People are not leaving CA due to taxes and regulation. (Los Angeles: rent, how much)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

This thread is funny.

"People aren't leaving because of taxes and regulation!"

"They're leaving because they can't afford to live here!"

You can't make this up.

What's absolutely rolling in the aisles hilarious is your response that completely misses the relevant truths. For example? The OP linked a statistical study demonstrating that the vast majority of out-migration is lower income groups. Which groups don't suffer the taxation burden - nor are they significantly impacted by any perceived over-regulation. They're just worker-bees.

You can't make up this kind of total disconnect on your part.

[neutrino78x]

I grew up in California and don't plan to move anywhere else. I don't need or want a SFH. I suppose if I had the money I'd consider it. I would only get a SFH if I could get some awesome roommates, though.

In my case, a SFH is pointless because I have never had a GF and in all likelihood never will, and therefore don't have children.

If I did have children, I would prefer to raise them in the Bay Area in a rented apartment or condo, or a small condo that I own, instead of moving to Armpit, Kansas, where they would be surrounded by people with redneck values. For many people, it is preferred to live in "a shack" in a desirable area, rather than a SFH in an undesirable area.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

This thread is funny.

"People aren't leaving because of taxes and regulation!"

"They're leaving because they can't afford to live here!"

You can't make this up.

You mean there's a relationship between the two things? Who knew?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What's absolutely rolling in the aisles hilarious is your response that completely misses the relevant truths. For example? The OP linked a statistical study demonstrating that the vast majority of out-migration is lower income groups. Which groups don't suffer the taxation burden - nor are they significantly impacted by any perceived over-regulation. They're just worker-bees.

You can't make up this kind of total disconnect on your part.

They're very much affected by over regulation. Their biggest cost is housing costs. California has very restrictive building zoning policies that make it difficult or impossible to build, and those same policies drive up the cost of projects that do get built.


Since housing is most people's biggest expense, it's more than fair to say regulations are driving people out.


Heck, even liberal leaning folks are admitting it:

The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.


Fixing California: The Green Gentry


Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities - The Atlantic

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

In my case, a SFH is pointless because I have never had a GF and in all likelihood never will, and therefore don't have children.

Sounds like a self reinforcing feedback loop you've got going there.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

If I did have children, I would prefer to raise them in the Bay Area in a rented apartment or condo, or a small condo that I own, instead of moving to Armpit, Kansas, where they would be surrounded by people with redneck values. For many people, it is preferred to live in "a shack" in a desirable area, rather than a SFH in an undesirable area.

....because after all, there aren't any desirable places outside California that are more affordable.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Sounds like a self reinforcing feedback loop you've got going there.





....because after all, there aren't any desirable places outside California that are more affordable.

The feedback loop that you referenced, likely has subconsciously influenced the content of the numerous, sometimes rather long, posting by this individual

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

....because after all, there aren't any desirable places outside California that are more affordable.

Let me put it this way. Apparently you are a transplant and therefore don't recognize how great it is to live in the Bay Area. But if you are from a place like this, you don't want to move to Armpit, Arizona.

All the most desirable places have high cost of living: London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, San Jose.

Again, I would rather live in a shared apartment in London than have a single family home in Leeds.

I would rather live in a shared apartment in San Jose than have a single family home in Longnosehair, Arizona.

If you would rather move to Longnosehair, Arizona, just so you can have a SFH, by all means do so.

Those of us who grew up here and love the area are staying.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

They're very much affected by over regulation. Their biggest cost is housing costs. California has very restrictive building zoning policies that make it difficult or impossible to build, and those same policies drive up the cost of projects that do get built.


Since housing is most people's biggest expense, it's more than fair to say regulations are driving people out.


Heck, even liberal leaning folks are admitting it:

The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.


Fixing California: The Green Gentry


Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities - The Atlantic

Seems a little odd as many of the expensive places in California have strict rent control and also an abundance of those with housing subsidies...

SF, Berkeley, Oakland and many other smaller cities have rent control... Oakland even passed a moratorium on all rent increases...

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

They're very much affected by over regulation. Their biggest cost is housing costs. California has very restrictive building zoning policies that make it difficult or impossible to build, and those same policies drive up the cost of projects that do get built.

Only if by "build" you mean "build single family homes". Many high rise condo buildings have been built in San Jose and many more are coming.

The San Jose Blog: Two More High-Rises Planned for Downtown San Jose!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...ntown-san.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...ntown-san.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...e-for-san.html

If you insist on an SFH, this isn't your area, unless you have a VERY high income.

And that's the way it should be, because density is better for the economy and better for the environment.

[Ultrarunner]

Is it just me or have others noticed how traffic went for tolerable a few years ago to insane at times around the Bay Area?

San Francisco is especially bad and commute times are getting worse.

Not sure how much more prosperity the region can stand?