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

[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

[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.

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

[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: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: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.