U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Jose
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-29-2013, 04:44 AM
 
Location: Southeast
247 posts, read 172,666 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
Or you could sell it to one of those young Apple workers at below market rates, bucking the market trend.
I am sorry, I did not mean to give you the impression that I am stupid.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2013, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Southeast
247 posts, read 172,666 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
I doubt we will ever agree... I do appreciate the opportunity the forums provide for lively discussion.

Yes, I doubt we will ever agree on this issue. I also appreciate the lively discussion. Peace.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 02:09 PM
 
6,805 posts, read 1,218,226 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
As Weak&Dizzy explained in an earlier post, HE WILL ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM CURRENT CA REAL ESATE TAX LAW due to an eventual inheritance which will keep the tax rates on the property at the same low rate. But unlike most people, he/she is not stuck in "me, me, me" mode. He is capable of stepping back and looking at the big picture to see that there is some unfairness to it (i.e. Just because Weak&Dizzy likes paying lower property taxes than his neighbors, he can see that doesn't make it fair. Imagine that!), even if he/she will benefit financially from the status quo.

Personally, I find it refreshing that some people can see beyond their own personal financial situation and see this type of unfairness. It's sad that it's so rare.
I'm not a house rich cash poor person in San Jose.

I do worry about someone who would tax those people in order to drive them out of their house. /shrug
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Murrieta California
1,912 posts, read 1,361,678 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeakandDizzy View Post
Senno,
I don't want anybody's house. I have one of my own and a chunk of land in the Southeast on which I am planning on building a home on in 2014. I have a mother, in laws, brothers and sisters, and nieces and nephews scattered about the Bay Area and the Central Valley, many of whom are homeowners. Some of the nieces and nephews are potential future homeowners. I understand these are all real people we are talking about. The point of my posts is that there are man made mechanisms in place that are causing the price of real estate to be higher in the SF Bay Area than it should be if it was more of a free market. The amount of land that is protected from development in the greater Bay Area is huge and Proposition 13 serves to keep retired people in workforce housing. I am not saying that we should build on every square foot of the greater Bay Area and I am not saying we should throw all of the old people out of their houses. I am simply saying that there are factors impacting the supply and price of housing that are artificial constructs and if you want to understand the issues surrounding the price of housing you must consider these things. Ultrarunner stated that housing is expensive in the Bay Area because of all the fees/permits, etc. needed to build. I agree with him that these fees are a part of the problem with high housing costs, but they are not the only issue. There are probably other factors involved that I am not aware of, these are just my observations comparing the Bay Area to other places in the U.S. that I have lived.
Workforce housing. You have to be joking. Prop 13 has nothing to do with the high cost of housing in San Jose. When I first moved to San Jose in 1971, housing was not excessively expensive. We bought a new 2100 sq.ft. 4BR, 3BA home in a nice area of San Jose in 1971 for $36,000. Prices started to escalate in 1973 and by 1975 my house value jumped to $85,000. This was because of new building restrictions in San Jose. Prop 13 came about in 1978 because of the rapid increases in home prices in California, not just the San Francisco Bay area. The San Francisco Bay area is not the only area with high housing prices though they are certainly at the top.

The reason for the high housing prices in San Jose is the demand exceeds the supply because of lack of new housing developments, a robust high tech industry with high paid professionals, and a lot of people want to live in the area.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Southeast
247 posts, read 172,666 times
Reputation: 249
[quote=JohnSoCal;28001186]Workforce housing. You have to be joking. Prop 13 has nothing to do with the high cost of housing in San Jose. When I first moved to San Jose in 1971, housing was not excessively expensive. We bought a new 2100 sq.ft. 4BR, 3BA home in a nice area of San Jose in 1971 for $36,000. Prices started to escalate in 1973 and by 1975 my house value jumped to $85,000. This was because of new building restrictions in San Jose. Prop 13 came about in 1978 because of the rapid increases in home prices in California, not just the San Francisco Bay area. The San Francisco Bay area is not the only area with high housing prices though they are certainly at the top.

The reason for the high housing prices in San Jose is the demand exceeds the supply because of lack of new housing developments, a robust high tech industry with high paid professionals, and a lot of people want to live in the area.[/quote]


No I am not joking. Agree with most of your points, especially the highlighted sentence. Prop 13 did not cause the prices to escalate but Prop 13 does keep the price of housing higher than it would be without it as it artificially restrains supply. There are many thousands of retired people living in the Bay Area who otherwise would leave the area because the value of their home exceeds their ability to pay market rate property taxes. This is what happens in the Northeast ( eg NY, Northern NJ). Sure some people, with adequate finances, would pay for the weather premium if taxes were allowed to rise to market rates. But many would leave for cheaper areas, in spite of having to take a downgrade in climate, freeing up thousands of homes that would be available for the workforce. I consider anyone who is actively working to support themselves plus or minus a family as part of the workforce. I agree with you that demand exceeds supply but as one other poster has stated, cities have little incentive to approve new housing as the property tax revenues generated are so low ( Prop 13) relative to retail properties that generate sales taxes and the NIMBYism in the SF Bay Area that has locked up thousands of acres that will never be open to development. So you are right , Prop 13 did not cause the run up in prices, but in my humble opinion, Prop 13 contributes to restraining the supply of housing and that of course contributes to keeping property prices higher than they would be otherwise. I don't know how much higher, I am not an economist, perhaps someone much smarter than I could calculate a credible estimate of the effect. I never meant to imply that SF Bay Area property would be cheap without Prop 13, just some degree less than the current outrageous prices.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 06:51 PM
 
6,805 posts, read 1,218,226 times
Reputation: 1911
Despite prop 13 the total tax burden on Californians is one of the highest of all the states. And we all know about the COLA. So many older posters frequent the CA boards from other states arguing they were driven out of state by high taxes and COLA, and you present the opposite argument; at least in part.

Do you want to tax those that are just wealthy enough to remain in their paid off homes and not be driven out of state or to cheaper COLA areas in-state? That smacks of "use ya and lose ya" to me. They worked for and paid off those homes and should be able to remain in them until they decide, and not be taxed out of them because some young'uns don't want to live in Gilroy and commute....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Southeast
247 posts, read 172,666 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
I'm not a house rich cash poor person in San Jose.

I do worry about someone who would tax those people in order to drive them out of their house. /shrug

Who says the goal of tax policy is to drive people out of their house? I thought taxes were raised to pay for services/infrastructure that accrue to the common good. Like courts, roads, public schools, a clean water supply, sewers, etc. Everyone in society benefits from good roads, schools ( even if you don't have children), a clean, safe water supply, etc. Society decides through their elected representatives or by proposition ( in California) what services/infrastructure they are willing to pay to support. My point is that people should understand the consequences , intended and unintended , of these tax policies. As one other poster has already stated, I will benefit from Prop 13 in the future. I am simply pointing out that it has consequences, both good and bad, depending on your point of view.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 06:53 PM
 
6,805 posts, read 1,218,226 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeakandDizzy View Post
Who says the goal of tax policy is to drive people out of their house? I thought taxes were raised to pay for services/infrastructure that accrue to the common good. Like courts, roads, public schools, a clean water supply, sewers, etc. Everyone in society benefits from good roads, schools ( even if you don't have children), a clean, safe water supply, etc. Society decides through their elected representatives or by proposition ( in California) what services/infrastructure they are willing to pay to support. My point is that people should understand the consequences , intended and unintended , of these tax policies. As one other poster has already stated, I will benefit from Prop 13 in the future. I am simply pointing out that it has consequences, both good and bad, depending on your point of view.
Seems to be your point of view as your consider their housing "workers" housing; unfortunately inhabited by some elderly people you have no use for...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Southeast
247 posts, read 172,666 times
Reputation: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
Seems to be your point of view as your consider their housing "workers" housing; unfortunately inhabited by some elderly people you have no use for...

OK, this is going to be my last post on this subject. Do you like clean air? Do you like to drive on freeways that are not jammed 24/7 ? I can't calculate the effect but I'm sure some one really smart can concerning the effect of high housing prices on these two subjects. Many " workers" commute hours each day to and from their homes in Tracy, Gilroy, Los Banos, etc. to their jobs in San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View , Palo Alto, etc. while elderly people who don't have to get up in the morning and head off to work sip coffee and read the newspaper 1-5 miles from ebay, google, apple, etc.. These elderly people can sip coffee and read the newspaper just as easily in Napa/Sonoma, Sonora, Grass Valley, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, Nv., Eugene, Ore., etc. etc. etc. Maybe if many of these old people moved to the above places the price of housing might be 10% lower than it is now ( I just made that number up, I don't know the actual number). Then maybe a few thousand more working people would be able to afford to live in Campbell, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara, etc. and they could drive, walk or bike the 1-5 miles to work instead of the 30-50 mile commutes they are doing now. I am not blaming all of the old people for the high cost of housing but they are contributing to the cost of housing by restraining supply. I have plenty of use for old people, I am damn near one of them myself. In my opinion they don't need their housing subsidized by tax policy so they can stay in the house they raised their children in to the detriment of the rest of society. I'm done.

Last edited by WeakandDizzy; 01-29-2013 at 07:24 PM.. Reason: grammar
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 12:25 AM
 
15 posts, read 13,163 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeakandDizzy View Post
OK, this is going to be my last post on this subject. Do you like clean air? Do you like to drive on freeways that are not jammed 24/7 ? I can't calculate the effect but I'm sure some one really smart can concerning the effect of high housing prices on these two subjects. Many " workers" commute hours each day to and from their homes in Tracy, Gilroy, Los Banos, etc. to their jobs in San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View , Palo Alto, etc. while elderly people who don't have to get up in the morning and head off to work sip coffee and read the newspaper 1-5 miles from ebay, google, apple, etc.. These elderly people can sip coffee and read the newspaper just as easily in Napa/Sonoma, Sonora, Grass Valley, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, Nv., Eugene, Ore., etc. etc. etc. Maybe if many of these old people moved to the above places the price of housing might be 10% lower than it is now ( I just made that number up, I don't know the actual number). Then maybe a few thousand more working people would be able to afford to live in Campbell, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara, etc. and they could drive, walk or bike the 1-5 miles to work instead of the 30-50 mile commutes they are doing now. I am not blaming all of the old people for the high cost of housing but they are contributing to the cost of housing by restraining supply. I have plenty of use for old people, I am damn near one of them myself. In my opinion they don't need their housing subsidized by tax policy so they can stay in the house they raised their children in to the detriment of the rest of society. I'm done.
Agree 100% (I am homeowner myself, far from retirement, but do not want my kid to suffer when she gets to buy her house).

Retired people still leave CA, despite Prop 13, the option of cashing in is appealing enough, so I am not sure how much prop 13 contributes to high prices. It seems that lack of new development and high number of high paying jobs are enough..
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Jose

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top