Moving to California is Chic Again (home sales, buyer, schools)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

Wikipedia is pretty keen....but so is the book "Progress and Poverty" Now...I know you may be allergic to knowledge, but hey, maybe you could read it one day? Its pretty cheap on amazon!

And you little bugger you...when you said you were "not in the mood for me" you were fibbin'....weren't ya?

Yeah Kinda sorta ... you kinda grow on a guy, like barnacles on hull ...

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes, I know you feel that way, but the evidence doesn't demonstrate it. An increase in the concentration of wealth doesn't preclude the growth of the middle-class....so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that measure.
OK for now.. I will need to do research to prove what is clear in my mind.



No, but none of that explains the real estate costs in California. As far as state policy is concerned the two biggest issues that distort the real estate market are the existence and placement of state park land and prop 13. Are there many people in the bay area suggesting we should cut down the redwoods, etc to build homes? That would, at least temporarily, reduce real estate costs. But what would happen after the forests got built out? Vertical growth would continue and prices would continue to appreciate.

I by no means think we should have unregulated growth.. Yes, green open space and restriction on development increases value of existing real estate.. Sure maybe temporary maybe not... Think Mexico city... endless sprawl of cardboard houses... Unlimited cheap housing... Again not that I think it is a good idea, but simply suggesting it is not a "free" market...

Artificial in what sense? Are all matters of government with respect to real estate artificial?
Good questions.. What is not artificial? Oil prices are artificial, I consider the USA military a gigantic subsidy to the oil industry...
Also, free market doesn't mean "free from any government regulation", in fact many markets can't even exist without government regulation.
Yes very true... Sorta funny to call it "free"... To me it is what ever lobby group, or the most influential group, calls the shots, and the concept of "free market" is a bit of a fallacy....

We could have endless low cost housing in California if it was the will of the people... I come back full circle in agreeing with you point of complaining... That is of course if people believe elected officials act on behalf of the majority, and not no behalf of the elite..

Oh.. I am not seeing how prop 13 makes for high real estate prices?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

We could have endless low cost housing in California if it was the will of the people...

Endless? What does that mean? California already has a lot of affordable housing..but if you mean the entire state could be affordable...how exactly? How do you determine who gets to live in the most desirable areas? A lotto?

You are pretending as if "free market" refers to systems with no rules but that isn't what the term means at all, instead you are equivocating. A free market is simply a system where prices are set by supply/demand. Talking about whether or not state policies effect house prices only makes sense if you're assuming the market is free....

Anyhow, the high real estate costs in cities like San Fransisco are the result of urbanization not state policy. Indeed, if state policy was inflating real estate prices to that degree real estate costs would be universally high in California...but they aren't. You can see the same sort of behavior in real estate markets 100+ years ago when there were a lot less "rules".

How does prop 13 effect prices? Prop 13 creates incentives to hold property instead of sell it, that is true of both personal residences and investor held properties. Less supply leads to higher prices...

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by user_id

How does prop 13 effect prices? Prop 13 creates incentives to hold property instead of sell it, that is true of both personal residences and investor held properties. Less supply leads to higher prices...

The tax incentive to stay put really only applies if property appreciates at a rate greater than Prop 13's annual inflation factor of 2%.

History has shown property does not always increase... in my short tenure in Oakland CA I have seen several price reversals.

Also... plenty of people simply choose to move for whatever reason... downsizing, moving closer to family, change of climate, scenery or pace/cost of living...

Additionally, certain jurisdictions have a propensity to approve additional assessments... know more than a few that have left the big city and traded for a county address and one of the reasons for all were lower taxes.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by user_id

Endless? What does that mean? California already has a lot of affordable housing..but if you mean the entire state could be affordable...how exactly? How do you determine who gets to live in the most desirable areas? A lotto?
Ok, endless was a poor choice of words on my part.. I was trying relay the image of shanty towns in Mexico or other places without restriction or ordinance, One will find card board shacks as far as the eye can see.. ie.. affordable housing..not desirable housing... "free market" economics determine who gets to live in desirable areas, just as it does now... This is not all or nothing, black and white.. Sure we see the effects of "free market" driving up costs on the desirable California coast... My point is regulation/zoning/ordinance/park/green space ALSO impact pricing..

You are pretending as if "free market" refers to systems with no rules but that isn't what the term means at all, instead you are equivocating. A free market is simply a system where prices are set by supply/demand. Talking about whether or not state policies effect house prices only makes sense if you're assuming the market is free....
No that was not my assumption... It is a dynamic, just saying we have the ability to lower housing costs by changing policy.. To a point of course physical geography plays a major role too..

Anyhow, the high real estate costs in cities like San Fransisco are the result of urbanization not state policy. Indeed, if state policy was inflating real estate prices to that degree real estate costs would be universally high in California...but they aren't. You can see the same sort of behavior in real estate markets 100+ years ago when there were a lot less "rules".
I agree to a point, however policy can and does effect real costs. Policy is a lever and control of free market systems, it is not part of the system.

How does prop 13 effect prices? Prop 13 creates incentives to hold property instead of sell it, that is true of both personal residences and investor held properties. Less supply leads to higher prices...

Again, I by no means am proposing turning coastal California into a third world shanty town... I for one appreciate the green spaces, and the European style of land management some areas of California implement... Hence one of the reasons some areas are so desirable, and command a premium to reside there.... Free market at work...

So after all this babble.. The solution for people who find housing prices too high and are unable to increase their net worth are simple..

A. Campaign to be come a majority, and implement policy change via elected government.

B. Move to a less sought after location.

[jw2]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

...

So after all this babble.. The solution for people who find housing prices too high and are unable to increase their net worth are simple..

A. Campaign to be come a majority, and implement policy change via elected government.

B. Move to a less sought after location.

I am having some difficulty following your reasoning. Can you provide some insights or examples on how you would implement policy change to make desirable places affordable to everyone?

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by jw2

I am having some difficulty following your reasoning. Can you provide some insights or examples on how you would implement policy change to make desirable places affordable to everyone?

You can not do it.... Have your cake and eat it too..

I am not saying I advocate this, just making a hypothetical argument... To counter the whining about how expensive coastal California real-estate is...

If those that want to take action simply need to move the levers of regulation via goverment and make desirable places less desirable, via building high density apartment complexes beachfront or in desirable neighborhoods, eliminate lot size restrictions/building codes/and zoning. Build shanty towns where parks/green space exist...

The desirable aspects of the area will quickly be reduced and the area will be more affordable.... Look at the bands of urban decay surrounding places like Detroit, where suburban flight keeps moving outward... LA's unique topography has made the pattern look different...

If you desire a neighborhood with desirable million dollar homes, then it is going to cost a million dollars..

The balance between the perceived definition of "desirable" and "affordable" Is the tight rope we walk. Coastal California for the most part is desirable, therefore it is not affordable for everyone... The more desirable the less affordable, the less desirable the more affordable...

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The incentive to stay put really only applies if property appreciates at a rate greater than Prop 13's annual inflation factor of 2%.

History has shown property does not always increase... in my short tenure in Oakland CA I have seen several price reversals.

Also... plenty of people simply choose to move for whatever reason... downsizing, moving closer to family, change of climate, scenery or pace/cost of living...

Additionally, certain jurisdictions have a propensity to approve additional assessments... know more than a few that have left the big city and traded for a county address and one of the reasons for all were lower taxes.

My jurisdiction never met a "Progressive" or "Green" bond or outright direct tax funded initiative it didn't like. And most of the voters here have drunk the Koolaid. As a result, property taxes have risen as if we were in New Jersey and Prop 13 didn't even exist.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

My jurisdiction never met a "Progressive" or "Green" bond or outright direct tax funded initiative it didn't like. And most of the voters here have drunk the Koolaid. As a result, property taxes have risen as if we were in New Jersey and Prop 13 didn't even exist.

Till recently... almost every assessment requiring voter approval succeeded here in Oakland...

The Statewide Prop 13 rate is 1%

My most recent tax bill is 1.6% of assessed value which is way more than similar sales in my area due to all the added taxes... I think 26 at last count.

So my real tax rate is more like 2.2% of value.

I have filed and paid the fee to appeal... my understanding is the Assessor has 24 months to act.

In the meantime, the total billed amount must be paid.

The perception that Property Owners are under taxed couldn't be any farther from reality when applied to the home I bought during the Real Estate price run-up...

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

A. Campaign to be come a majority, and implement policy change via elected government.

B. Move to a less sought after location.

I really don't know what you have in mind for A.). What policy changes are going to make San Fransisco and similar coastal areas in LA affordable to the "middle-class"?