Pittsburgh; Llivable or Leavable? (York, Washington: real estate, foreclosures, insurance)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Its worked just fine before, the prices are just going to go back to historic norms.

Again, the issue isn't prices per se. It is cutting tax receipts in half, which means cutting budgets in half. That hasn't happened before.

This is not too important, different people make different choices on housing. If people in region X tend to spend more of their income on housing (because they like to show off with bigger houses etc) then region Y then its not an important metric.

It is quite unlikely houses are 3.5 times bigger on average in CA cities.

Regardless, my general point is simply that taxes in Pittsburgh are bad. They are heavy on the middle-class and small business. Many areas of the country do much better and this is a problem for the area.

I agree some aspects of the tax scheme in PA should be changed. But the overall magnitude of the personal taxes is not the issue--the lack of progressivity is, however.

It also seems you suggesting that once the "old Pittsburgh" finally dies the "new Pittsburgh" will start some real growth.

No, the new Pittsburgh is already growing.

New Pittsburgh looks a lot like old Pittsburgh, its poorly managed and dominated by very few industries.

No, there is nothing like the former dominance of the steel industry.

[Humanoid]

It is cutting tax receipts in half, which means cutting budgets in half. That hasn't happened before.

Why in the world would tax receipts cut in half? The majority of houses in CA were purchased before the housing bubble, there will be absolutely no change in the tax revenue from these homes. Unlike PA the state cannot increase your tax just because the value of your house increased, the increase is at most 1% of your current tax. Only houses purchased between 2003-2007 will see reduced property tax. So even if prices in CA drop 50% from peak the reduction in property tax receipts will be more like 10~15% not 50%. I can cut 10% of fat from the school system in my sleep.

No, the new Pittsburgh is already growing.

Ugh, show me a city-level measure that shows Pittsburgh is seeing real growth not just nominal growth. There is no way to separate "new Pittsburgh" from "old Pittsburgh" in any measurable way, so how you can do this is beyond me. More rabbits out of the arse?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Why in the world would tax receipts cut in half? The majority of houses in CA were purchased before the housing bubble, there will be absolutely no change in the tax revenue from these homes. Unlike PA the state cannot increase your tax just because the value of your house increased, the increase is at most 1% of your current tax. Only houses purchased between 2003-2007 will see reduced property tax. So even if prices in CA drop 50% from peak the reduction in property tax receipts will be more like 10~15% not 50%. I can cut 10% of fat from the school system in my sleep.

The statistics I linked above where for actual property taxes paid as a percentage of income in California cities. Accordingly, to the extent your latest analysis is correct, it just demonstrates that your prior claim that the bursting housing bubble will undo this situation is false.

The bottomline is that actual property taxes paid as a percentage of income can't fall dramatically in California without budgets being dramatically cut. So Californians are quite likely to continue to pay about the same amount of their income in property taxes as people in Pittsburgh.

Ugh, show me a city-level measure that shows Pittsburgh is seeing real growth not just nominal growth.

Before I do so, let me ask: are you seriously interested in learning something about this topic, or is this just a rhetorical question? I don't ask to be rude, but it isn't worth my time if you are not really interested in a serious answer.

More rabbits out of the arse?

This, for example, is the sort of thing which suggests to me you are not actually interested in a serious answer.

[guylocke]

Despite some claiming that you must work for the city (i've had people claim the same about me) BrianTH, I at least find your posts to be thoughtful, articulate, and accurate as far as I can tell.

I will be honest, it seems that some threads are somewhat hijacked by Humanoid and then your responses (I will be the first to say I don't read it all or even close to it all), but I wanted to tell you that it at least appears to me personally that you are trying to be helpful (others may say trying to add a positive spin) while Humanoid is more often sarcastic, rude, and purposefully argumentative (while casting negative spin).

That's my two cents. So, like I said, while I don't read every word you write, BrianTH, due to the fact that I would inherently have to read what Humanoid writes (which I don't do), I appreciate your time and effort.

And again, despite what a few might say, I'm sure you get PM'ed on a regular basis on how helpful and appreciated your posts are by outsiders who have accounts but don't post, cause I get them all the time, too.

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by guylocke

Despite some claiming that you must work for the city (i've had people claim the same about me) BrianTH, I at least find your posts to be thoughtful, articulate, and accurate as far as I can tell.

I will be honest, it seems that some threads are somewhat hijacked by Humanoid and then your responses (I will be the first to say I don't read it all or even close to it all), but I wanted to tell you that it at least appears to me personally that you are trying to be helpful (others may say trying to add a positive spin) while Humanoid is more often sarcastic, rude, and purposefully argumentative (while casting negative spin).

That's my two cents. So, like I said, while I don't read every word you write, BrianTH, due to the fact that I would inherently have to read what Humanoid writes (which I don't do), I appreciate your time and effort.

And you are entitled to your OPINION Guylocke. As I am entitled to mine and I think Humanoid is a pretty cool person with honest perceptions of the area.
I happen to appreciate HUMANOID'S time and effort.

[guylocke]

Yes but Humanoid posts things like this "More rabbits out of the arse?"

While BrianTH doesn't.

We're straying a bit from opinion stating with "More rabbits out of the arse?" doncha think?

[BrianTH]

guylocke,

First, thank you for the kind words!

I will be honest, it seems that some threads are somewhat hijacked by Humanoid and then your responses (I will be the first to say I don't read it all or even close to it all) ...

That is a quite fair point, and I will try to be more careful in the future about letting these back-and-forths dominate threads. I will also admit, though, that this has been a constant struggle for me during the entire time of my participation on the Internet--for whatever reason I just seem to be easily sucked into extended debates which may be of marginal interest to others.

[Humanoid]

The bottomline is that actual property taxes paid as a percentage of income can't fall dramatically in California without budgets being dramatically cut.

You probably don't get news about California, but the state is cutting its budget dramatically. As far the property tax/income ratio. The price declines are going to improve California's cities in these rankings, for example look at Riverside vs LA in the ranking. Why the difference? The only difference is that a house in riverside is cheaper. Also, note that the property taxes in the major cities are going to get hit more than California in general (which contrary to what most think has many cheap areas). So although property tax receipts to the state as a whole may only drop 10~15% it will drop more in the major cities which were home to more speculative purchasing. Also are you aware of the sorts of loans being using in CA? Option-ARMs have greatly changed the income/house price ratios, so if you ignore the teaser rates people have been spending 50%+ on their income on their house. Anyhow, it is my view that California does property tax right and Pittsburgh completely wrong.

Before I do so, let me ask: are you seriously interested in learning something about this topic

I'm interested so long as its not what is typically seen on this forum - propaganda. If attention is paid to nominal vs real growth rates then I would indeed be interested in seeing the areas where Pittsburgh has real growth rates. I don't claim to be all knowing about Pittsburgh, rather all the reports that I have seen do not show real growth, just at best nominal growth.

[Seeker654321]

Statistics aside, I'd like to weigh in as an unemployed, college-educated, mid-career individual who is gearing up to leave Western Pennsylvania.

Frankly, job hunting here has been a miserable, absolutely disheartening experience. (And if the number of 'Garage Sale: Moving to Another State' ads on Craigslist is any indication, I'm probably not the only one who has decided to throw in the towel.)

I've traveled to communities in other states, checking them out to see if I want to move there, and I've seen firsthand that not all of the U.S. is like the Pittsburgh area.

There are many, many communities elsewhere in the U.S. that are thriving, despite the current economic downturn, and many of these communities have a cost of living that's similar to Western Pennsylvania.

A snarky response would be: "Don't let the door hit ya on the way out," but guess what? It's never a good idea for a community to lose its working class taxpayers.

Pennsylvania is being touted as a mecca for retirees, but guess what? Pennsylvania's senior citizens don't pay taxes on retirement income. So, as more seniors move here (and stay here) and the working class moves out, it's the remaining workers who pick up the tab.

The other thing that has enticed me to move is the fact that women in Southwestern Pennsylvania earn an average of just 69 cents for every dollar a man is paid. (This data is from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Pennsylvania Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.) So, even if I COULD get a job, I would be paid less than a man doing similar work.

So in a nutshell, it's not worth it for me to stay.

[Humanoid]

So, even if I COULD get a job, I would be paid less than a man doing similar work.

You can't take that data and conclude this. For a good explanation about men/women pay differences (and why they don't necessary mean something is wrong) read "Economic Myths and Fallacies".
The basic problem is that women and men have rather different lifestyles and it is this lifestyle that causes the difference in pay not the fact that you have different sexual organs. Most women leave the work force while they have kids, this puts them well behind men who stay in the work force. If you look at single women (who's never been married and doesn't have kids) and compare them to single men (likewise never married, no kids), the women actually make more. This would imply that the causal picture is much different than what people like to imply from the data. It is not being a women that causes the pay differences, rather it is the lifestyle that women pick that causes it. If you do not have such a lifestyle there is no reason to believe you'll get paid less.

Also, the data may be a bit worse in Pittsburgh as women (at least from my experience) tend to be stay at home moms more than else where.