Thinking about relocating from Detroit to Los Angeles.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by 1handbro

Also, is California a good state to try and make a career in the criminal justice field?

What field? law enforcement?

I would say ... no. LE hiring in CA is extremely competitive right now.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

You've made a lot of interesting points Majoun. Yes I agree that at some point a water crisis is inevitable. We in LA cannot import any more water from NoCal because they need it themselves, can't import any more water from the Colorado River because Las Vegas, Phoenix and other cities need it and we don't have the right to take it away from them.

The water crisis will also sink Vegas and Phoenix (in fact Phoenix will probably be the first large city in the sunbelt to be hit)!

As long as LA continues to grow the only thing water conservation will do is postpone the crisis but eventually it has to happen. There is only one solution I can think of: salt water desalination. That's bound to be expensive and I don't see how we can do it without more nuclear power (but the tree huggers won't let us build more nuclear power plants).

It's not going to happen.

I too think that crisis can still be avoided, but I have no faith in anybody doing anything until after it's reached crisis stage.

It's too soon to really know that but extremely possible especially given California's tolerance for dysfunctional governing and especially L.A. city government being dysfunctional by design.

I think that Los Angeles should be broken up but we tried that when the San Fernando Valley tried to become independent

Not every part of L.A. had a chance to try that!

A Valley City would've been bigger than San Francisco and thus wouldn't have resulted in a second Burbank or Culver City, or even a second Pasadena. It would've been too big to provide the level of services that the smaller cities provide.

There was never an initiative for Venice cityhood on the ballot, but that would have passed OVERWHELMINGLY, more than Valley cityhood.

and it turned out that the SFV is a cash cow for LA

More like "was", except for porn

and the voters and politicians not in the Valley wouldn't let us go.

Venice and San Pedro were because they saw a Valley City as an opportunity to depart next.

[QUOTE[Politicians don't like to give up power.[/quote]

True

The state is going to have a problem as long as there are voters and politicians who want bigger entitlement programs, larger government and more taxes.

Or politicians who want to maintain an unaffordable prison-industrial complex with virtually everything being criminalized, and who have an interest in maintaining repressive laws regarding victimless crimes, and voters who eat up their demagoguic fearmongering (Both parties)

Or politicians and voters who want to maintain Prop 13 (both parties)

They are the ones who will destroy the state, turning California where only the very rich and very poor can live.

Sorry to break your bubble but both major CA parties are just as guilty.

I think it makes sense for people who already own property to sell it and buy a different property, but if I were a renter I'd hold off for a few years and see how things go before investing in property.

I'd be skeptical about property ownership in the first place, other than income property.

The "housing debacle" shouldn't turn you off, just make you more cautious. It wasn't owning houses that caused the mess, it was stupid politicians and greedy investors, the politicians for allowing the situation in the first place (the stupid idea that every citizen should be able to buy a house no matter how poor they are) and the investors took all the worthless paper and packaged it up so it wouldn't stink and sold it to unsuspecting other investors. Everybody should have known that you can't buy a house where the mortgage is 100% of your take home pay, but people were allowed to do it. How can that NOT cause a problem? It's like gambling with other people's money. If you win you win, and if you lose they lose.

Good points, but the deification of SFR ownership really has become a casualty of the bubble and its popping. The New Deal precept of "home ownership as the American dream" is truly dead. FDR's probably turning over in his grave.

Housing will stabilize and become a good investment again, and it's really nice to have your own home instead of being squashed into a big building with lots of other people.

And what's WRONG with being "squashed into a building with lots of other people"? Nothing.

There will be a day when all this is behind us and once again owning a house will be the American dream

It hasn't been a realistic possibility in California's coastal cities for years.

Prop 13 creating a sort of landed aristocracy in California has meant that home ownership is increasingly for those who inherited their homes from their family or inherited money!

but only for those who can afford one.

True

There's plenty of houses in the SFV for $200K-$300K. That sounds pretty affordable to me.

How many of those are in areas anyone would want to live in? I think most people would prefer to rent apartments in better areas than live in SFRs in worse areas. There's no "dream" to me about owning a home in Van Nuys.

Or you can live in a small city in some other state and get the same houses for $50-$100K.

Depends on the city/state.

[Lovehound]

All this interspersed posting is going to kill me!

Originally Posted by majoun

The water crisis will also sink Vegas and Phoenix (in fact Phoenix will probably be the first large city in the sunbelt to be hit)!

I have no doubt. That's a big reason that LV and PHX are not on my list of places I might move to (and also because of the heat).

It's not going to happen.

Which part, desalination plants or nuclear powered desalination plants? How then will LA find enough water for an ever increasing population? Conservation can save only so much.

Water reclamation is likely too. I see lawns and any landscaping not drought tolerant are also going to be history.

Just how do you think LA will supply sufficient water in the future?

It's too soon to really know that but extremely possible especially given California's tolerance for dysfunctional governing and especially L.A. city government being dysfunctional by design.

Not sure what you mean. I don't think LA/CA will dodge the bullet. That's a factor in my relocation. I don't want to be here when the crisis hits.

Not every part of L.A. had a chance to try that!

A Valley City would've been bigger than San Francisco and thus wouldn't have resulted in a second Burbank or Culver City, or even a second Pasadena. It would've been too big to provide the level of services that the smaller cities provide.

I think we saw it as the City of San Fernando Valley would have been a major improvement over City of LA.

There was never an initiative for Venice cityhood on the ballot, but that would have passed OVERWHELMINGLY, more than Valley cityhood.

Quite possible, but most of the voters in poorer parts of the city didn't want to lose the revenue from SFV because it would have reduced their services. (Or at least that's the theory.)

More like "was", except for porn

SFV is still more affluent than the rest of the city averaged. It would still be a net loss for those not in SFV.

I doubt porn has ever been a major factor in SFV industry. Just because it is or was where a large part of US porn was produced does not make porn a large factor in SFV revenue.

Venice and San Pedro were because they saw a Valley City as an opportunity to depart next.

Noted above.

Or politicians who want to maintain an unaffordable prison-industrial complex with virtually everything being criminalized, and who have an interest in maintaining repressive laws regarding victimless crimes, and voters who eat up their demagoguic fearmongering (Both parties)

The legalization of marijuana seems to be coming along nicely, or was last time I was aware of it.

What "virtually everything" did you have in mind, things you think should be legal.

I don't see any reason why Nevada style brothels shouldn't be legal (not that I have any desire to frequent them).

Or politicians and voters who want to maintain Prop 13 (both parties)

Prop 13 was passed because the politicians kept balancing the budget on the backs of home owners. Taxpayers wanted it, not politicians.

Sorry to break your bubble but both major CA parties are just as guilty.

You have misunderstood me. I completely agree that both parties are to blame. I'm just crediting the Republicans for holding the line on taxes, and taxes is a major issue for me.

I'd be skeptical about property ownership in the first place, other than income property.

I have a nicer lifestyle with my own house, not sharing walls with anybody, more privacy, huge back yard, more separation from my neighbors. YMMV

Good points, but the deification of SFR ownership really has become a casualty of the bubble and its popping. The New Deal precept of "home ownership as the American dream" is truly dead. FDR's probably turning over in his grave.

You're several decades off. I'm thinking more along the lines of Barney Frank.

And what's WRONG with being "squashed into a building with lots of other people"? Nothing.

Nothing at all if you don't mind smelling your neighbor's arm pits and having their bed bump against your bedroom wall at night.

It hasn't been a realistic possibility in California's coastal cities for years.

It's not my fault people can't afford super expensive properties but it's the same thing in Beverly Hills or other affluent areas. Properties in less expensive areas are practical even now like in San Fernando Valley.

Prop 13 creating a sort of landed aristocracy in California has meant that home ownership is increasingly for those who inherited their homes from their family or inherited money!

Every time a property changes hands the taxes go up to the going rate. More and more people either move to more expensive houses (and lose their rate) or move out of state.

How many of those are in areas anyone would want to live in? I think most people would prefer to rent apartments in better areas than live in SFRs in worse areas. There's no "dream" to me about owning a home in Van Nuys.

I have a comfortable house in Northridge (admittedly not the most affluent part) that I expect will list for $330K and close at about $300K. It satisfied my dream of having a house until I finally reached the point where I don't like Los Angeles. It's still an okay house. Okay not if you dream of having a 3,000 sq.ft. house on the beach.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Which part, desalination plants or nuclear powered desalination plants? How then will LA find enough water for an ever increasing population? Conservation can save only so much.

How long do you think the population will keep growing, especially if LA and CA don't dodge the bullet and the crisis hits?
If that occurs the population will start plummeting like the Midwestern cities.
The future lack of water may already be playing a factor in L.A.'s problems, and this will only grow with time.

Water reclamation is likely too. I see lawns and any landscaping not drought tolerant are also going to be history.

Just how do you think LA will supply sufficient water in the future?

It's not sustainable at the population that it has now, and even you think that "Detroit On The Pacific" is likely, so the population's likely to go down.

Within 30 years there may be bulldozing of neighborhoods in L.A. due to not enough population to support them. Just like in the Midwest.

The answer to your question is, I DON'T think L.A. will supply sufficient water in the future. Nor will Vegas, Phoenix, or the rest of SoCal.

SFV is still more affluent than the rest of the city averaged.

Considering what's happened to the Valley in the last 20 years I have a hard time believing this. GM and Lockheed are gone and the studios don't provide plentiful high paying blue collar jobs like in the old days. Van Nuys is no longer the hard working functional working class hood of old, and the overwhelming majority of the Valley within L.A. city limits is ghetto north of Burbank Blvd.

You have misunderstood me. I completely agree that both parties are to blame. I'm just crediting the Republicans for holding the line on taxes, and taxes is a major issue for me.

Well, I don't think "holding the line" on ALL taxes at the risk of destroying the state is a good thing, especially considering that Prop 13 is the #1 reason for California's decline. Time to repeal it. OTOH I think sales taxes should be drastically reduced, income taxes, including corporate taxes, should be cut, and property taxes jacked up high. That's a more sustainable fiscal model.

The GOP used to not have so much of a fear of raising taxes if it meant balancing budgets.

You're several decades off. I'm thinking more along the lines of Barney Frank.

The idea of home ownership as the American Dream attainable for the middle class was a key New Deal policy. There was nothing natural or foreordained about it. It was a deliberate decision on the part of Roosevelt's administration. As it was politically popular subsequent politicians - not only Democrats but also Republicans - have embraced the idea of "home ownership is the American dream!"

Nothing at all if you don't mind smelling your neighbor's arm pits and having their bed bump against your bedroom wall at night.

Doesn't bother me at all one bit.

[Lovehound]

The attraction is too high for LA to not continue growing. It will grow even if there's a water crisis, just without lawns.

Sorry, I find your idea of "Detroit on the Pacific" totally ridiculous. Detroit's major industry melted down from offshore competition and overly expensive unionized employees. Won't happen in LA.

I think we should hold the line on per capita taxes. If there are twice as many people then the government collects twice as much taxes even at the same tax rate with no rate increases.

It was Barney Frank and his ilk who supported the idea that even poor families should own houses.

Hope you enjoy the pits.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The attraction is too high for LA to not continue growing.

Without a good economy, it has no attraction that other places don't offer for those who don't have family ties or roots.

And LA's traditional industries have left or are leaving, and face heavy competition, just like Detroit.

If there is an LA city bankruptcy, then LA will BE Detroit On The Pacific, and will never be able to be turned around.

L.A.'s probably at its peak population right now. Especially if the crap hits the fan, it can only drop. There's certainly no money for desalinization plants nor for any resources for more infrastructure.

Rapid population growth is NOT a good thing, it has a negative effect on the quality of life in every respect and seems to only drag down the economy further (contrary to beliefs once held about population growth meaning a better economy - it's only true up to a certain point which was reached long ago.) A stable population produces the best quality of life, perhaps with slight population declines.

BTW, Barney Frank would be greatly honored at your comparing him to Roosevelt. In pre-New Deal America, middle class/lower middle class/working class homeownership was not that common ; while it was considered an ideal to strive towards by many, it was not considered an attainable ideal.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The attraction is too high for LA to not continue growing.

Originally Posted by majoun

Without a good economy, it has no attraction that other places don't offer for those who don't have family ties or roots.

Okay I get the idea that we disagree. I hope we can agree to disagree.

We have diametrically separated opinions. Let's let reality settle our differences.

[majoun]

Lovehound: the only thing we seem to agree upon is that L.A. has both good and bad aspects. It's ironic that you're even more pessimistic about its future than I am but OTOH think its good aspects are greater than I think they are.

[Lovehound]

Majoun I think that the positive aspects of LA are bountiful, but the negative aspects have just worn me down over decades and decades (literally, needing 40 years to have decades (plural) plus decades (plural)).

I will enjoy reading about LA's successes and failures (schadenfreude here) from my new out-of-state home. I expect to be renting out-of-state before the end of the year or early next year.

Nevertheless I know I will miss many things in LA. Good news is, last time I checked, that I can come back and visit anytime I want!

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by majoun

Well, I don't think "holding the line" on ALL taxes at the risk of destroying the state is a good thing, especially considering that Prop 13 is the #1 reason for California's decline. Time to repeal it. OTOH I think sales taxes should be drastically reduced, income taxes, including corporate taxes, should be cut, and property taxes jacked up high. That's a more sustainable fiscal model.

Prop 13 is the one salvation property owners have...

I would never go back to the days where opening annual assessment notices was like the lottery... a few win and most loose with double digit increases.

Prop 13 provides predictability and this is a good thing. Prop 13 also makes Property Taxes less volatile.

Pre Prop 13... the system was rife with corruption... sweet heart deals for a few of influence... the rest suffered, often under double digit tax increases...

Don't forget that several tax assessor's were convicted of crimes... one even committed suicide because of the manipulations he granted...

Property Owners are already held hostage... all it takes is a 55% vote of the people to increase school construction taxes...

I will never understand how anyone can advocate balancing the budget on the backs of property owner's is a good thing.

California has in place almost every imaginable form of taxation... neighboring States do not... Oregon manages with no sales tax and WA and NV have no Income Tax...

The truth is the party is over...