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.
It's not my intention to be insulting, but all of your posts in this thread says otherwise, you seem like a person that lacks life experience.
These people aren't cheating, there are newcomers who are earning their place in these exclusive locations.
You just need to accept that there are places, and lifestyles that only a few can afford.
Could the elderly afford to live in California if their homes were assessed periodically, and their property taxes rose as a result? That's the system in most places.
Could the young not afford to live in California if new homes were built close to cost, and land values were not inflated by zoning restrictions? Very few places in the US have urban growth boundaries.
I think the elderly in California on fixed incomes are the ones who can't afford to live there, not the professional couple making $250k who are priced out. It's only because the rules were changed 40 years ago that the elderly can stick around.
Changing the rules of the game to protect your position after you have gained is cheating. Having newcomers operate under the same rules you did is playing fair.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,652,907 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
Why shouldn't they?
Maybe the newcomers should earn their place, instead of demanding they be given more of whatever it is they want so its cheaper, and they can afford it.
Here's the irony, some of the newcomers will earn it, and have the house, and lifestyle they want. Guess what, they will become the new NIMBYs.
OP, some day when you grow up, and earned something of value, you won't give it up either.
The problem is with no new housing, the goal post to "earn it" continually gets moved up, to where one day, only Bill Gates or Warren Buffet would be able to afford a 1,000 sq ft teardown....
Could the elderly afford to live in California if their homes were assessed periodically, and their property taxes rose as a result? That's the system in most places.
Could the young not afford to live in California if new homes were built close to cost, and land values were not inflated by zoning restrictions? Very few places in the US have urban growth boundaries.
I think the elderly in California on fixed incomes are the ones who can't afford to live there, not the professional couple making $250k who are priced out. It's only because the rules were changed 40 years ago that the elderly can stick around.
Changing the rules of the game to protect your position after you have gained is cheating. Having newcomers operate under the same rules you did is playing fair.
Prop 13 is definitely how many elderly are able to remain in their homes. My grandmother is 95 and still lives in her home on 1 acre (half mile walk to the American River) in a very expensive neighborhood outside Sacramento. Her sister's family owns the property next door, and they have all lived there since the 1940's. If she were assessed as the other neighbors are she could not afford to keep the house they built in 1959. She would like someone in the family who is eligible to continue the Prop 13 to take the property when she dies. None of us want to live there. You could not get me to move back to California for any amount of money.
The problem is with no new housing, the goal post to "earn it" continually gets moved up, to where one day, only Bill Gates or Warren Buffet would be able to afford a 1,000 sq ft teardown....
The market will sort out who can afford to live where. The market can't add water, and neither can the state, not without adversely effecting the environment. There is of course a very limited supply of water.
The state clearly has no interest in adding to the water supply. I'd say it's because they don't want more people.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,652,907 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
The market will sort out who can afford to live where. The market can't add water, and neither can the state, not without adversely effecting the environment. There is of course a very limited supply of water.
The state clearly has no interest in adding to the water supply. I'd say it's because they don't want more people.
They are actually in the process of desalinating ocean water from the Pacific. The Carlsbad desalination plant finally came on line recently, and there are plans for two additional plants in the coming years from what I hear
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,652,907 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
The market will sort out who can afford to live where. The market can't add water, and neither can the state, not without adversely effecting the environment. There is of course a very limited supply of water.
The state clearly has no interest in adding to the water supply. I'd say it's because they don't want more people.
And any state that doesn't want more people is cutting their own throats as that means no new revenue
More political diatribe about California from people who don't live here. Yawn.
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.
