of coastline. There is tremendous pressure to develop this today.

Do you think the developers have the right to develop it? Or, should it remain one of the few remnants of pristine coast in SoCal?

That is the crux of your argument, those whom you disparage would like to see the land remain pristine. It seems like a no brainer to me.

Apparently not so much to you.

The net result of the enviro nazis and the NIMBYs is, freedom, that is, freedom to walk upon god's green earth. If you think that is a bad thing, I hear real estate is darned cheap in Chernobyl, Russia.

The high demand for housing in CA is the result of CA being a desirable place to live. The great influx of population came in from 1940 to 1970, fortunately those people largely settled in the uninhabitable portion of CA, SoCal, and of course, made it even more uninhabitable.

Sounds like a case of now that I have mine to heck with anyone else...

Developing anything today can easily take years to obtain approval... often incurring great expense along the way.

The constitution provides Eminent Domain where the public good far out weighs an individual's right...

The problem comes when 40 years of regulation has almost the same effect... without compensation.

Farmers and Ranchers are often excellent examples of stewardship... otherwise there holding would not have remained "Pristine"

Public Policy certainly has changed throughout the years... there was an interesting program about SF Bay and how large underwater parcels of tideland where sold by the Government for Reclamation...

[Clarks]

The idea of reclamation was nonsense from the start, nothing was re-claimed. We see today how many of the western "reclamations" were monumental disasters, starting with the first federal reclamation project, the Newlands Project, which caused the Pyramid Lake Trout to go extinct.

Farmers and ranchers too often are forced to damage the land because of market forces, if you have a family run ranch and you have to compete with a coporate ranch, often you will have to overstock the range, and hope for the best.

If, there was no thought that land should be set aside for the common good, we would not have the "best idea America ever had" our national parks.

The Orange County developers are champing at the bit to develop the Santa Barbara Channel coastline, and they could give a rats hind in for the land, or for the people who may be affected, either positively or negatively, it is just about the dollar.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Clarks

The idea of reclamation was nonsense from the start, nothing was re-claimed. We see today how many of the western "reclamations" were monumental disasters, starting with the first federal reclamation project, the Newlands Project, which caused the Pyramid Lake Trout to go extinct.

Exactly... another example of Government Policy gone bad... couldn't agree with you more .

Farmers and ranchers too often are forced to damage the land because of market forces, if you have a family run ranch and you have to compete with a corporate ranch, often you will have to overstock the range, and hope for the best.

Your post described "Pristine" coastal ranch and... I don't get it Either ranchers took care of the land and it remained Pristine or Ranchers didn't and the land is not "Pristine".

If, there was no thought that land should be set aside for the common good, we would not have the "best idea America ever had" our national parks.

Almost all the land belonged to the Government... especially in the West... it was the Government that virtually gave away land to create a tax base in the first place... .

The Orange County developers are champing at the bit to develop the Santa Barbara Channel coastline, and they could give a rats hind in for the land, or for the people who may be affected, either positively or negatively, it is just about the dollar.

Can't comment on SoCal politics...

[sailordave]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

And yet, the increased housing prices do benefit those who already own homes in the area, doesn't it? And how many Californians actually move to the area - are the numbers are high enough to affect all the things you mentioned by that much? That much more than people moving in from other areas?

It just seems strange that people would complain about having new residents who move to their area bringing equity from elsewhere and investing it into the local economy. I can't see how that's a negative. I still don't really see how they're doing any more harm (or contributing in a negative way) than an average local resident in all the ways you mentioned - aside from the fact that they aren't native and happen to have money to invest.

Not if they have to pay a much higher rate of property taxes. Contrary to what some people believe, some people don't buy and flip a home at a drop of a hat. Some people want to buy a home, pay it out in full, and live the rest of their lives in that home. However, when they retire, they're on a limited budget and so when the value of their home goes way up, so does the amount of property taxes they must pay.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by sailordave

Not if they have to pay a much higher rate of property taxes. Contrary to what some people believe, some people don't buy and flip a home at a drop of a hat. Some people want to buy a home, pay it out in full, and live the rest of their lives in that home. However, when they retire, they're on a limited budget and so when the value of their home goes way up, so does the amount of property taxes they must pay.

And how many of those people are among the ones complaining though? And how can the blame be put on the people moving in? Sounds like the tax code should be revisited. I can understand and appreciate that situation, though I don't necessarily agree that it has much to do with flipping houses as much as it does the idea of "upgrading". The increase in property taxes also tends to result in improved/additional services that benefit local residents, doesn't it? Whether it's worth the extra cost in property taxes depends on each individual situation. Some will benefit, some won't.

In the end, there doesn't seem to be a good solution to the complaints about increased home values and property taxes really. It's a situation that can happen in any area and involve residents from any state that has enjoyed a high appreciation rate like California has over the last few decades. Seems the only way to change it is to make a change in the tax code or make potential new residents feel unwelcome in hopes of keeping them from moving in.

[Screw Sacramento]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Clarks, why the h*ll do you think it costs so much to rent an apartment or buy a house here?????

That's the problem, he doesn't think. Beating your head against a wall.

[Clarks]

That's the problem, he doesn't think. Beating your head against a wall.

This, from the unemployed.

Clarks, why the h*ll do you think it costs so much to rent an apartment or buy a house here?????

Have you taken economics yet? High Demand, low volume, = high prices. California is desirable, demand is high compared to volume, pretty simple.