Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could NOT disagree with you any harder than after I read this post.
I'm glad you view us as a commute to CA, I'd be delighted to inform you that the majority of people I know rarely travel to the sinking firepit CA is quickly turning into. What you are describing is one man's view of a place that he can get a cheap place to live while pretending he is still in CA. There are segments of our cities/state population that have negatively harmed our taxing authority and ability to properly fund our own liabilities in favor of (on the surface) cheaper initiatives like charters, freeways and other non sense to hold up what they believe is the true mission of Phoenix and Arizona.
At a point we cannot sustainably capitalize on building tract homes in the dirt, it's not water efficient, it promotes smog, it's increased the urban heat island, it creates congestion (which costs $$) and is susceptible to the fact that at some point we will hit a brick wall on growth. I have a hard time believing that our growth model is going to allow us to capitalize further than it already has. I do a lot of travel in work, most cities that are actually growing and booming at this time are adopting a vertical growth approach to attract creative individuals and millennials. And it makes perfect sense. Why? This mode is cheaper, owning or even leasing a car is expensive, the insurance is outrageous, in this state the registration is very high and when you live on the fringes everything you need can be up to 10 miles away. That makes a round trip cost you about a gallon of gas, you could travel further on the bus or the rail for much cheaper and without the other associated car fees. Millennials are overwhelmingly not having children, which again makes sense (they're broke) which has really driven demand into core areas of cities, including Phoenix where our DT rental market is now our most desirable and landlocked Tempe is a leader in growth (by building mid rises along their rail and streetcar systems), Phoenix and Tempe get this, Mesa and Chandler get this and Scottsdale is getting it. We have one of the largest horizontally built environments in the nation, the fringes aren't going to boom again.
On the our masters the almighty retiree, we are one of the youngest states in the nation, while our economy is generally tepid, a lot of our industry revolves around capital improvement via construction which isn't necessarily home building it's the fact that we took a small city and turned it into a megapolis overnight and are slowly fixing the growing pains we created, the grease on the gears, so to speak, is where the money actually is. You can't possibly believe that the 16th largest State in the US, the 6th largest city in the US and the 13th largest Metro in the US exists to serve Californian transplants with cheap housing and retiree services like Walgreens, Dentures and Canes do you? We'd have a much older population median if that were the case. This backward thinking mentality is the reason we haven't made heavier handed attempts at luring business, why our public schools price us out of a competitive market and why I am actually delighted that we call special elections during the Summers.
Not every millennial wants to live in a high density, high cost, car less DT area though. Some want to drive, own a car and a single family home in a suburb.
This comes to mind, who wants to pay for something this much in DT for the convenience when owning a home is cheaper? These are priced out of the reach for the middle class. Tell me again why Phoenix should become another expensive city like in California? No thanks, I'd rather pay for gas, automotive maintenance and insurance than an overpriced luxurious apartment in a high density environment. Don't get me wrong, this is an absolutely nice place to live. They have Coors Field next door, Union Station that can take you to the Denver International Airport, a Fry's Food & Drug (King Soopers) on the first floor and all sorts of other features.
Unless you are within an hour of the ocean, I see little benefit to living in CA. The inland areas of the Coachella Valley and High Desert like Victorville and Lancaster have similar weather, vegetation or lack thereof as parts of Arizona. Why would you get priced out of LA only to get cheaper housing in these exurbs but still deal with CA politics and taxes.
Ironically the only area of CA with stable water situation is the Imperial Valley which most don't want to live in due to AZ like heat along with low wages, high unemployment and basically an overflow of Mexicali.
Easy to see why many priced out of LA, OC and SD come to AZ.
Not every millennial wants to live in a high density, high cost, car less DT area though. Some want to drive, own a car and a single family home in a suburb.
And fortunately at this time Phoenix offers this lifestyle almost exclusively. You're missing the point.
It's about diversity something that would help us a lot.
A better transportation network reduces my commute time and my time is worth more than the allocated taxes. Also, better schools a lot of times equates to better property values. I live in North Central Phoenix and while the houses are much higher than the Phoenix average I think we are held back by the Phoenix Union School District compared to Arcadia which is in the Scottsdale School District.
Can't argue with you on these points. I'm all for a better transportation network and better schools. The difference between us is I believe that many (not all) services would be more efficient if they were privatized. Good transit could still exist even with some privatization. The Vegas monorail system was built entirely with private funds, and they charge patrons a user fee for riding the system. Private schools are nearly always better in quality than public schools. Parents with kids in schools should be the ones financing the costs ... not the entire public. Usually public schools don't have a way of increasing property values. In fact, neighborhoods often deteriorate faster when there are a large presence of kids. Look at Sun City and Sun City West which were built in the 1960s & 1970s: no children, and still as pristine as ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uawilly
Anyways, I think people from both sides don't look a the big picture on things. For example in this particular case you focused on Texas and the fact that they have no state income tax. The key is what you pay overall. Its a huge misconception that Texas is a low tax state. They have much higher property taxes there then AZ does. In fact overall, they are taxed at a much higher rate than Arizonans according to Wallhub (2015) and are higher than the overall average; 29th lowest compared to 15th lowest.
This is true, but the fact remains that no income tax is beneficial to everyone, and is a lure for residents & business alike to move to Texas. It's still one of the fastest growing states despite the fact that it's one of the most populated states. Many high population states (New York, California) are not growing fast at all ... in fact, some are losing population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uawilly
Surprisingly, California is low but that maybe because most people are renters and not land owners.
It's because of Proposition 13 which was passed in the 1970s, and remains in effect to this day. That was also during the time when California was more conservative than it is today ... but even now, a recent survey indicated that the majority of Californians still favor lower property taxes as a result of Prop 13.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uawilly
Finally, a big reason why Texas is so fortunate to have all those large companies is they have access to one the world's largest ports in Houston and they have a key natural resource in oil. Most states can't compete with that. Plus their state is willing to give sweet heart deals to companies relocating to their state. I believe, by law, cities in Arizona are much more restricted in this area.
And this is why Arizona needs to be more aggressive in luring in more than just sun lovers, snowbirds, and retirees. We can do that by being more tax friendly to businesses. Reputable companies and entrepreneurs aren't necessarily looking for things like sunshine or seasonal tourism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
This does not apply to all, just the majority who move here. I'm not talking about out of state students either. I'm talking about those who choose to stay. We are and have been based as a service economy. The majority of our jobs are in areas of service. We serve retired folk, CA serves the rich. It's not that I love that about our state but it is what we promote here as a reason to come.
No snow, affordable retirement. Our economy is based on this. Our top employers are retail and healthcare. We are getting some Fortune 500's but the draw for these is our cheapness as well. I'm glad for this but I do know why we don't get more. I know people want to change it, and I think they can make a dent but you'll have to come up with other reasons for transplants first.
Since Phoenix is now one of the larger populated metro areas in the nation, and Arizona is one of the larger populated states, this is exactly the reason why we can no longer rely on just a service based economy, real estate, the climate, and retirees. Even Florida (largely known for being a retirement haven) has more to offer besides just amenities for retired folk. They have theme parks, the space industry, and Miami has become a large banking center & an international tourist destination.
Phoenix, being the 6th largest city in the U.S., can and should be a hub for regional, national, and global corporations to base their HQs, but we need to improve our tax structure. We also need highly skilled people. We're not going to get the skilled professional types if we keep focusing primarily on the lack of snow & cheap housing. That kind of focus will only keep attracting the low skilled/poorly educated types, and the snowbirds & retirees. While retirees & snowbirds do contribute to our economy to a point, the economy needs to be much more diversified. The downturn of 2008 & beyond had more of a devastating effect on Phoenix & Arizona as a whole than other regions with more diverse economies. That right there should have given us a clue to start focusing on other aspects besides just the climate and cheap housing. Again, those things CONTRIBUTE to why people might want to move here ... but you can't pay the bills with sunshine (unless you're in the solar business).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
If our taxes and our cost of living rise what's going to attract people?
Like I stated: even lower taxes ... or better yet, a better tax structure. Eliminate the state income tax, and reduce business taxes. That would be a good start in attracting more businesses with competitive jobs. We don't necessarily have to have a higher cost of living to have higher paying jobs or a good economy. I would like to see home values rise, but admittedly that's more for reasons such as existing homeowners being able to sell at a higher price. Also, cheap housing tends to be of cheaper quality in many cases. I agree that places like California are WAY overpriced, but we need to be affordable without being "cheap". There is a difference. Cheap has a way of bringing in the not so desirable types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64
You can't possibly believe that the 16th largest State in the US, the 6th largest city in the US and the 13th largest Metro in the US exists to serve Californian transplants with cheap housing and retiree services like Walgreens, Dentures and Canes do you? We'd have a much older population median if that were the case. This backward thinking mentality is the reason we haven't made heavier handed attempts at luring business, why our public schools price us out of a competitive market and why I am actually delighted that we call special elections during the Summers.
I will agree with you on most of these points. We can't continue with this mentality of focusing on what worked well 30+ years ago when Phoenix was a much smaller metro region. It is backward thinking. As far as home prices are concerned, I'd rather pay more for a well constructed house in a good safe area than some cheap piece of stucco in a far flung cookie cutter neighborhood ... but that's just me.
Can't argue with you on these points. I'm all for a better transportation network and better schools. The difference between us is I believe that many (not all) services would be more efficient if they were privatized. Good transit could still exist even with some privatization. The Vegas monorail system was built entirely with private funds, and they charge patrons a user fee for riding the system. Private schools are nearly always better in quality than public schools. Parents with kids in schools should be the ones financing the costs ... not the entire public. Usually public schools don't have a way of increasing property values. In fact, neighborhoods often deteriorate faster when there are a large presence of kids. Look at Sun City and Sun City West which were built in the 1960s & 1970s: no children, and still as pristine as ever.
This is true, but the fact remains that no income tax is beneficial to everyone, and is a lure for residents & business alike to move to Texas. It's still one of the fastest growing states despite the fact that it's one of the most populated states. Many high population states (New York, California) are not growing fast at all ... in fact, some are losing population.
It's because of Proposition 13 which was passed in the 1970s, and remains in effect to this day. That was also during the time when California was more conservative than it is today ... but even now, a recent survey indicated that the majority of Californians still favor lower property taxes as a result of Prop 13.
And this is why Arizona needs to be more aggressive in luring in more than just sun lovers, snowbirds, and retirees. We can do that by being more tax friendly to businesses. Reputable companies and entrepreneurs aren't necessarily looking for things like sunshine or seasonal tourism.
Since Phoenix is now one of the larger populated metro areas in the nation, and Arizona is one of the larger populated states, this is exactly the reason why we can no longer rely on just a service based economy, real estate, the climate, and retirees. Even Florida (largely known for being a retirement haven) has more to offer besides just amenities for retired folk. They have theme parks, the space industry, and Miami has become a large banking center & an international tourist destination.
Phoenix, being the 6th largest city in the U.S., can and should be a hub for regional, national, and global corporations to base their HQs, but we need to improve our tax structure. We also need highly skilled people. We're not going to get the skilled professional types if we keep focusing primarily on the lack of snow & cheap housing. That kind of focus will only keep attracting the low skilled/poorly educated types, and the snowbirds & retirees. While retirees & snowbirds do contribute to our economy to a point, the economy needs to be much more diversified. The downturn of 2008 & beyond had more of a devastating effect on Phoenix & Arizona as a whole than other regions with more diverse economies. That right there should have given us a clue to start focusing on other aspects besides just the climate and cheap housing. Again, those things CONTRIBUTE to why people might want to move here ... but you can't pay the bills with sunshine (unless you're in the solar business).
Like I stated: even lower taxes ... or better yet, a better tax structure. Eliminate the state income tax, and reduce business taxes. That would be a good start in attracting more businesses with competitive jobs. We don't necessarily have to have a higher cost of living to have higher paying jobs or a good economy. I would like to see home values rise, but admittedly that's more for reasons such as existing homeowners being able to sell at a higher price. Also, cheap housing tends to be of cheaper quality in many cases. I agree that places like California are WAY overpriced, but we need to be affordable without being "cheap". There is a difference. Cheap has a way of bringing in the not so desirable types.
I will agree with you on most of these points. We can't continue with this mentality of focusing on what worked well 30+ years ago when Phoenix was a much smaller metro region. It is backward thinking. As far as home prices are concerned, I'd rather pay more for a well constructed house in a good safe area than some cheap piece of stucco in a far flung cookie cutter neighborhood ... but that's just me.
In the end most people who are invested in this city have a similar end game, to make us competitive with the population weight we hold, it's a question of how to get there. Cracker box homes with pink lawns destroying one of the most diverse and unique ecosystems in the world for the sake of growth isn't the way and I think most of us agree with that statement. It used to make sense but now we're just building a house of cards by letting it continue.
Unless you are within an hour of the ocean, I see little benefit to living in CA. The inland areas of the Coachella Valley and High Desert like Victorville and Lancaster have similar weather, vegetation or lack thereof as parts of Arizona. Why would you get priced out of LA only to get cheaper housing in these exurbs but still deal with CA politics and taxes.
Ironically the only area of CA with stable water situation is the Imperial Valley which most don't want to live in due to AZ like heat along with low wages, high unemployment and basically an overflow of Mexicali.
Easy to see why many priced out of LA, OC and SD come to AZ.
I grew up in Los Angeles and I live in Miami. Phoenix is a much nicer place to live and work. Cities like L.A. and Miami are fun places to visit but terrible places to live. The day to day grind and inconveniences make the quality of life there horrible. And most of their residents don't realize how bad it is there until they move here. I think of Phoenix as L.A. without the problems (traffic, crime, smog, bad healthcare, inflated cost of living, rude people, unprofessional attitudes in the working place). I can still visit and enjoy all the elements of those cities without having to endure the daily grind and poor day-to-day quality of life. Very few people (multi millionaires) can actually afford to have a hassle free life there.
It depends on your station in life. If you are a single person in the your early to mid 20's, sure I can understand how those other cities would be more appealing. But for working professionals with families, Phoenix is far nicer.
And fortunately at this time Phoenix offers this lifestyle almost exclusively. You're missing the point.
It's about diversity something that would help us a lot.
You have nothing to fear. It's funny how this topic is still a point of debate when in reality it isn't. The movement is already well under way. Downtown Phoenix has grown leaps and bounds in just a few short years. Ever since they relocated ASU's graduate education from Tempe to downtown Phoenix, the downtown has finally taken off. And the desire for town homes and urban living has already forced developers to respond to that demand. It's funny because people on City Data are completely in the dark and have no clue what is really going on in the Valley.I'm not referring to you; quite the contrary, you are one of the few who actually understands what is going on. Everything is doom and gloom here but in the real world, it's anything but that.
You have nothing to fear. It's funny how this topic is still a point of debate when in reality it isn't. The movement is already well under way. Downtown Phoenix has grown leaps and bounds in just a few short years. Ever since they relocated ASU's graduate education from Tempe to downtown Phoenix, the downtown has finally taken off. And the desire for town homes and urban living has already forced developers to respond to that demand. It's funny because people on City Data are completely in the dark and have no clue what is really going on in the Valley.I'm not referring to you; quite the contrary, you are one of the few who actually understands what is going on. Everything is doom and gloom here but in the real world, it's anything but that.
Lots of truth in this.
I remember about 18 years ago when downtown Phoenix was a deadzone, there wouldn't be anyone who wanted to go downtown except working nine to five and be in a hurry to drive home.
In some ways it's still like that but it's denser and more active now thanks to ASU, light rail, convention center expansion, professional sports, bars and restaurants staying open later, and more residential living.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
