Why are liberal areas so pricey on real estate usually compared to conservative (radical, high school)

[NigerianNightmare]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

In any city, any metro area, any locale, it generally holds, that the places with more elaborate and higher-quality amenities, with stronger schools and cleaner parks and so forth, will have some combination of higher housing prices and higher property taxes, more intrusive regulation and a sense of exclusivity. But this is not unique to the Coasts, to big cities or the popular parts of the country. In our “working class” Ohio city and the metro-area anchoring it, the toniest suburban towns with the best schools all have significantly higher housing-costs than do the surrounding areas. Taxes are also higher.

The broader question is not about local variations, but national ones. Compton was mentioned as an example in this thread. Compton is one of the poorest and crime-infested areas in the greater-LA metro area, and yet, houses in lowly and undesirable Compton are twice as expensive as comparable houses in the best and most exclusive of our local towns/suburbs: Oakwood. Oakwood is famous (locally) for its prime schools, elegant dining, impeccably clean streets, strict zoning and snobbish culture. And yet, there it is, more than twice as cheap as Compton.

The real question is, why are the areas in the DC-Boston corridor, and areas immediately hugging the Pacific Coast, so expensive? Even a smallish town on the CA coast, far from SF or LA, will have expensive housing. But even the most economically vibrant city in the Midwest will have moderate housing prices (except for Chicago).

People are paying for the proximity to wealth. If you have 350,000 people with a net worth of one million people and 1,000,000- $50,000 dollars net worth people, and 1,600,000 quarter of a million net worth individuals, it might seem the same on paper but you'll pay more in the first place than the second place every time. Because proximity to more wealthy people leads to more expensive housing regardless of how poor a general area or region is. https://www.pulse.com.gh/bi/lifestyl...rtment/eg7zssc

(Those are yearly rates). You could be paying as much as nearly 2,000 dollars a month (median/average) for the most expensive places in a third world country, because your paying for proximity to wealth.

This is true worldwide. Hence Vancouver is uber expensive because it is very wealthy for it's size, it's a curse of prosperity. Of course their are other factors which lead to areas like Chicago were demand isn't as extreme and it's much cheaper than it's peers, but the inner city is still very expensive compared to most inner cities in much more conservative parts of America.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by ottomobeale

Martinsburg WV has a train to DC now. Im all for high speed rail coming out of big job centers. Gives lower paid workers a better shot at a better life in lower cost areas while providing access to those job centers.

Beautiful areas too.....sadly, though, the problems are more on the interior where they cut the tops of mountains off, pollute streams and have no job infrastructure.

At least WV will get some property taxes and a small amount of jobs out of those monied folks who head that direction.

[James Bond 007]

If you insist ...

Originally Posted by Cheesemont

The reason is super rich conservatives often live in big cities. And big cities attract the leftwing riffraff who are on food stamps and SSI. So these rich conservatives skew the mean income and home prices in the cities. But the leftwingers try to hijack credit for these blue areas being wealthy.

The opposite holds true in the red states. I can't tell you how many times dimbulb leftwingers say "Oh, liberals subsidize conservatives because the blue states give money to the red." So the southern states are indeed red and poor. But those states also lead the country in the percent of blacks. Poor blacks who vote Democrat.


So yes, blue states pay for red states, but it is the super rich conservatives in the blue states paying for the poor black Democrats in the red states. Coz think about it. Leftwingers don't pay the bills for themselves, much less subsidize others.

I am afraid to inform you, but these days there are as many superrich liberals as there are superrich conservatives. In fact, probably even more (California being a prime example, but see also rich liberal ski towns in Colorado, rich liberals in NYC, and so on). So your whole premise falls apart. You made an assumption about rich conservatives that isn't even true. I could just as easily - if not MORE easily - say that it is the rich liberals in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Aspen and NYC who are paying for the poor black democrats in red states.

[craigiri]

Rich conservatives, even if they have to live near their resource extraction and meat-packing and excess-development industries, have their 2nd houses in Newport, RI, on the Cape, etc.

It's not happenstance that the Kochs have a place on the cape..nor that I see many Texas license plates in Newport, RI.

I'm sure the same is true for ski towns. The last thing most wealthy conservatives want to do is to go to church and hang around the smokestacks and smells of their making.

This has been going on forever. The Copper Barons who dug up a lot of Arizona found they could not handle breathing the air that they created...and so moved away. Carnegie didn't live in Pittsburgh where his steel works were...he lived in NYC. Frick (the Coke King) did the same.

What else is new? If you have money you can get away from the mess you created.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

If you insist ...

I am afraid to inform you, but these days there are as many superrich liberals as there are superrich conservatives. .

Not even close. Dig up the totals of Silicon Valley, NYC and SoCal and Boston big money and it's all center-left to left. We hear about the conservatives since they created the right wing movement (Kochs, Hunts, Mercers, Mellon-Scaifes), but they are far outnumbered these days.

"A whopping 80 percent of all venture capital investment goes to just three states: California, New York and Massachusetts"

That should tell the OP something...but they probably won't listen.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by ram2

Liberals have been running Detroit since 1962. What happened to the liberal dream there?

Detroit's problem was their entire economy was centered on auto production, then NAFTA happened, and the Japanese flooded this country with (at the time) cheaper more fuel efficient cars, and GM especially moved some production down to Mexico where they could pay workers like $1/hr with no benefits

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Enigma777

What gave it away? The use of "libritard"? Lol. So mature.

Poster either gets an 'A' for creativity or an 'F' for misspelling '*******'.

I get it now--'Libritard' is a way of getting around the mods because '*******' is now asterisks. Having never used the word, I had no idea it is banned.

That's ok, I still unfortunately see it uncensored every day on YouTube from tRump supporters who troll my progressive channels like YoungTurks, MajorityReport and SecularTalk 😑

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by artillery77

If I'm a person that decided 20 years ago I was never going to achieve more than what I could do in high school and I didn't want to work very hard doing it, then I need to move to the city.

Hmmm. The states with the highest percentages of college graduates are all blue (MA, CO, MD, CT and NJ). Those with the lowest number of college grads are all red (WV, MS, AR, KY and LA).

Seems like those who don't wish to achieve more than a HS diploma can get them are all in rural, conservative states.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Detroit's problem was their entire economy was centered on auto production, then NAFTA happened, and the Japanese flooded this country with (at the time) cheaper more fuel efficient cars, and GM especially moved some production down to Mexico where they could pay workers like $1/hr with no benefits

NAFTA took effect in the 1990s. Detroit went downhill in the 1960s.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by ram2

NAFTA took effect in the 1990s. Detroit went downhill in the 1960s.

It was the 70s when Japanese cars started flooding into this country, that's why I also mentioned them