Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

realclearinvestigations.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#131

Post by ipaddr »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #111
ipaddr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million. Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does. At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with ne…

Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay. > make it more popular with new h…

Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million.

Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600

If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible.

No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#132

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

tablespoon wrote: post #71
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings. Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning?

> Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning? I'm claiming modern construction isn't very beautiful. If you drop single family zoning for something denser, you're not going to get something like those beautiful cities that were cited above. It's false advertising to suggest that denser zoning would give us another Paris (at least not the parts people are referring to when they bring it up). You'd get McMansion H…

Ah, like that. Cities like Paris do still look like that because of such zoning laws, so it's not exactly impossible. IMO modern construction can be beautiful too, it's cheap (be it old or new) construction that's ugly.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#133

Post by trav4225 »

infamouscow wrote: post #129
colpabar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot of the burglars are black, which means doing anything about it will be seen as racist. SF no longer release tapes of crimes that happen on public transit for the same reason. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...

Why is it about one's skin color? I thought we were past this.

We were, but society has resurrected it for cynical political reasons.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#134

Post by iak8god »

reillyse wrote: post #31

I don’t recognize the California described in this article and I live in Los Angeles. It seems like a politically motivated attack on liberalism using California as a proxy for the Democratic Party.

> It seems like a politically motivated attack on liberalism using California as a proxy for the Democratic Party.

That is exactly what it is, which should surprise no one considering the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#Rightward_tu...

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#135

Post by iak8god »

guelo wrote: post #57

Why are there so many "California/San Francisco is horrible" articles? As if every state didn't have different sets of issues. To me it looks like conservative bias in our media since all I hear these days is how everything is liberals fault.

I can't speak to the other articles you're talking about, but this piece is coming from a strongly biased source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#Rightward_tu...

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#136

Post by hellisothers »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #68
arbor_day wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities don't vote, people do. I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here. I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that woul…

The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not. I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.

Without knowing them exactly I imagine property owners actually do have rights in this situation. Where does the right “to housing that doesn’t cost 90% of their monthly income” come from?

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#137

Post by arbor_day »

MoosePirate wrote: post #106
arbor_day wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities don't vote, people do. I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here. I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that woul…

This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning. Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going…

FWIW, I am happy to pay a premium for the living situation I want. I do that today across high housing costs / taxes / cost of local goods/services. I'd happily support paying for other externalities (e.g. carbon taxes).

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#138

Post by confidantlake »

justinzollars wrote: post #122
confidantlake wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean default on their debt? If so that is a really bad idea. I don't really get it being uncompetitive. California has a higher gdp per capita then either Texas or Florida.

I mean default as in bankruptcy, then restructure the fixed costs in a way to become competitive with Texas and Florida.

Their debt to gdp ration isn't even in the top 10 of states. There is no reason for them to declare bankruptcy.

The idea that California is not competitive couldn't be further from the truth.If California were a country they would have the 5th highest gdp in the world.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#139

Post by confidantlake »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #130
confidantlake wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous cities. Yet article after article about how it is falling apart. Where are all the articles about St Louis or Jackson Mississippi?

We expect St Louis to be falling apart. We don't expect San Francisco to be. But I don't agree with the GP either. "Conservative bias in our media"? Either you're to the left of CNN (in which case you're far from the median, and so in a bad position to judge), or you're looking at a very skewed subset of the media. Personally, I think it's a backlash. I think the liberals have been loudly triumphalist since... maybe…

Maybe the media I read is skewed. It is mostly what I link to from HN.

I lived in Sf about a decade back. There were a steady stream of articles even way back then about how San Francisco was falling apart. Like yeah the Tenderloin is a ghetto and there are not enough public bathrooms. But the rest of the city is pretty safe. The biggest problem by far were the housing prices which is why I moved out. A decade later the Tenderloin is still a ghetto, still not enough bathrooms, and the housing prices are still too damn high. And there are still articles about how it is on the verge of collapse.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#140

Post by mrep »

jollybean wrote: post #102
ffggvv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

california is among the highest state tax rates in the country...

USA generally has lower tax burden than other nations, but I don't think taxes on the bottom 90% need to change so much, the issue is in the massive surplus of those earning capital gains. Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that. i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade. ... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.

California taxes capital gains as a source of income without the IRS’s differentiation between long-term or short-term gains so they are one and the same to California.
Post reply on HN