Leaving California (mortgage, loan, purchase)

[jeffncandace]

Well, I was born and raised in California (for the most part), but have moved around quite a bit. This last time around, I lived in the Temecula/Murrieta area since 2000 thru 2006. We loved it there, IMO Tem/Mur is one of the better overall places to live in So Cal. But...

My parents are ministers and almost 6 years ago took over a church in Greenville, MI. They fell in love with it and started hounding me to move up there, something my wife (an only child) and her mother would absolutely not have! So my parents started praying...

Fast forward to spring of 2006. My father in law suddenly gets a job offer within the company he works for transferring him to Troy, MI. Long story short, he took it! So now, both sets of parents would be in Michigan, and my sister (my only sibling) and her husband moved over by my parents 2 years ago. Considering all this, we of course chose to be with our family!

In 3 weeks it will be 1 year since we moved to Michigan. We truly love it here, even if we miss California once in a while. The cost of living is way cheaper, with housing being the most amazing thing of all! It's great to have an entirely different part of the country to explore and learn about. Healthcare and education are better here, and the entire enviroment is very family friendly. We enjoy the 4 seasons and the character found in the towns and cities here. We live in an older neighborhood with tree lined streets and sidewalks.

I will always love California for all of its diversity and craziness. But there is so much more out here to see!

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by greatbasinguide

Property taxes are capped at 1% of assessed value, there are add ons that can kick your taxes up to 1.4% +-. other states go up to 3% of assessed value.

As Californians relocate, Californication happens, property values rise, traffic increases, as Californians leave, they take California with them.

Uhyup. Another real problem is that Californians move to other states and then promote the same sorts of laws that caused the problems in California that led them to leave in the first place. Expensive social programs, gun control - which should really be called the crime enablement act - and on and on and on. The latest silliness in California is that after spending literally *millions* of dollars to distribute non-mercury containing fever thermometers tp families because of the risks of mercury, the state is now mandating that everyone be required to use only fluorescent bulbs which contain (drum roll, please) *mercury*!

It isn't just the property taxes; for what it costs me to license one Jeep Cherokee for one year in California I could license an entire fleet in any of the surrounding states. California is definitely the land of the free.

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by Educatorspeakingtruth

Here are my thoughts from being raised in Oregon and now Living in California:

What I remember from growing up and being raised in Oregon was that people are people. For the most part most people could care less what brand of clothes you wear, the kind of car you drive or even the house you live in. In Oregon, ones Character was what mattered.

This is so true. Until I moved to California I had no idea that rudeness and laziness could be a way of life. What really drives me crazy here are those who wish to be generous to the less fortunate - but only with other people's money. I used to make it a point to *always* donate at least 10% of my salary to worthy charities; because of the waste of tax dollars on ineffective social programs that encourage dependency I no longer bother. What point is there in donating to help teach people job skills when the professionally generous do everything in their power to keep people dependent?

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Not sure... but my guess would be Yakima Washington for YakimaBelle

Nope. Yakima, WA was where I was born and the valley is where spent some of my childhood; the balance of my childhood was spent in Corvallis, OR; Laramie, WY; Las Vegas and Albuquerque, NM; and Bellevue, WA.

My husband and I have already built a house in the sagebrush scrub of Nevada where we can hunt, fish, target shoot, and ride mules as much as we want.

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by momof2dfw

As for the little old lady being priced out.......... well maybe they need to downsize in the first place. In reality can a older senior citizen adequately take proper care of a property w/o some assistance? Not in most cases. Now there are some that can and I have nothing at all against those that can do such on into their 80's. But when it comes to paying taxes to help support the community that they live in........ they should.

Older Californians have a real and terrible problem; California taxes pensions, has a high sales tax, high auto licensing fees, and many cities also charge for using certain city parks and other services that are free of charge in other states. In the town I live in, people bought houses here in the 1960s and 1970s. Today these same two, three, and four bedroom houses sell for a minimum of 300K - 400K. The problem is that the old lady can't downsize because even a small one bedroom or studio condominium will cost her $150K at the minimum. People who put aside even large cushions cannot afford to pay a 5% - 10% property tax and eat, obtain medical care, and wear clothing.

At the extreme, the once middle class community of Palo Alto has become exorbitantly expensive. A two bedroom house, heated only with a wall heater in the hall, and with a backyard perhaps 10 feet deep will easily sell for $500K - 600K.

The problem with education in California isn't the money; it's the nonsense promoted by administrators and teachers' unions - and you'd be surprised what many, if not most, of the rank and file think of their supposed unions.

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by midnightbirdgirl

It is not based on value it is based on what one paid...
MBG

Are you sure of that? Before Prop 13 the problem was that houses were constantly reappraised and the taxes went up almost endlessly.

[YakimaBelle]

Originally Posted by graffixjones

Ultrarunner,
The way I see it, is that L.A. County is probably one of the richest counties in the nation, yet has some of the lowest-performing schools in the nation. Now if it were instead funded from property taxes, rather than waiting for their allotment from the state, it would probably also have the richest schools in the nation. It's much easier to deal with the problems you mentioned when you have the funding to do so.

Instead, breadth classes are the ones continually being cut, and those are the ones that give students a well-rounded education. When I was attending college, over half of my classes were in the breadth area..

There is a problem with your assumption; I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret. LA has a significant illegal immigration issue; while about 80% of Mexicans have high school diplomas, it is estimated that far less than a third of illegal immigrants have attained that level of education. A friend who taught locally explained the problem with having an school system that teaches in Spanish - the reality is that many of the supposed "Spanish speakers" have a vocabulary of less than 1,000 Spanish words and have essentially no concept of grammar. What happens in essence is that these children must learn Spanish before they can follow a Spanish language class. The result is generally adults who are illiterate in both Spanish and English, and have a very poor command of English and who leave school without graduating.

It gets worse. More and more often schools are dealing with children who essentially have *no* language; not because they are retarded, but simply because they come from homes where the parents do not talk to them due to work schedules, or more commonly, alcohol and other drug abuse.

Then, in order to avoid "segregation", the "bilingual classes" must have at least one third English speaking children in the class. The results for them are equally tragic; English speaking children placed in bilingual sections generally test lower at the end of the school year than they did at the end of the previous school year. In short, they go backwards because they lose the skills they had learned.

Originally Posted by graffixjones

I also think that the "No Child Left Behind" act has also harmed schools more than it has helped. Now teachers are "teaching to the test" more than concentrating on curriculum's that educate the children better, and in order to keep all the kids on equal footing academic-wise, they dumb-down a lot of things so that the slower kids can keep up.

I don't think so; from what I can tell all the "No Child Left Behind" act has done is to put the dirty laundry out where everyone can see it. The schools weren't performing better before - they simply exempted lower performing students from the tests.

Originally Posted by graffixjones

I guess I'm straying a bit from the topic, but my overall assertion is that if schools had more money to spend per-pupil, they could pay better salaries and attract better teachers. They could have better infrastructure, and would have money to fund programs to help combat the problems you mentioned. As it is now, to deal with the problems, they have to cut programs elsewhere to free up money, and all students suffer.

Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page. Once again, thanks for the great post. You give me a lot to think about.

Please see:
State & Local Government K-12 Education Expenditures per Capita (Maps) | OFM Washington Trends
Boiling Mad: State Education Rankings (broken link)
Yearly State Education Ranking Show Impact Of Illegal Aliens : Diggers Realm

California ranks in the top fifteen states on per pupil expenditures; yet it ranks 46th in educational quality.

Montana ranks in the lowest fifteen states on per pupil expenditures while ranking 9th in educational quality.

[wendellg]

Originally Posted by Nkiruka

I grew up in Los Angeles, but moving wasn't a difficult decision. My home more than doubled in value in four years. I sold it and bought a lovely home in a golf course community in Durham, North Carolina. I LOVE IT HERE!!! I have twice the living space for less than a third of the price of my home in Los Angeles. I have enough money in savings that I don't have to work if I don't want to. Best of all, the only traffic I have to worry about is the family of deer that likes to cut through my garden!!!

Nice! I'm jealous. You made a good move I'd say. I'm in a similar boat where we bought a nice starter home in Studio City in the later 90's and the value tripled (or more). Trying to convince the wife to cash out and move back to the NC right now (and have twice the house for 1/5 the cost).

What area are you in? My parents still live there (in a golf course area too). Have you eaten at the Q Shack?

[TurcoLoco]

After 17 years, I made my move to North part of Phoenix end of May this year. There were things bothering me about OC, CA but the only real problem was the cost of living, mainly housing.

Townhouse I got in 2001 has more than doubled its value but did no good to me since the only way to sell it was to sell it with my mom in it! No regrets, since I am a single guy in 30s, moving wasn't that complicated.

In some ways, I missed So Cal at first but as I get used to Phoenix, I am missing less. The only thing I will miss are a few good friends.

Summertime is probably not the best time in Phoenix but I am adapting to this dry heat after only 3+ weeks but you can't go wrong when 7-8 months out of a year is beautiful in the area you live in! People are definitely more sincere and friendly out here.
Housing despite a recent boom, is much much more reasonable and as the bubble continues to come down so will the prices!

Good Luck to everyone who is moving from wherever to wherever. It may not be fun, it may not be cheap but look at what you and (if applicable) your family will gain on the long run...

~TL

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by YakimaBelle

Older Californians have a real and terrible problem; California taxes pensions, has a high sales tax, high auto licensing fees, and many cities also charge for using certain city parks and other services that are free of charge in other states. In the town I live in, people bought houses here in the 1960s and 1970s. Today these same two, three, and four bedroom houses sell for a minimum of 300K - 400K. The problem is that the old lady can't downsize because even a small one bedroom or studio condominium will cost her $150K at the minimum. People who put aside even large cushions cannot afford to pay a 5% - 10% property tax and eat, obtain medical care, and wear clothing.

At the extreme, the once middle class community of Palo Alto has become exorbitantly expensive. A two bedroom house, heated only with a wall heater in the hall, and with a backyard perhaps 10 feet deep will easily sell for $500K - 600K.

The problem with education in California isn't the money; it's the nonsense promoted by administrators and teachers' unions - and you'd be surprised what many, if not most, of the rank and file think of their supposed unions.

How did you come up with the 5% - 10% property tax? I thought CA property is 1.5%.