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.
But at some point you must stick to a measurable standard that can used for comparison if not a city proper at least a county. Batavia may have received influx from Buffalo's eastern areas and Seneca Falls seems equal between 2 cities who can say where to give the credit.
The down side of computers is people can cobble together statistics anyway they like to prove/disprove a point they are trying to make, after a while it gets ridicules. Just watch the evening news where this is the 4th time in the last 9.5 years that this has occurred on a .....
Combined Statistical Area is based upon US Census criteria in relation to commuting patterns(at least 15% of that county commuting to a central county, if I’m not mistaken), not computers. Where did that even come from? That criteria is uniform for all of the Combined Statistical Areas and Seneca County is in between Rochester and Syracuse, by the way.
Using city limits doesn’t work due to the variation of annexation and incorporation laws.
County could work, but that excludes other measures like metro and combined statistical areas. However, in that case, Monroe County has only seen 1 official census with a population decline(1980).
The 2010 actual was higher than the 2009 estimate. Therefore, the 2018 actual is higher than the 2018 estimate.
I get it.
what? You do realize that the actual census count only takes place every 10 years and that each year in between is only an estimate, not an actual count right? What I'm trying to tell you is that compares to the 2000 census, the 2009 census estimate showed Rochester as having lost thousands in population. The actual census taken in 2010 showed that in reality the Rochester metro gained thousands from the 2000 census.
Again, I didn't mention real estate but since you did high taxes absolutely impacts affordability. In a lower tax area, a $300k home could have the same total monthly cost as a $200k home in a high tax area. And more of the payment will go towards equity, bringing additional economic benefits to the homeowner.
How do you know that high taxes are not impeding demand for housing? On what do you base that?
I base it on the fact that the Rochester market as compared to other metros, sells homes quicker and has lower inventory. You are making the claim that thousands are leaving and that there is a net migration loss because of taxes. I'm proving your statement as being incorrect by the housing statistics. If there people leaving by the thousands because of property taxes. It means they need to sell homes. And if there is a net loss and more people selling homes than buying, that would reflect in the inventory and average time a home is listed.
The real statistics say otherwise and that demand is exceeding supply in the Rochester metro. So again, your statement that thousands are leaving because of property taxes and there being a net loss can't possibly be true. You can't get more direct than actual home sales statistics.
Also, your statements about what percentage goes towards equity and taxes are moot. The home sales statistics show that taxes aren't driving home buyer behavior. Affordability drives it.
I'll also ignore the inherent flaws in your argument about economic benefit too. Because when interest rates aren't at historically low levels and at more normal rates, that more expensive homes costs far more in interest going to the bank. So it's basically a wash. And in an area with more expensive homes, as interest rates rise, home affordability declines much faster. And you know what happens to home values for current home owners when that happens right?
Combined Statistical Area is based upon US Census criteria in relation to commuting patterns(at least 15% of that county commuting to a central county, if I’m not mistaken), not computers. Where did that even come from? That criteria is uniform for all of the Combined Statistical Areas and Seneca County is in between Rochester and Syracuse, by the way.
Using city limits doesn’t work due to the variation of annexation and incorporation laws.
County could work, but that excludes other measures like metro and combined statistical areas. However, in that case, Monroe County has only seen 1 official census with a population decline(1980).
And again hobbling an area than may spread over several counties in this case 6 counties does not provide an accurate measurement of a region. If 15% commute to one area where are the other 85% traveling? Looking at a map of CSA's in NY shows that some have more counties some less but overall they are not uniform for comparison.
I saw where Seneca Falls is between to areas that why I stated you can't determine where it's growth may have come from.
City sizes will always vary but a percentage of a cities population loss will be consistent, 10% loss in one city is 100 people and in another 1000 each of the examples has still lost 10% and that's whats being compared. You keep muddling everything with Metro/CSA's take an example either city or county and compare just that. Maybe Brighton or Henrietta consider themselves cities as themselves and don't want their accomplishments applied to Rochester or any incorporated community don't assume they want their success applied to the urban core.
And again hobbling an area than may spread over several counties in this case 6 counties does not provide an accurate measurement of a region. If 15% commute to one area where are the other 85% traveling? Looking at a map of CSA's in NY shows that some have more counties some less but overall they are not uniform for comparison.
I saw where Seneca Falls is between to areas that why I stated you can't determine where it's growth may have come from.
City sizes will always vary but a percentage of a cities population loss will be consistent, 10% loss in one city is 100 people and in another 1000 each of the examples has still lost 10% and that's whats being compared. You keep muddling everything with Metro/CSA's take an example either city or county and compare just that. Maybe Brighton or Henrietta consider themselves cities as themselves and don't want their accomplishments applied to Rochester or any incorporated community don't assume they want their success applied to the urban core.
What? My point was that while the metro area may show estimates of population loss since 2010 but, the estimates for the Rochester Combined Statistical Area is showing a slight population growth for roughly the same period and may mean that some people are just moving further out. That’s all...
Again, CSA affiliation is just like metro area affiliation, but with a lower threshold.
However, even looking at the Combined Statistical Area, Rochester's is still much smaller than many metro areas of roughly the same population in terms of land size. In fact, if you combined the Rochester and Buffalo Combined Statistical Areas, they would only be about 1000-1100 square miles bigger than the Richmond VA Metro Area, to put this into perspective. This is why this some of this has to be put into proper perspective, as the metro areas in NY State can be comparably much smaller than metros of a similar population elsewhere in terms of land area.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-18-2018 at 06:42 PM..
Whatever, you keep sprouting the same lines over and over CSA is not a consistent measurement and should not be used to compare areas. Choose a city or a county because then you can compare percentages of change not physical numbers.
Your line "you may also see some people just moving a little bit further out as well" I guess allows Rochester to claim ownership to the estimated 5 or 10 people that now reflect in Seneca Falls. You can't keep expanding adding counties so their 10 person growth can be added in. Why don't you just measure from Albany to Buffalo then anything can be included and there will never be loss just redistribution in the MSA/CSA.
For the record the City of Richmond only, no MSA, no counties had a growth rate of 11.1% from 2010 - 2017
I base it on the fact that the Rochester market as compared to other metros, sells homes quicker and has lower inventory. You are making the claim that thousands are leaving and that there is a net migration loss because of taxes. I'm proving your statement as being incorrect by the housing statistics. If there people leaving by the thousands because of property taxes. It means they need to sell homes. And if there is a net loss and more people selling homes than buying, that would reflect in the inventory and average time a home is listed.
The real statistics say otherwise and that demand is exceeding supply in the Rochester metro. So again, your statement that thousands are leaving because of property taxes and there being a net loss can't possibly be true. You can't get more direct than actual home sales statistics.
Also, your statements about what percentage goes towards equity and taxes are moot. The home sales statistics show that taxes aren't driving home buyer behavior. Affordability drives it.
I'll also ignore the inherent flaws in your argument about economic benefit too. Because when interest rates aren't at historically low levels and at more normal rates, that more expensive homes costs far more in interest going to the bank. So it's basically a wash. And in an area with more expensive homes, as interest rates rise, home affordability declines much faster. And you know what happens to home values for current home owners when that happens right?
The short market time of house closings as measured in the month of July 2018 is a data point. It in no way proves your theory. On the other hand, the migration out of upstate NY into the sun belt and western states has been going on for decades. You just aren't willing to accept that reality. Fine, have it your way in spite of the facts.
I would rather have more of my housing payment going to principal than to taxes because I can build equity that way. You are arguing that paying a higher proportion in taxes is advantageous. That's ridiculous.
Whatever, you keep sprouting the same lines over and over CSA is not a consistent measurement and should not be used to compare areas. Choose a city or a county because then you can compare percentages of change not physical numbers.
Your line "you may also see some people just moving a little bit further out as well" I guess allows Rochester to claim ownership to the estimated 5 or 10 people that now reflect in Seneca Falls. You can't keep expanding adding counties so their 10 person growth can be added in. Why don't you just measure from Albany to Buffalo then anything can be included and there will never be loss just redistribution in the MSA/CSA.
For the record the City of Richmond only, no MSA, no counties had a growth rate of 11.1% from 2010 - 2017
No...You are taking the post somewhere it wasn’t even going to. My point I was pretty self explanatory.
To be fair, Richmond is a little bit bigger than the size of Rochester and Syracuse city limits combined and isn’t that much bigger than Rochester in terms of city limits. So, I would hope it would have some growth given the trajectory of the area it is in.
The short market time of house closings as measured in the month of July 2018 is a data point. It in no way proves your theory. On the other hand, the migration out of upstate NY into the sun belt and western states has been going on for decades. You just aren't willing to accept that reality. Fine, have it your way in spite of the facts.
I would rather have more of my housing payment going to principal than to taxes because I can build equity that way. You are arguing that paying a higher proportion in taxes is advantageous. That's ridiculous.
In spite of the facts? Your "facts" don't support any of your claims about property taxes and migration. The only statistic you are using is an estimated census data point. It's not even an actual statistic. My facts are real data points. You are the one not accepting reality. Property taxes do not influence home purchasing or selling in a vacuum the way you claim. Affordability of homes do. And the statistics prove that.
Keep repeating the myth that property taxes make people move and that low taxes somehow equate to higher home equity. A mortgage for most people is a 30 year commitment. Interest rates fluctuate quite a bit over those 30 years. It's very short sighted and a myth to use a single year or a few years with historically low rates to determine how much "equity" you'll have in 30 years. It is reckless and really bad financial advice. You buy what you can afford (including taxes), and if you buy a home that costs more, but has lower tax rates during a low interest rate period (like today), then you better have a plan for when interest rates rise and the impact that those rates could have on your home value. Because you could very well find yourself under water on your mortgage contrary to the mythical claims being made.
I'll say it again. It's a bad financial move to buy a home for "equity". Especially if to get to that equity you find yourself paying a higher mortgage for a more expensive home simply because the taxes are lower. You buy what you can afford with an understanding of the local market, the history of the market and how that market may be impacted by future higher interest rates.
In spite of the facts? Your "facts" don't support any of your claims about property taxes and migration. The only statistic you are using is an estimated census data point. It's not even an actual statistic. My facts are real data points. You are the one not accepting reality. Property taxes do not influence home purchasing or selling in a vacuum the way you claim. Affordability of homes do. And the statistics prove that.
Keep repeating the myth that property taxes make people move and that low taxes somehow equate to higher home equity. A mortgage for most people is a 30 year commitment. Interest rates fluctuate quite a bit over those 30 years. It's very short sighted and a myth to use a single year or a few years with historically low rates to determine how much "equity" you'll have in 30 years. It is reckless and really bad financial advice. You buy what you can afford (including taxes), and if you buy a home that costs more, but has lower tax rates during a low interest rate period (like today), then you better have a plan for when interest rates rise and the impact that those rates could have on your home value. Because you could very well find yourself under water on your mortgage contrary to the mythical claims being made.
I'll say it again. It's a bad financial move to buy a home for "equity". Especially if to get to that equity you find yourself paying a higher mortgage for a more expensive home simply because the taxes are lower. You buy what you can afford with an understanding of the local market, the history of the market and how that market may be impacted by future higher interest rates.
You are ignoring decades of hard data. There has been an exodus from the area to the sun belt and western states for decades now. Part of it is due to climate but a large part of it is taxes. Taxes on individuals as well as businesses which are at the heart of capital formation. Open your eyes.
As a CFP ®, I think I know a few things about financial planning. One, building home equity is a very good thing to do. Two, the vast majority of homeowners do not hold their mortgages, especially first mortgages, for 30 years. This further underscores point one. Three, we have had relatively low interest rates for more than a decade, not a brief period. Even if that were not the case, mortgage interest is still tax deductible for the vast majority of home mortgages.
Your arguments are not valid. They fly in the face of decades of demographic data and are at odds with sound financial planning techniques.
Conversation over. Continue with yourself if you wish. I am out. Good luck to you and yours.
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.
