[talktobrent]

Originally Posted by tijlover

In a state where high rise condos/apt. buildings are viewed as nuclear waste dumps, it's not surprising that the housing costs will always be an issue in California. Can't build here, can't build there. Neighborhood preservationists saying can't build here, not there either. That's the real problem of housing affordability in California. Malibu has 25 miles of coastline, you could put a hundred 30-40 story high rises along that stretch of coastline alone, and you'd see how quickly the house prices would become more affordable. And then there's all that coastline from Malibu to Imperial Beach. Small wonder that Trump ended up building his resort towers in Tijuana. He probably got turned down from one coastal city to another and finally concluded that Tijuana was his only hope for construction. San Francisco could solve their housing problems likewise, telling those self-seeking neighborhood preservationists to take a hike, and let the developers have their freedom to solve the housing problem with more units available. And then there's all that wasted acreage in Beverly Hills. Think of all the high rises or medium density housing that could be built there. California has an enviable system, keep the supply tight and the prices will remain high. Maybe the same system will be incorporated here one day with one out of 3 being former Californians.

first of all, imagine the traffic nightmare if you buillt that kind of density with the current transit system. second of all, home values would go down because a ton of high rise development would block views and sunshine, and take away from the whole socal lifestyle that people buy into. people wouldn't want to come anymore because it would just be a concrete jungle. high rises along the ocean? at least now the oceans are easily accessible to anyone. A bunch of high rises along the coast would make access difficult for the general public, and there would probably be attempts to privatize the beach for owners only and such. Tokyo is an example of uncontrolled, sprawling high rise development, and its hardly a cheap place to live.

[Daddys///M3]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

$53,000 dolllars a year is a fantastic salary for a couple with two kids living in Las Vegas, that's why so many Californian are talking about moving to Las Vegas and Phoenix and Tucson Arizona.

Sad but true California is becoming a state of only Millionaires and Billionaires and the LOWER INCOME POPULATION. The lower income segment depends on lower income proverty programs to make ends meet.Check out some of my Links Below...

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

www.retirmentliving.com/RLtaxes.html (broken link)

California Budget Project

No it's not. For a dual income family you are talking about $26,500 GROSS per adult per year. That is $509.62 per adult per week, pre-tax. That is $12.74 an hour (assuming a 40 hour week). I couldn't imagine trying to live on that kind of money out here, let alone in CA.

[LIS123]

I'd agree with the previous statement. While a family of 4 maybe able to survive in Vegas on $53K/year, it's certainly not a 'fantastic' salary! It wouldn't even be that great for a single person!

[AA702]

Originally Posted by LIS123

I'd agree with the previous statement. While a family of 4 maybe able to survive in Vegas on $53K/year, it's certainly not a 'fantastic' salary! It wouldn't even be that great for a single person!

$53K for a single person is not great? I've lived off 30K before and it wasn't bad. Had no bills and 850 per month rent. I lived comfortably, but I wasn't going shopping every weekend either.

[Daddys///M3]

Originally Posted by AAPoolServiceLV

$53K for a single person is not great? I've lived off 30K before and it wasn't bad. Had no bills and 850 per month rent. I lived comfortably, but I wasn't going shopping every weekend either.

I would say that $53K a year for a single is actually pretty good, averages out to $25.50 an hour. With minimal other debt obligations, a single person could actually afford a small home on that type of salary.

When me and my wife were getting established we were getting by on around $60K a year, dual income, and I mean just getting by, especially after my son was born. Child care was eating us alive, I can't imagine a family of 4 trying to make those kinds of ends meet nowadays.

[LIS123]

What I meant when I said $53K would not be that great even for a single person in Vegas is that it would not allow that person to spend (almost) indiscriminately. I was referring to the 'fantastic' salary reference earlier in the thread. Of course, a single person in Vegas with an annual salary of $53K will be comfortable, have disposable income and still be able to save some money.

[sheriff]

So, the concensus would be people leave California for financial reasons, in pursuit of a "better" life situation. I don't fault people for this; but does more buying power, and more discretionary income really provide a higher quality life? Yes, material objects such as real estate, toys, and the like provide a quick measure of one's success, California MUST be regarded as a mecca for the best of the best in many, many endeavours. If this is not important to the resident, they leave for greener pastures. If this is important, they stay, and relish the benefits.

[Huckleberry3911948]

out here we are grasshoppers (not ants) dont prepare for winter never had any.
so when hard times come we fly away.

[sheriff]

Originally Posted by Bunky39

out here we are grasshoppers (not ants) dont prepare for winter never had any.
so when hard times come we fly away.

While you may live in So Cal; there are locations in Ca, with weather as brutal and extreme as anywhere on earth. Two that come to mind are Truckee, and Death Valley---both in Ca.

[AA702]

Originally Posted by sheriff

So, the concensus would be people leave California for financial reasons, in pursuit of a "better" life situation. I don't fault people for this; but does more buying power, and more discretionary income really provide a higher quality life? Yes, material objects such as real estate, toys, and the like provide a quick measure of one's success, California MUST be regarded as a mecca for the best of the best in many, many endeavours. If this is not important to the resident, they leave for greener pastures. If this is important, they stay, and relish the benefits.

I see your point and i agree that materialism doesn't equal a better life. I also see people in CA that do not make ends meet use social services more like Section 8 or get food stamps and other government assistance.

In my case, I simply wanted to buy a home and wanted to be able to be comfortable with my payments and not overbuy. Its also nice to have that mortage tax write off this time of year.