High Housing Prices In Tech Cities Are Now Raising Home Prices In Other States (bloombergquint.com)

Tech cities and their high housing prices are apparently now driving up home prices in other states. An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: For some Californians, the state's punishing housing costs, high taxes, and constant threat of natural disaster have all become too much... In the second quarter, only 26 percent of homebuyers in the state could afford to purchase a median-price single-family house, which was almost $600,000, according to the California Association of Realtors... They're making their escape to areas such as Boise, Phoenix, and Reno, Nevada, fueling some of the biggest home-price gains in the country... Almost 143,000 more people left the state than arrived from elsewhere in the U.S. in 2016....

Boise is becoming an alternative to traditional havens for Californians such as Portland and Seattle that have also gotten too pricey, says Glenn Kelman, chief executive officer of Redfin Inc., a national real estate brokerage that recently opened a Boise outpost. About 29 percent of the Idaho capital's home-listing views are from Californians, according to Realtor.com... In Nevada, where Californians make up the largest share of arrivals, prices jumped 13 percent in August, the biggest increase for any state, according to CoreLogic Inc. data. It was followed closely by Idaho, with a 12 percent gain...

[Boise]'s been particularly attractive to Californians, who accounted for 85 percent of net domestic immigration to Idaho, according to Realtor.com's analysis of 2016 Census data... The median existing-home price in Boise's home of Ada County was $299,950 last month -- up almost 18 percent from a year earlier, but still about half California's. The influx is great news for people who already own homes in the area, says Danielle Hale, chief economist for Realtor.com. "But if you're a local aspiring to homeownership, it feels very much that Californians are bringing high prices with them."

Comments

We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ZorinLynx]

We need higher density and more housing. The only way to solve this problem is to increase the supply; the ONLY reason this problem exists is because of lack of housing in places people want to live.

We need to rezone R-1 areas for multiple unit housing. R-1 zonings are a massively inefficient use of space and are part of the reason we have so much traffic and sprawl.

We need to give the NIMBY types the finger and BUILD MORE HOUSING. Especially in the Bay Area. It's the only thing that will solve this; even if you were to regulate prices, it'll just turn the problem into "nobody can FIND any housing."

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[b0s0z0ku]

Or just raise interest rates to pull the rug from under over-inflated markets that are being misused as investment casinos. That and tax vacant property at 1000% of the rate if it's lived in or rented.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[b0s0z0ku]

Better a tax than an outright ban. Harmful behavior should be discouraged, and keeping properties vacant long-term in markets that have a scarcity of housing qualifies as harmful.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ShanghaiBill]

We need higher density and more housing. The only way to solve this problem is to increase the supply; the ONLY reason this problem exists is because of lack of housing in places people want to live.

Indeed. Lack of housing in the most productive cities is a major drag on the economy, and also a major cause of inequality.

Lower income people are locked out of the cities with the best job opportunities and best pay. Meanwhile, soaring property values enrich the people who are already well off. Liberal NIMBYism may be responsible for even more of the growth in inequality than regressive conservative tax "reform".

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[r1348]

To be honest, taxing inefficiency should be something even the conservative crowd should embrace, and vacant housing is inefficient.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[paiute]

Using taxes to try to change behaviors or as de facto bans on certain things is a slippery slope that we should not ever start down.

I hate to break it to you, but the Federal tax code is 75000 odd pages - most of which were written expressly to change financial behavior.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[luther349]

you have any idea how many people live in the vans or rvs in that area because they cant afford or find housing. so lack of housing is a thing rite now. the city government stole billions that was giving them to build more housing. they have not green lit any new buildings in like 10 years. in short the bay area did it to themselves and are crying about it.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[superdave80]

There is also the opposite, BETTER solution: Stop encouraging more people to be born and immigrating here. You can't keep building more homes forever. Even if you can, there are lots of other resources that are becoming scares. Water. Transportation (just try driving around almost any area of California now days). I know that older people want more younger people so that their Social Security and pension ponzi schemes will be solvent, but they are just sticking us (and future generations) with the bill.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[mikael]

Families don't want to live in high rise blocks. What usually happens is that the more high-rise apartments you build, the more single couples you attract who then start looking for a "icing cake" home or a McMansion.

But there is a great waste of space where there are single story strip malls. In Europe and Canada you will find that they will build shopping malls next to Metro stations, and apartment/office blocks above those. Even strip malls will have three or more levels of apartments above them. Then you don't need a car to get around.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[misexistentialist]

Cost of construction is also through the roof, even converting existing buildings.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[jpaine619]

You are a fucking communist. When I buy property, I will decide what the fuck to do with it.

If you have a problem with that, then YOU can buy the property.

This high-prices blah blah blah is all bullshit. Sure, prices are going up, but that means that people who sell are getting a great return on an investment.

Depress the prices through taxes or regulations and you FUCK OVER everyone who wants to sell their house to go live elsewhere.

People like you are such assholes. You'll fuck over the person SELLING and you'll fuck over the person buying (if they don't occupy or rent the house fast enough for your liking).

I don't know what the hell happened in this country where private home ownership became something to detest.

If you can show me any evidence that ANYONE is being forced to buy a home for a price they did not agree to, then we can talk. Until then... you can fuck off.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[jpaine619]

Are you on drugs? You think conservatives should be for this tax? One of the hallmarks of conservatism is respect for private property. You really don't have a clue how we think, do you?

I'm just fine with a piece of property sitting there doing nothing as long as it is kept free of dangerous amounts of trash/debris. Yeah, your property rights extend to your boundaries, but fire tends to ignore fence lines..

As long as my property isn't gonna burn down because of yours, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it,

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[jpaine619]

The United States is home to over 318 million people and 2.27 billion acres of land. By 2003, we had only developed about 108 million acres, or about 4.47% of the total land area of the United States.

Please, asshole, keep telling me how we are running out of room. Yeah.. we aren't... What's happening is you liberals won't issue building permits because you want to see deer fuck in their natural habitat.. And honestly, I'm all for that.. I love open spaces.. But Jesus H. Christ.... 95% of this country is open spaces.. How about... 90%? Would that be acceptable? That would let us DOUBLE our current amount of housing..

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ShanghaiBill]

You think conservatives should be for this tax?

Yes. It is called Land Value Tax, and fiscal conservatives are not only for it, we are the champions of the cause. It is progressives who are usually opposed, so I am not sure why that somehow got inverted here on Slashdot.

It is the least bad tax, and the best and most economically efficient form of taxation. Milton Friedman was an advocate, as was Ludwig von Mises, both demigods of economic freedom.

Unless you are an anarchist, you should accept that some taxes are necessary. Land Value Tax is fair, unavoidable, and unlike many taxes that disincentivize productive activity, LVT actually encourages enterprise.

It has been implemented many places, including Singapore and Denmark. It works well, which is what you should expect, since Milton Friedman was never wrong about anything.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[djinn6]

Given property taxes are a thing even in California, no one would leave a property vacant unless the rental market is deep in the gutter.

It's things like rent control and unevictable renters that scare potential landlords away. California's thinking about the former, and the latter depends on how poor the tenant is.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[skam240]

Many families would love to live in high rise blocks in California. Working class people in silicon valley are living multiple families per single family home. Meanwhile, small single family homes are going for over a million there. How would either of those be better than an affordable high rise for a family?

Most of the world's major first world cities have plenty of families in high rise housing. I think you're just expressing your own personal bias against such living situations.

You do certainly have a point on mixed use zoning though.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ShanghaiBill]

there isn't anyone in North America, in the 21st century, that wants to live in a city like Boise.

... except for the 200,000 people that live in Boise, and the thousands more that move there every year.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ShanghaiBill]

There is also the opposite, BETTER solution: Stop encouraging more people to be born and immigrating here.

That is a terrible idea. Americans are the most productive and innovative people in the world, and immigrants are able to unleash innovations, energy, and enterprise that were stifled in their homeland. We need more Americans, not fewer.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[mentil]

You'll find that the vacant properties are now occupied in name only (e.g. someone's 2nd home, lent to them at 0% interest rate), or rendered temporarily uninhabitable.

Changing capital gains tax law to kill 'flipping' and make real estate a place to sleep instead of a place to make a fortune would be far more effective, even for occupied properties.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ShanghaiBill]

Families don't want to live in high rise blocks.

Bullcrap. If nobody wanted it, then governments wouldn't have pass laws to block it from happening.

There is enormous demand for housing in city centers. In downtown San Francisco, even studio apartments can go for over $1M. Yet it is nearly impossible to build anything.

Re: We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[reanjr]

Because taxes are the way you shift costs for antisocial behavior to the offender.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[alvinrod]

Before we go around making new taxes that likely have side effects and unintended consequences that no one anticipated, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out why large groups of people (or at least large enough for it to be an issue that you would propose a tax to solve) are engaging in behavior that doesn't make much sense for a person to engage in and try to address the actual underlying issue?

There aren't many good reasons for a person to buy expensive housing and leave it completely unused. Either they think it's hideously undervalued to the point that it's worth keeping and paying property taxes on because what it can eventually be sold for will be much greater, they're actually renting it out on something like Airbnb (so it's technically being occupied), someone in a foreign country purchased it as a hedge against their local economy tanking, or someone in a foreign country buying it because there's some path to citizenship available through spending a lot of money in the other country.

Ultimately though, the real issue is a lack of supply. Too many cities have made it essentially impossible to develop new housing for a variety of reasons. There's no getting around supply and demand, If you want less expensive housing, let more of it be built.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dryeo]

I don't know about California, but around here there's a lot of money laundering, mostly by foreigners, who are happy to sit on vacant property rather then have the hassle of actually renting it out. For a Chinese billionaire, having assets in the west that their government doesn't know about is the important thing.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[Miamicanes]

Higher-density can help... but only to an extent.

If you're talking about single-family homes on large lots vs 16-28 foot townhomes of comparable size, yes... it might increase availability and reduce costs.

If you're talking about 50+ story skyscrapers, no... it won't. Skyscrapers are SO expensive to build (per square foot of habitable dwelling), the economics just aren't there to build anything less than luxury condos for the ultra-rich. If the developer is ALREADY spending $300/sf, adding $200/sf for premium finishes and doubling the selling price is a no-brainer... if only because someone who can afford $300/sf isn't going to spend that much for the equivalent of a doublewide trailer in the sky.

The catch is, places like the Bay Area are already "built out". The swampy land adjacent to the bay that's currently mud flats is only suitable FOR building skyscrapers, because only skyscrapers have the structure & foundation to rest on deep bedrock & survive earthquakes (Florida-style landfill won't work there... the first time there's a major earthquake, the landfill gets sifted, re-compacts itself, and whatever was sitting on it collapses). People who could AFFORD to buy a hypothetical skyscraper along the bay near somewhere like Mountain View don't WANT to live in a skyscraper adjacent to the bay near Mountain View, because it smells like rotting garbage & isn't particularly attractive... they want to live in a house on the side of a cliff overlooking the whole valley, or in SF itself.

And because the whole area is already built out, the only way to get land to build townhomes and apartment buildings is to buy existing structures, knock them down, and get permission to rebuild at higher density... which the remaining neighbors will fight tooth and nail. So what REALLY happens is, someone buys a block with 24 old single-family homes, knocks them down, and replaces them with half as many mega-mansions -- effectively, making things even WORSE. Or they'll buy an old apartment building with 50 units and poor residents, demolish it, and rebuild a new apartment building with 60 units that cost twice as much as the 50 units it replaced.

Basically, the Bay Area's densification ship has already sailed, and for the most part it's too late. At least, until the next major earthquake. If a city like Palo Alto were 90% flattened by a horrific earthquake & almost everything had to be rebuilt anyway, it MIGHT be able to get residents to approve a deal that would let them have their cake & eat it too by allowing them to sell half of their lot to someone else (or replace their original one-story single-family home with a three-story duplex sharing a wall & sell the other one)... but after a catastrophic disaster, local governments are rarely in any position to pull something like that out of a hat.

True story: 50 years ago, when US-1 was six-laned through southern Miami, the section near SW 152nd Street was split into two one-way roads because there wasn't enough room to widen it to 6 lanes along the original route. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew destroyed 99% of the structures in that area beyond repair. The area was ultimately rebuilt from scratch, and US-1 is STILL a pair of one-way roads, even though the original problem (lack of land) was solved by Andrew's destruction. Why? All the people who LATER bought property along the northbound lanes (shifted a block east from the original route) paid a premium for that land because it WAS adjacent to a major highway -- shifting the northbound lanes would have profoundly harmed the value of their land (and gotten the state & county sued). And FDOT still didn't own enough land adjacent to the southbound lanes to do it, even though the land was now stripped bare. Put another way, city planning decisions made long ago tend to affect future land use, even long after the original rationale has been forgotten or ceased to matter. It's the same reason why London's streets are a medieval rat's nest, even in areas that were bombed into oblivion by the Luftwaffe during WWII, long after the original structures that dictated their layout (or cemented it in place) ceased to exist.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[psycho12345]

NIMBYism is quite bipartisan. My hometown in California is very conservative (largely a byproduct of many of them coming from the defense industry and working for Hughes, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.). These people have very nice houses, some are retired, and they very much vote against any new housing.

And as long as people can leverage their house for money, this is going to be a problem. You can see it here in these very comments, people who want to use houses as investment vehicles (flipping, asset store, HELOC for anything really). Usually those who can afford a house in the first place are financially aware enough to use these leveraging methods, but the only way to do so is for prices to go up, up, up, up. And the most reliable way to drive the price of something up, limit the supply.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dryeo]

The whole system depends on growth. Businesses need an expanding consumer base, and an expanding labour force to keep wages low. Then there's the problem of the aging population. If the majority of the population is retired, who is going to do the work that needs doing, little well the work that would be nice to happen.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dryeo]

Thank the softwood tariffs for at least some of these costs, 10 or 20 grand IIRC.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[Ichijo]

Families don't want to live in high rise blocks.

Actually they do. Proof of the fact is that city governments must transfer a lot of wealth from high rises to single-family homes just to get people to live in the suburbs.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[mysidia]

the ONLY reason this problem exists is because of lack of housing in places people want to live.

What "problem"? Prices are set by the market. They are what they are. If you don't like them, then find a competing option instead of buying in -- which is what some people are doing.

Naw.... Limited supply AND demand exists AND people are willing to pay up for it. When one talks about housing -- the level of density is a fundamental PART of the product, so fewer people would be interested in a denser offering, because people don't want to live in dense housing; if you build more denser housing, Your more dense units may sit unused, and that doesn't lower the price of less dense housing.

I for one am not going to buy or rent into housing that puts my nearest neighbor closer than 100 feet away. Obviously denser housing is afforded a lower premium.

We need to rezone R-1 areas for multiple unit housing. R-1 zonings are a massively inefficient use of space

Sorry, too late. Zonings are made for planned land use. Once the plan is in place and the property is sold --- it's too late to change zonings; they can only change pretty much with unanimous consent from the property owner's, their neighbors, and others that might be affected by land use changes.

We need to give the NIMBY types the finger and BUILD MORE HOUSING.

If your great idea is changing land-use out from under owners' or neighbors' interests, which is in violation of protected legal rights, then the NIMBY types will sue your arse off and block the ridiculous infringements to them.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[geekymachoman]

> We need higher density and more housing.

Nah. You just need to move to a saner part of the country.

NIMBY has right to NIMBY.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[r1348]

Someone else already brought up Land Value Tax, so I won't repeat it here, but yes, it's pretty much the only form of taxation that conservatives support and it comes straight from the Austrian school.
Being conservative doesn't mean "I can do what the fuck I want", that's just selfishness. And ignorance.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[serviscope_minor]

. It's the same reason why London's streets are a medieval rat's nest, even in areas that were bombed into oblivion by the Luftwaffe during WWII

It's the same reason they're a medieval rats nest after the entire city burned down in 1666. The government started planning a new city with wide, straight roads but the populace rushed back and started to rebuild so they didn't lose their land. It was rebuilt along exactly the same lines as beforeb of course.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[AmiMoJo]

High density housing brings social problems too.

A better option is to build new towns and cities in underpopulated areas, and provide incentives for jobs to be located there, and decent public transport links.

Japan did that recently. A new train line (the Tsukuba Express) was build, with new towns all along it. Each down has decent facilities on its own, plus the trains offer fast commuter access to central Tokyo. Office space is available too, attractively priced to help companies set up outside central Tokyo (but with easy access for meetings with other companies). There has been a push for satellite offices too, allowing workers to spend some or all of their time there.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[thegarbz]

Or just raise interest rates

An action that disproportionately affects the lower-middle class mortgage owners while doing very little to actually fix the housing problem.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ThosLives]

people who sell are getting a great return on an investment.

Only if they are moving somewhere else with even lower housing prices. If you live in an area where your house appreciated 50%...all the other houses are likely to have also appreciated by 50%. So all that's happened locally is that the price of home ownership has increased.

That is not a good thing.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[r1348]

Sorry, but you're mistaken. I know for certain that large-scale landlords purposefully leave certain lots vacant to drive rent prices up by shrinking offer. The profits far outweight taxation.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[DigressivePoser]

... That and tax vacant property at 1000% of the rate if it's lived in or rented.

Surprised that uber liberal government there in CA haven't invoked imminent domain to force owners of vacant land to sell to housing developers. The Supreme Court green-lighted this type of theft in the Kelo v. City of New London case. Guess NIMBYism is hard to overcome.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[russotto]

A Georgian land value tax is nothing short of elimination of land ownership entirely. It's equivalent to the state owning all the property and renting it out to the highest bidder. It's an absolutely terrible tax, unless you're a literal communist.

For the uses to which property tax is usually put, any land value tax (not just the Georgian one) is especially bad. Property taxes cover schools and municipal expenditures. These things scale somewhat by area, but mostly per capita. So a single family house on 1/2 acre only imposes slightly less burden on the government than a single family house on 1 acre. A 60-unit apartment building on that same acre imposes a lot more burden than the single family house. But the land value tax misses this entirely, and charges both properties the same tax.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[Uberbah]

It is the least bad tax

No. That would be the income tax, which directly and easily scales with how much a person makes. As opposed to relying on property taxes, which is going to screw over workers the second they retire.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[cayenne8]

Harmful behavior should be discouraged, and keeping properties vacant long-term in markets that have a scarcity of housing qualifies as harmful.

Sounds like you are against private ownership of land and possibly other tangible things?

I mean, if you buy and OWN land, it is and should 110% be up to you as the owner as to what you do with it.....unless you want to cede all private land ownership to the state...?

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[jpaine619]

Nice try asshole. I'm neither. I work for a living. Keyword: Work.

I don't need your lazy ass telling me how to run my affairs. Maybe if you spent more time working and improving and enjoying your own life you'd have less time to worry about what the rest of us are doing.

Typical liberal tactic.. I disagree with you? I must be a Russian or a Chinese... Come up with something original you fuckwit.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[movdqa]

Housing values at the high-end are already suffering in some cities and I'd agree that higher interest rates will help. There are lots of places where property isn't expensive but they aren't hubs. Many could live there - the folks that can work remotely - if broadband is good.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[AbRASiON]

Just got back from SF and Silicon Valley. Was astounded at how many empty fields exist in the area with no housing and the huge American aversion to proper large Asia style apartment towers.

(Don't get me wrong, a house is better) but you have virtually none. - and yes, I know many of them are awful, here in Melbourne, build like crap - due to a boom, however, done properly, they can be quite good.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[mr.mctibbs]

Property and estate law under the common law has always discouraged unproductive ownership of land, going all the way back to medieval England, long before communism was invented or capitalism was named. If you don't like Western values, maybe you don't belong in Western society.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[superdave80]

Please, asshole, keep telling me how we are running out of room.

Oooooh-kay. Not sure why this has devolved into 'asshole' territory already. Anyways, it's not just how much land there is, but how much usable land, and land where people actually want to live. Everybody likes living on the coasts, but fewer people like living in the middle, flat cold parts of the country. Also, you need more than just land to live. Water, food, utilities, transit, jobs, etc.

What's happening is you liberals won't issue building permits because you want to see deer fuck in their natural habitat.

Then what's to stop non-liberal states/cities from building like crazy to keep house prices low?

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dcw3]

You can have all the high density housing you want, but it's not a cure for overpopulation, and just because you want to live like a sardine doesn't give you the right to force others to do the same. You're not going to get your high density until you get the government to fix the fucking infrastructure, and while there seems to be agreement on the need, there doesn't appear to be any backbone when it comes to ponying up the money. I've lived in the DC burbs for ~40 years. Nobody want to actually live in DC because of the high crime, high taxes etc. We've also got some of the worst traffic (2nd worst in the nation for commute times) because public transportation here is terrible, as are the road layouts. People typically commute over an hour here because they can find housing that's less than half the cost, and education in VA & MD is much better, and people like having a yard and space for their kids to play. We're quite happy here in our white-picket fenced yards, so take your anti-sprawl and shove it.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dcw3]

It's part of the retirement plan...really. My home, purchased in 2000 has nearly doubled in value, and will be sold, probably next year, giving us the equity to move out of the high cost DC burbs (northern VA), to a place where we can buy a home outright with the equity and pay half as much in property tax. I suspect the same is being done by the people in TFA.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dcw3]

Strawman everything you don't understand?

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ArylAkamov]

Impressive word salad of strawmans kiddo

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ArylAkamov]

Nope, just an angry cunt that lives innawoods who doesn't want some privileged government hippy dippy trying to steal my property through legislation.

Re: We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[ArylAkamov]

Damn fucking right I'm entitled to the property I worked for decades to buy with money I earned. I put in time and effort.
You are advocating for people to be entitled to steal that property from me without consent or reparations.
Do you see where the issue is?
The funny part is that I am living innawoods, not quite like Uncle Ted did (He /was/ right about a lot of things, you should read his work), but I'm doing it. Renewable energy, natural spring for my water supply that I developed.
And before you have a hemorrhage, no, I don't believe that his bombing of innocent people was right, and I do not endorse what he did. His writing, however, has proven to be accurate. He has predicted the current political climate with stunning accuracy.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dryeo]

Fair enough. around here the average person is getting fucked by the Chinese laundering money through real estate and then sitting on it rather then doing something with it.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[dryeo]

Huh? The Chinese buying up property, usually as part of a laundering process is a real problem where I am. A bunch of empty properties doesn't benefit anyone except the foreigner who has a bolt hole, or at least assets that he can hide from their government.

Re:We need to BUILD MORE HOUSING

[Uberbah]

But as a subset of relying more on land taxes, which is going to hurt retirees and encourage people to work right up until they die. Cure is worse than the disease. Repeal Prop 13, but lower property tax rates while increasing those for income. The exception would be for vacant property and vacation homes - go ahead and tax them more.

Re:Yeah, no.

[b0s0z0ku]

The housing market isn't "in trouble", it's returning to normalcy. Deflating prices are the SOLUTION to the bubble that had been reinflated from 2010 to early 2018. The market needs to find a happy medium between a crash and a bubble, and it might oscillate a few time (underdamped system) to get there.

Re:Boise

[crow]

Yup, growing up in Boise in the 80s, we were complaining about "liberal Californians" moving into the area. What really happened is that conservative Californians moved to Idaho, making Idaho more conservative now than it was then.

But, yeah, complaining about Californians moving to Boise is at least 40 years old. That said, there has been so much construction that I hardly recognize the place anymore. Almost all the farmland between Boise and Nampa is now city. The increases in home prices will be moderated by the continuing expansion of the city.

Re:Boise

[b0s0z0ku]

California isn't all that regulated as far as guns. Anyone without a criminal record can buy a rifle, shotgun, revolver, or pistol. Licenses to carry are heavily regulated in some counties, but are basically "shall issue" in others. A license issued by one county is good for the entire state.

Absolutly

[skam240]

Mod up a hundred times.

Unfortunately our states Leftist have forgotten that being a leftist means first, second, and third, looking out for those with less money.

Developers are evil (never mind all these people's homes were built by them). California will always be an attractive place to live so building more homes won't do anything (never mind the laws of supply and demand). We can't build upwards because we have to protect our community! (never mind that your community is full of working class people who will suffer and your kids will probably never be able to buy a home near you unless you do it for them).

This is all bullshit I hear from local Leftists living just north of SF where property values are certainly going insane (and for the record I'm fairly left wing). All this is personally great for me because I'm a home owner although it does make most things a bit expensive. What really bothers me is all the working class people suffering because no one will own up to the only solution. It's all rent control and low income housing which do nothing to solve our massive housing shortage and in some ways exacerbates the problem.

Plus, I was one of these people once and was lucky enough to live around here when a single working class person with a roommate could live comfortably.

Re:Absolutly

[superdave80]

It's all rent control and low income housing which do nothing to solve our massive housing shortage and in some ways exacerbates the problem.

Amen. I'm always amazed every time rent control is brought up as some type of 'solution' to a housing shortage. Number of new housing units created by rent control? Zero. Absolutely NO new housing gets created. And in fact, it TAKES housing units off the market, because it just makes an incentive for people to never move from their rent controlled unit, even when it would make sense...

Re:Absolutly

[jpaine619]

Indeed. And the last time California even hinted that they wanted to implement rent control, thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of apartments were ripped from the market and converted into condos..

When it comes to real property, liberals are the last people in the world you want to have any power at all.

Re: Absolutly

[jpaine619]

Bullshit.

Want to know what your property is worth? Put it on the market... Worth is determined by the market.. If you list your house at $1,000,000 and it doesn't sell... it's not worth $1M.. If you relist it at $950,000 and it sells.. Well, guess what genius? It was worth $950K.

Re:Absolutly

[dgatwood]

There's only one real way to solve the housing problem: Repeal Prop 13. Pass a new law that gives a deep tax break for low-income residents only, and makes that tax break not limited to a specific parcel. Right now, the poor are trapped in their existing homes, because they can't afford higher taxes to move whenever their job changes. And even the middle class often choose to live farther away rather than pay thousands of dollars more in property taxes.

By eliminating that problem, many people will try to move closer to where they work. But there won't be housing there, which will drive prices for homes and commercial property on the SF peninsula rapidly upwards to the point of absurdity, which in turn will give businesses more incentive to move out of the peninsula (and remove the tax disincentive to doing so) and spread out into other areas where land is more readily available, which will over time correct the artificial property inflation that Prop 13 caused.

Re:Absolutly

[ShanghaiBill]

And the last time California even hinted that they wanted to implement rent control ...

Several cities in California have rent control, including Berkeley (of course), San Francisco, and my fair city, San Jose.

Rent control is, of course, stupid and counterproductive. It is about as effective as trying to control food prices by legalizing shoplifting.

Nevertheless, it provides short term benefits to people with no long term stake in the community. Students in Berkeley vote for rent control to save money until they graduate, and then they leave town. They don't suffer from the urban decay and even higher housing prices in the future. It is pure selfishness.

Re:Absolutly

[mikael]

Proposition 13 was intended to make sure retirees wouldn't be price out of their homes once they had retired, due to the fact they had a fixed income.
It also helps low income workers afford to live close to work since they couldn't afford homes otherwise they would end up living in coffin apartments.

To me, the dynamics of property prices and commutes seem to be no different from stellar dynamics. There is the gravitational pressure of workers wanting to live as close to work and other amenities like good schools as possible in order to reduce commute times. Then are opposing forces in trying to avoid crime areas, avoiding anywhere too high density, wanting to live close to green space, oceans and countryside. What you would propose is to start a supernova reaction that would just blow everything apart.

Businesses are moving out of California. It's cheaper moving to other Tech cities than it is to move to Tumbleweed Town. There are health problems due to fungus in the desert areas. Businesses also need to be close to top league universities, an instant supply of workers and other resources. Workers want to live and work in areas where there is plenty of choice of employer.

Re:Absolutly

[mentil]

So the solution is to implement condo/house price controls in tandem with rent control? I see...

Re:Absolutly

[djinn6]

I don't see how your solution differs from the current state of things. Pricing in places like SF is already absurd, but businesses still want to stay there.

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

It also discourages the construction of new rental properties as areas with high rents typically have high land values as well. High rents and property values typically go hand in hand.

Given this, why would anyone buy land to build on if they couldn't charge market rates for rent? It would take far too long to earn back from rent what they spent (let alone make a profit), particularly with property taxes added it.

Re:Absolutly

[q4Fry]

To save future readers from a quick trip to Wikipedia, Prop 13 appears to be

(1) a limit on recurring taxation of real estate to 1% of the property's value and
(2) a limit on the year-on-year increase of recurring real estate taxation to 2%, in order to prevent retired people from needing to move when their nest egg can't support the taxation on their escalating home values.

Re:Absolutly

[Anonymous Coward]

"Proposition 13 was intended to make sure retirees wouldn't be price out of their homes once they had retired, due to the fact they had a fixed income."
Bullshit. Prop 13 was intended to reduce and then keep _Commercial_ Property Taxes low. Commercial Property may not change hands for decades, so those jerks like Chevron and Wells Fargo made out like bandits, still paying assessments based on 1978 values. (The SF Chron estimates that California is losing ~$9B in funding due to this chicanery every year.)
Private Housing turns over much more rapidly, and each time it is sold, maybe every 5-7 yrs, it gets reassessed. For the vast majority, except for the very old who still live in the same place as they did 40 years ago, any initial Prop 13 savings have long evaporated. Even here something was jimmied together to replace lost Education funds, "Parcel Taxes", which can exceed Assessed Taxes significantly, and Chevron pays the same fixed Parcel Tax on a Refinery that LOLs pay on their decaying Bungalows.
However, Prop 13 was _sold_ to the Electorate based on fantasies of Little Old Ladies eating Cat Food, because otherwise they couldn't pay their taxes.
No matter how bad Property Taxes were in 1978, they are horribly worse now just in Social Costs alone.
Screw Howard Jarvis, and as for Paul Gann, I understand that he suffered a long, painful, miserable, and richly deserved death.

Re:Absolutly

[dryeo]

Around here, property taxes can be deferred until the retiree dies, moves into assisted living or such and the property sells for a fantastic amount. The only losers are the kids who don't get quite as high of an inheritance for being smart enough to be born in the right place. I feel so sad that some people might have to work more for a living instead of getting basically a lottery win.

Re:Absolutly

[psycho12345]

Slight correction. It is a limit on the increase in assessment of value of the property for tax purposes by 2%. Which in effect means 2% increase in taxes, but the subtle difference comes into play when you sell, the new owner gets to pay the taxes on the full assessed value, the benefit of the tax limiting is NOT portable, one of the chief complaints about it. Seniors now do get some portability.

Re:Absolutly

[dryeo]

How do the rent controls work there? Here, it just limits how fast you can jack up the rents to the rate of inflation + a couple of percent (actually it was just changed to the rate of inflation). You can start at any number you want and the same when changing tenants. There are also workarounds involving upgrades to the building that allow faster rent increases.

Re:Absolutly

[AmiMoJo]

Rent control does encourage more housing to be built. Without rent control you get a lot of expensive housing that often sits empty for a long time waiting for someone willing to pay those sky high rents. Happens a lot in London, all they build are luxury flats.

With rent control there is an incentive to build more affordable homes rather than big luxury apartments or McMansions.

The other thing rent control helps with is ensuring that there are a mixture of people. In some European cities there are laws mandating a mixture of affordable and luxury housing so that you don't end up with rich and poor areas.

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

It takes on a lot of different forms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... . In any context I've heard of though it seems to do the opposite it terms of solving a housing shortage. It just eases the symptoms for a minority of people.

Where I'm at it's still mostly being discussed as out of control housing costs only started less than a decade ago. I'm in Sonoma County about an hour North of SF. It's always been a bit expensive here because of the climate but SF's housing problems are now bleeding off and dramtically worsening ours. It also doesnt help that low growth political groups have become significant around here as well.

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

"Without rent control you get a lot of expensive housing that often sits empty for a long time waiting for someone willing to pay those sky high rents."

You very clearly don't live in California. The sky high rents are due to a housing shortage. People are lining up to pay these rates because they need a place to live and like living around here. I know renters, when they have to move to a new home they have to move fast on deals like $2,500 for a small 3 bedroom single family house because that's a really good deal around here.

Just watch and see how long homes below 3k stay on this list https://www.zillow.com/sonoma-... . It's not very long

Re:Absolutly

[Uberbah]

Unfortunately our states Leftist have forgotten that being a leftist means first, second, and third, looking out for those with less money.

Unfortunately you wouldn't know a leftist if the entire Soviet Army bit you on the ass. Democrats dominate the state government in California - but they're just another party of right-wing asshole capitalists.

Re:Absolutly

[Uberbah]

I'm always amazed every time rent control is brought up as some type of 'solution' to a housing shortage. Number of new housing units created by rent control? Zero. Absolutely NO new housing gets created.

I'm amazed you think rent control is supposed to create new housing directly. It's direct purpose is to keep people from being forced to move because they can't afford exploding rents while their paycheck stagnates. It's to prevent gentrification.

Besides, how are bourgeois shitbags going to get their lattes and street food while on break, if no one can afford to live in the area on the wages those jobs provide?

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

Oh good, I'm so glad an expert came to sort my shit out for me. Thank you so much, you've been like a beautiful guiding light to a jackass' opinion.

Re:Absolutly

[Uberbah]

You're welcome. Any other pro tips you need? Don't call a marine a sailor, don't ask a Russian why they don't like the US more since we won WWII, don't give your orthodox jewish friend a ham for Christmas...

Re:Absolutly

[jpaine619]

Uh.. No.. The government has no authority to decide what price you sell your home for. In fact, I'm fairly certain that if the state tried to pull that, they'd end up in Federal court, and they would lose. Please see Amendment 5 of the Constitution.

Re:Absolutly

[jpaine619]

I'm not disputing that places with rent control exist. But, for now, it appears to be a city by city basis. Ah... I see my error. I said California. I meant San Diego County... We toyed with that idea down here for a while and the result was thousands of apartments disappearing almost overnight. i.e the problem was made even worse.. I suspect that if California (as a whole) tried it, the result would be the same.. There would be a delay between passage of the law and an effective date. In the interm thousands of apartments would disappear. They'd be converted to condos or they'd be razed to the ground for single family homes.

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

How about some other pro tips?

Democrats and state governance have nothing to do with city and county matters. Regional growth is just that.

Also, the eastern front for Germany was already failing before D-day. We didn't win WW2 for the Russians, all we did in Europe was keep Western Europe out of their hands.

You seems to be a terribly ignorant person.

Re:Absolutly

[spitzak]

You are thinking of some kind of price control on rental units. That is not how any rent control works. Generally a new unit can rent for any amount, the control is that it can't be raised more than a certain percentage each year. So it does not encourage cheaper units.

Re:Absolutly

[AmiMoJo]

Here rent control means existing units can't be advertised for above market price, and there are limits on how much it can go up, and requirements for new builds to have a mixture of affordable and luxury housing.

Re:Absolutly

[superdave80]

Pass a new law that gives a deep tax break for low-income residents only, and makes that tax break not limited to a specific parcel.

No. They ALREADY have a deep tax break. If you are low-income, you more than likely have a low-value home, and you pay lower taxes.

Re:Absolutly

[suutar]

the value of a home in CA is mostly based on the price of the land; the cost of the structure is a minor factor. If you're low income but your neighborhood is being scouted by a developer your house may well not be low value at all.

Re:Absolutly

[superdave80]

the value of a home in CA is mostly based on the price of the land

Not based on the property assessments I've received for my homes over the years. The structure value is several times the land value on the homes I've had in the North Bay Area. I also had a home near Lake Tahoe, where they were about equal (200k vs. 190k). Since most homes are in higher price areas (Bay area, So Cal, etc.), I'd be shocked if most homes have a higher land assessment than structure assessment.

If you're low income but your neighborhood is being scouted by a developer your house may well not be low value at all.

If you moved into a home that was low value when you purchased it, your property value assessment stays at that low value (can only increase by 2% a year), so it doesn't matter how many developers are scouting your neighborhood. It has zero affect on your current assessment.

Re:Absolutly

[suutar]

Sounds like you have more hard data than I do. I suppose the anecdotes of lots with crap houses selling for a million colored my perceptions. Thanks for the informative reply!

Re:Absolutly

[Uberbah]

We didn't win WW2 for the Russians, all we did in Europe was keep Western Europe out of their hands.

Hence the don't in "don't ask a Russian why they don't like the US more since we won WWII", Captain Obvious. 80% of German casualties came at the hands of the Soviet Army, so I ask western exceptionalists if they really would have wanted to face five times the Nazi presence on the western front. Hell, if Hitler hadn't been such an idiot and waited to attack the USSR, D-Day may have come years earlier - except it would have been the Germans landing in Wales.

You seems to be a terribly ignorant person.

Your continued projection is noted.

Re:Absolutly

[skam240]

I may have missed your sarcasm but at least for the actual point on hand i actually understand the difference between state and city government in the US and how their roles work.

Help. They're Californicating Idaho

[Registered Coward v2]

To steal a line from Oregon.

California expats flush with cash

[nehumanuscrede]

Long term residents of CA who purchased their homes long ago at a reasonable price can now sell said home for ludicrous amounts of money.

This allows them to move out of State and easily pay cash ( far in excess of the asking price ) for homes where home prices haven't gone full stupid yet.

As the number of homes in an area start selling for insane amounts of money, it drives the asking prices up for all the homes in the area.
It also raises your tax appraisal values so you get to pay more in property taxes every year. Pretty soon, no one local can afford housing in the
area because the asking prices and taxes are so inflated.

Texas median household income is around the ~$60k mark yet, there is a new subdivision full of homes nearby that -start- at $500k.

It's insanity.

** The amusing part is watching folks move into one of these $500k+ homes only to learn that Texas property taxes are uncapped and can
increase by 10% every year. The State loves to advertise that we have no State Tax, but those property taxes more than make up for it. **

Re:California expats flush with cash

[b0s0z0ku]

High property taxes are WORSE than high income tax, since they're not tied to income. Lose your job, and at least you won't be paying much income tax. But you will be paying property tax regardless. The only good thing about this mess is that TX has reasonably strong protections against foreclosure of a primary residence. (Or maybe had, IDK about recent law changes.)

Re:California expats flush with cash

[novakyu]

Yap. But can you blame us Californians for thinking that Prop 13 exists for every state? I mean, c'mon!

Re:California expats flush with cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Lose your job, and at least you won't be paying much income tax. But you will be paying property tax regardless.

Why wouldn't you pay property tax while unemployed? You still get municipal services.

Re:California expats flush with cash

[nehumanuscrede]

I agree with you.

At least a State Income Tax is fixed to your income. The more you make, the more you're taxed.
Whereas property taxes never seem to quit going up.

Becomes a problem when you finally get to quit working and retire. That home you paid $75k for
forty years ago is now tax appraised at $300k ( or more depending on where you live ).

Gets rather tough to keep paying more and more in property taxes every year once you quit working.

Re:California expats flush with cash

[jpaine619]

Yes! A person with a logical mind.. Refreshing! I'd mod you up if I hadn't already commented on this thread..

Re:California expats flush with cash

[djinn6]

On the other hand, now that you're retired, you can move somewhere even cheaper.

Re:California expats flush with cash

[Ichijo]

Agreed. See the discussion above on land value taxes for a better solution.

Re:California expats flush with cash

[CanadianMacFan]

At least a State Income Tax is fixed to your income. The more you make, the more you're taxed

At least until the point you need to hire an accountant and then the more you make the less tex you pay.

Re:California expats flush with cash

[strikethree]

Gets rather tough to keep paying more and more in property taxes every year once you quit working.

Doesn't matter. You are no longer producing; therefore, you no longer matter. Yes, you will get "eaten". Welcome to the hyper-capitalized world where society eats both its young and old. It won't be more than 200 more years before it is discovered that yes, there are limits and that yes, all resources have all been concentrated in just a few places...

Re:Boise

[r1348]

You must really be alienated from society, if you think that families would move in mass to a different state just to find more lax gun regulation.

Government blocks new housing

[Venona2018]

In San Francisco, where rents are sky-high , a developer has been trying to build 75 new housing units since 2014. He has been battling the city and local activists: More info

Berkeley throws roadblock on developing a parking lot into 260 units: More info

"From 2007 to 2014, San Francisco only approved half of the building permits necessary to accommodate its growth, the San Francisco Business Times reported." Source

Re:HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? apk

[b0s0z0ku]

Can I get a hit of whatever acid you're dropping?

Re:Yeah, no.

[PopeRatzo]

The housing market isn't "in trouble", it's returning to normalcy. Deflating prices are the SOLUTION to the bubble that had been reinflated from 2010 to early 2018.

Yes, but that's also known as a "recession". If the housing market returns to "normalcy", we're going into a second Great Recession and even stagflation.

It will be hard for the administration to explain that one away.

Sure, you can move from Cali to Boise

[93 Escort Wagon]

But remember - at the end of the day, you’ll be living in Boise.

Parts of Idaho are quite lovely... but there’s also Boise.

Then you need government

[rsilvergun]

one of the dirty secrets of the housing market is that the government was paying for the hard party (prepping the land, grading it, running water, power and telecom lines, etc, etc). It was basically a trillion dollar subsidy program for home builders who reaped the rewards of cheap land they could throw a frame up on and sell for 5x times profit.

That was all well and good until "Austerity" kicked in. We kept cutting taxes on the wealthy until we had to start cutting programs, and infrastructure spending one of the first to go (right before education).

Home builders are not going to prep their own land. If they do something that was a sure fire investment becomes risky. They'll take their capital and use it to buy up existing homes to rent out. After all, you got to live somewhere.

What we need in this country is the New New Deal. A return to FDR's programs (and the high marginal tax rates for the wealthy that paid for them). But the ruling class own the media and everytime it comes up they do a 6 week ad blitz to shut it down.

Re:Yeah, no.

[alvinrod]

If the housing market returns to "normalcy", we're going into a second Great Recession and even stagflation.

I think you're going to need to explain the logic behind that.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes on normalcy are for either.

My dad did this

[rsilvergun]

with mixed results. He got a nice house... that he lost in the crash. His lower wages in the new state made it hard to keep even the relatively modest home he bought. If the economy had held out another few years he would have been Ok, but he was forced into retirement and lost it with the crash.

Re:Yeah, no.

[b0s0z0ku]

Recessions can be a good thing. Econ 101: they reduce income inequality.

As far as the administration, should I actually care about what Trump & Co can or can't explain away? Having Trump be a one-termer isn't all that sad of a prospect.

Re:High Housing Prices In Tech Cities Are Now Rais

[novakyu]

Except we are not landlocked. As long as we are not under a naval blockade, we can still invade Oregon and Washington! (And Canada doesn't matter.)

Don't worry, bubble will pop

[Tablizer]

Just wait for the Great AI Crash. AI co's are overvalued per actual revenue. Either they'll make bigass breakthroughs to get more revenue, or there's a reality crash coming.

Unlikley

[RogueWarrior65]

Listening to a radio show for homeowners this morning, they were spouting off about climbing home prices and rising interest rates and isn't that terrible that it's depressing the market. What they were going for is why developers and builders aren't building what they consider affordable housing. Why would they? They have a piece of land of a fixed size and the local government dictates how many homes can be built on it. The builder isn't going to build 100 low-end homes when they can build 100 more expensive homes and make more money. Sure, it might take longer but the land isn't going to spoil or become less valuable. On top of that, the mid-range home buyer is going to be more financially stable than the low-end buyer so there's less risk to the lender. And to the local government levying property tax, more expensive homes means more tax revenue.

Twaffic

[Tablizer]

Traffic in CA sucks. If you build more houses, there will be more traffic and more traffic suckage. Improve public transportation first.

Re:Boise

[jpaine619]

Are you delusional? Open up a goddamn gun magazine and look at how many places will NOT ship to CA.

There are hundreds of makes/models that are banned in this state. The only other state that even comes close is NY. (and it probably exceeds our regulations, but not by much).

CA politicians hate guns. it's more moral, to them, for the woman to lay there and get raped that have the ability to shoot the sick fuck in the face....

Liberals love victims.. It gives them ever more excuses to strip freedoms.. Fuck.. England outlawed most guns.. And then when people used knives for self defense, it outlawed those too. Legally, the ONLY item in the UK you can use for self-defense, that you can carry on your person, is a rape whistle.. Seriously.... Yeah, I suppose if you were being raped/stabbed/killed and you picked up a rock, you'd be okay.. BUT, under British law, if you carry that rock with you, for the purpose of bashing a rapist on the head IF you get raped, you are in some deep shit.

You tree-hugging fucks are so divorced from reality that it boggles the mind...

I just don't get it.... No average woman can fight off an average man if he intends her harm. (quick statistic, the average male is stronger than 99.5% of all women on planet earth. The strongest 5%-10% of males are stronger than 100% of women). So, we have the tools that will help a woman to not be a victim, but then we deny those very tools to her... I hate liberals, I hate your logic, I hate your fucked up view of the world where everyone is a victim or should be a victim.

Re:Yeah, no.

[jpaine619]

Thank you.. Honestly, it was nice to read a comment where the person "gets it". The market will sort itself out.. Government just needs to keep an eye on things to make sure nobody is doing anything illegal and the market will sort out the rest..

Re:Boise

[b0s0z0ku]

The kind of guns that are useful for self-defense aren't the kind of guns that CA has a problem with. Know many women (or men, for that matter) who pack an AR-15 or AK-47 for self-defense? In the US, not in Pakistan :D Legally speaking, it's not that difficult to buy something like a .38 revolver in California. Perfect for self-defense -- reliable, won't jam even if poorly maintained, simple, and easy to conceal.

Re:Boise

[PPH]

Know many women who pack an AR-15

Yes. Several are expert marksmen (women?).

Re:Boise

[b0s0z0ku]

Pack? As in carry on a daily basis in public?

AR-15s and AK-47s are nice toys for people who want to play soldier and for hunting where legal. Using the self-defense argument here is sort of stupid.

Re:Boise

[PPH]

You must really be alienated from society

Why do you think California has anything to do with 'society'?

Re:Boise

[PPH]

it's not that difficult to buy something like a .38 revolver in California

Not enough rounds to be a viable self defense weapon. A semi-auto with 15 or 18 rounds is better. AR-15s are ideal for home defense. You don't have to 'pack' them anywhere.

Re:Yeah, no.

[PopeRatzo]

Recessions can be a good thing. Econ 101: they reduce income inequality.

I absolutely agree with you. In fact, during the previous "stagflation" episode, during the Carter administration, it allowed more people to buy homes at lower prices. They had to pay higher interest rates, but as soon as the rates fell again, they were able to refinance. It was the last era where there were significant gains by the middle and lower classes. Once Reagan took over, it was all "trickle down".

Re:Boise

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, great if you want to put rounds through a wall and accidentally kill your kids or wing a neighbor. At least with a revolver, you have to engage your brain before you shoot.

Takings clause

[tepples]

If you have a problem with that, then YOU can buy the property.

And watch your government plead the Fifth* to "take" you up on that offer. What would you consider "just compensation"?

* The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution not only prohibits compelling self-incrimination but also lays the framework for eminent domain, the most common name for compulsory sale under United States law. Other countries' laws have compulsory sale provisions as well.

Re:Takings clause

[jpaine619]

Just compensation has been codified by SCOTUS. It's fair market value. And of course Eminent Domain is needed. I'm not arguing against it. We'd have one fucked up Interstate System had we needed to build around every person who didn't want to sell.

Re: No.

[dryeo]

I live in Woodstock. Bought my house 3 years ago. If I was looking to buy it now, I couldn't afford it. And my house is about the only affordable housing left in that area. All the new construction there now costs twice as much as my house.

This is a big problem where I am. Developers want the maximum return on their investment, so they don't build cheap housing, rather they buy it and tear it down and build something expensive. There's actually a fair amount of vacancies in certain areas due to no one being able to afford the rent. There's also a shit load of expensive condos for sale. Meanwhile the number of affordable rentals is dropping fast.

Re:Yeah, no.

[PopeRatzo]

Are you seriously saying that the massive inflation of the Carter era was a good thing?

Yes, better than what we have now.

Because that massive inflation had the effect of stripping away the savings of those "middle and lower classes"

No, it did not, because that inflation was more evenly distributed and meant much larger wage growth. Also, the higher interest rates kept housing prices down and allowed people to actually put some money in the bank and get something back.

It was bad for the stock market, which back then was OK for the middle and working classes because their pension funds had not yet been raided by corporate fuckwads.

Sure, people that spent all their cash to buy right before the inflation started made out great. Everyone else got fucked.

This is where you make your error. Higher interest rates mean lower housing prices. Yes, the loans are more expensive, but then as soon as the rates backed off, you could refinance and your house price would go up.

The Carter years were the last years that the middle class and lower actually gained some ground. Since then, it's been a ceaseless downward trajectory.

Re:Boise

[dryeo]

What the fuck are you defending from?

Re:Socialists are driving prices up everywhere

[turkeyfish]

Yeah, the last thing we would want to do is cut the public in on all the profits.

Re:Yeah, no.

[thegarbz]

Also, the higher interest rates kept housing prices down

Higher interest rates keep housing prices down. They do not lower the housing prices without dramatically affecting those people already in debt to banks. i.e. the lower-middle class.

Sure house prices may drop, but that will be a small consolation to the newly minted homeless.

Good, move to dallas

[Shaitan]

As an existing homeowner I support you. Much lower cost of living than California but all the same conveniences you've come to know and love.

No we don't

[lamer01]

What about the existing residents who paid good money to live in a less crowded area? Are you going to reimburse them for dumping huge condos and/or apartment building right next to their properties?

I despise all forms of uncrontrolled taxation

[lamer01]

Anyone who lives in a blue state knows that taxes are always increasing, usually faster than the residents taxable income. New forms of taxation is introduced without removing prior forms. Services are cut. Seriously, we need a better way of collecting funds for communal expenses than taxation.

Stop House Flipping

[BrendaEM]

Companies now swoop down on Silicon Valley, buy houses, and flip them for a profit. This is not how you build communities!

Re:Boise

[PPH]

You are quite obviously a noguns type. The number of rounds a weapon's magazine holds has nothing to do with its penetrating power. A .38 is pretty close to a 9mm.

At least with a revolver, you have to engage your brain before you shoot.

You know nothing about combat. With any kind of weapon, your target is moving. So your probability of missing with a few rounds is high.

Re: Boise

[PPH]

The Second Amendment was written to ensure that citizens could protect themselves rather than becoming dependent on a police state. The police have no duty to protect individuals. In that, you are on your own.

Re:Boise

[jpaine619]

Really? You think a piece of shit .38 is a viable self defense weapon in CA? A state that has made it nearly impossible to get a CCW permit? Nobody here carries for self defense. We can't. Self defense in CA is limited to guarding your home. And given the choice, I'd rather have the accurate rifle and rely on a pistol only as a last option.

Try again...

Re:Boise

[jpaine619]

Your ignorance shows. You obviously know nothing about guns. If you are that worried about rounds leaving your area of control and killing neighbors, you don't reach for a pistol. You pick up a shotgun with birdshot. Effective range of perhaps 50 yds. Put some drywall in the way and you lessen the kill radius significantly. A pistol round (.38, .357, whatever) is going to treat drywall in pretty much the same way that an AR-15 round will.. yeah, the AR-15 round will travel a lot further, but if you're worried about killing a neighbor you use a shotgun.

Re:Boise

[dadelbunts]

You are so wrong it hurts. Any handgun sold in CA must be on the approved handgun list. https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearm... Which is just an arbitrary list manufacturers have to pay to be on every year. My 9mm single stack pistol with a 9 round capacity designed in the 30s having not been made by a huge handgun manufacturer is not on that list, therefore would be a felony there. Perfect for self-defense, reliable, wont jam and cheap. But a illegal in CA because of their backwards ass laws. Please educate yourself on what you are talking about because its obvious you have 0 clue as to wtf you are saying.

Re:Boise

[dadelbunts]

Not only that but you can only purchase handguns on their approved handgun list.

Re: Boise

[PPH]

The Constitution restricts the power to arm militias to Congress. The Second amendment allows states to assemble armed militias (police forces, dog catchers, etc.) from a population guaranteed the right to bear those arms.

Re: Boise

[PPH]

Not a member. Try harder.