Dems fleeing CA for TX, but still voting Dem..

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

What’s your point other than a non sequitur about how California has empty desert? You clearly have nothing to counter with.

All the problems y’all are trying to associate with politics are far more easily explained by geography and population growth.

It's a simple and well understood economic construct that taxes become baked into prices. You and others here not getting a high school level economics argument........well you can't blame me.

I'll take a few and explain it bit by bit if you'd like. There's plenty to counter with so stop with the deflection.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

But make no mistake, while the seed of Austin's NIMBYism was born from those already there in the 1970s, it has been reinforced multiple times over by West Coasters who were already aligned with that philosophy. It's likely that this attitude is part of what makes Austin attractive to them. And I personally don't think it's aligned with a particular political party, it's just a general sickness that was incredibly over-indulged in California by elected officials, court judges and others that should have known better.

Time and again you try to comment on Austin's culture, but it's pretty apparent you have no idea what the city is like. Houston and Dallas have far higher in-migration from California than Austin. Austin's growth primarily comes from within Texas. Let's see if numbers will stop the straw grasping.
https://flowsmapper.geo.census.gov/map.html

Originally Posted by EDS_

It's a simple and well understood economic construct that taxes become baked into prices. You and others here not getting a high school level economics argument........well you can't blame me.

I'll take a few and explain it bit by bit if you'd like. There's plenty to counter with so stop with the deflection.

Remove all taxes and all regulations from both California and Texas, and the dynamics wouldn't change much. You have no counter to that.

Rather than understand the dynamics of cities, geographies, and supply and demand equilibria of housing and labor markets, you're going to condescendingly go through two mortgage calculations. Go for it.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Time and again you try to comment on Austin's culture, but it's pretty apparent you have no idea what the city is like. Houston and Dallas have far higher in-migration from California than Austin. Austin's growth primarily comes from within Texas. Let's see if numbers will stop the straw grasping.
https://flowsmapper.geo.census.gov/map.html


Remove all taxes and all regulations from both California and Texas, and the dynamics wouldn't change much. You have no counter to that.

Rather than understand the dynamics of cities, geographies, and supply and demand equilibria of housing and labor markets, you're going to condescendingly go through two mortgage calculations. Go for it.

Houston and DFW have more in-migration from everywhere, because, size.

And it's true that I never lived in Austin, though I am a native Houstonian. I also lived for several years in the Bay Area. It was, and remains, common to hear that the only city in Texas that Bay Areans - the absolute champions of NIMBYism and anti-housing activity - would be willing to live in was Austin. I have to think that at least part of their reasoning is that they perceived (correctly) that Austin shared similar terrible attitudes toward housing growth and urban change and how much voice citizens should have in others' property rights. Don't you think that there's likely some self-selection going on for Californians who are particularly pre-disposed to such attitudes preferring Austin over DFW or Houston?

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Houston and DFW have more in-migration from everywhere, because, size.

And it's true that I never lived in Austin, though I am a native Houstonian. I also lived for several years in the Bay Area. It was, and remains, common to hear that the only city in Texas that Bay Areans - the absolute champions of NIMBYism and anti-housing activity - would be willing to live in was Austin. I have to think that at least part of their reasoning is that they perceived (correctly) that Austin shared similar terrible attitudes toward housing growth and urban change and how much voice citizens should have in others' property rights. Don't you think that there's likely some self-selection going on for Californians who are particularly pre-disposed to such attitudes preferring Austin over DFW or Houston?

So the claim has gone from Californians inventing NIMBYism, to Californians having an outsized impact on Austin, to transplants self-selecting into the local culture. That works for me I guess.

Austin has been a destination city for decades because of its culture and setting. It never set out to be a big city. Destination cities have always had this issue where people want to freeze the city in time from when they arrived. This inhibits housing stock growth, but not the growth of desirability, so property prices go up. NIMBYs get their cake and eat it too. California has always had a much higher concentration of destinations compared to most of the country, so it makes sense that the phenomenon is more apparent there, but the vilification is completely unwarranted.

NIMBYism attracts dumb nostalgic people from all political stripes and parts of the world. Conservative NIMBYs defend their stance from a standpoint of "change intrudes on my property rights". Champagne liberals defend their stance from a standpoint of "growth is bad for the environment and my community". I actually tend to be sympathetic to the champagne liberal stance in regards to environmental concerns, but I'm also a realist and know that exponential growth is inevitable, and dense, close-knit communities are more resilient to natural disasters.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Remove all taxes and all regulations from both California and Texas, and the dynamics wouldn't change much. You have no counter to that.

Rather than understand the dynamics of cities, geographies, and supply and demand equilibria of housing and labor markets, you're going to condescendingly go through two mortgage calculations. Go for it.

1. Literally no one mentioned removing all taxes. So there's no need to counter.

2. I didn't mention mortgages either.

3. I did mentioned tax impacts on prices.

This is the most simple graph I could find.

Notes: As taxes go up prices go up, quantities demanded go down and or supply is restricted by makers.

Scroll 1/8 page down to the graph. In the longer term prices settle even higher with buyers paying all taxes save a few oddball exceptions.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/g...ndirect-taxes/

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

So the claim has gone from Californians inventing NIMBYism, to Californians having an outsized impact on Austin, to transplants self-selecting into the local culture. That works for me I guess.

Austin has been a destination city for decades because of its culture and setting. It never set out to be a big city. Destination cities have always had this issue where people want to freeze the city in time from when they arrived. This inhibits housing stock growth, but not the growth of desirability, so property prices go up. NIMBYs get their cake and eat it too. California has always had a much higher concentration of destinations compared to most of the country, so it makes sense that the phenomenon is more apparent there, but the vilification is completely unwarranted.

NIMBYism attracts dumb nostalgic people from all political stripes and parts of the world. Conservative NIMBYs defend their stance from a standpoint of "change intrudes on my property rights". Champagne liberals defend their stance from a standpoint of "growth is bad for the environment and my community". I actually tend to be sympathetic to the champagne liberal stance in regards to environmental concerns, but I'm also a realist and know that exponential growth is inevitable, and dense, close-knit communities are more resilient to natural disasters.

I agree with your point about destination cities (or really metros), but the vilification is absolutely warranted. Legislatively, coastal California was the leader in enacting the processes and regulations that have either inspired or been modeled elsewhere. And while some of the folks who pushed them probably had altruistic motivations, I firmly believe that the bulk of the support came from folks who intuitively knew they could use them utterly selfishly and ultimately maliciously.

And to be clear, I don't just mean zoning - that's been done all over the place, including Texas. I mean the citizen input, arbitrary prerogative by local officials, and the additional regulations layered into the development process.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. Literally no one mentioned removing all taxes. So there's no need to counter.

The argument is that California created its high housing prices with taxes, no? Is this whole thread not about

In the grand scheme of things, taxes are an insignificant factor in the housing market issues pushing people to Middle America.

2. I didn't mention mortgages either.

Apart from the high rollers who can pay in cash, everyone buys property with a mortgage. The average home buyer looks at the monthly payment, which is a function of down payment, interest rate, and property taxes.

3. I did mentioned tax impacts on prices.

You know California has lower effective property tax rates than Texas, right?

This is the most simple graph I could find.

Notes: As taxes go up prices go up, quantities demanded go down and or supply is restricted by makers.

Scroll 1/8 page down to the graph. In the longer term prices settle even higher with buyers paying all taxes save a few oddball exceptions.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/g...ndirect-taxes/

Yes, I get supply-demand graphs. You, however, don't seem to understand that VATs and sales taxes aren't applicable to housing in the slightest.

The rule of thumb for mortgage underwriters for a 30 year mortgage is:
i=interest rate

28%*(buyer's monthly income) = (home price - down payment){[(i)(1+i)^30]/[(1+i)^30-1]}/12 + home insurance + (effective property tax rate/12)*(home price)

Let's say someone is looking to buy in one of two states. Their income and interest rate are the same. Let's assume the insurance is as well and that the homebuyer can put down 20% on either house. Solve for the two unknowns, and what you find is that there's an inverse relationship between property tax rates and home prices. The lower the property tax rate, the higher the home price. What this means is that the homeowner, though paying a high sticker price, has the same monthly payment and is building equity much faster relative to their income. The property tax scheme Texas has set up depresses home prices and inhibits equity building for the middle class.