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

Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

kxan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 691 posts

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#401

Post by rcpt »

mullingitover wrote: post #326
boringg wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for everyone as the prices are getting stupid everywhere.... BUTTTT I just looked on Redfin - I could buy a 3300 square foot house in Austin for under $900k with a huge pool and that was a 5 second search. No offense all you Austin folk, but you literally have no clue.

I'd be careful about directly comparing prices, real estate taxes (by rate) in Texas are significantly higher than in California. They might be overall lower given that the real estate prices are cheaper, but Texas is #6 in the country for real estate taxes while California is #34[1]. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/high-state-property-taxes-2021/

If you don't want to pay property tax then just rent. Texas rent is nowhere near CA

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#402

Post by zionic »

notJim wrote: post #178
gautamcgoel wrote: post #48

What I'm really curious about is what happens to Austin (and to a lesser extent, Atlanta, Raleigh, Denver, SLC etc). Does Austin become the next Bay Area/next Seattle? Crazy high housing prices, and high homelessness/crime? If so, how long does that take, and what happens to native Austinites? If not, what prevents history from repeating itself?

If they don't build housing, they will rapidly have all these problems. There's no magic here, no curse on the Bay Area and Seattle, it's all economics, though the geography of SF and Seattle don't help. From cursory Googling, it looks like Austin is beginning to upzone areas so that apartments can be built, which is a step in the right direction. From what I understand, Austin has already been struggling with afford…

Bay Area does have a curse though, it’s city council is A unique mix of evil, incompetence, and self interest.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#403

Post by rcpt »

muzz wrote: post #375
vmception wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we really need to localize this conversation as nowhere can economically manage a large exodus of people from California's 40,000,000 population. The only thing to remember is that Californians can afford the new area's current housing prices and a decade's worth of price increases.

There is no "large exodus" of people moving out of California. The number of people moving from San Francisco to Austin in a year is something like 240 households. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/People-are-leavi...

California has exploded to the world's 5th largest economy. Surpassing even the UK.

Zero growth isn't the right baseline. The fact that the population hasn't boomed means something is definitely wrong.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#404

Post by freewilly1040 »

scoofy wrote: post #257
minhazm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any idea what housing costs in the bay area though? We can compare between the zipcodes of Gigafactory Texas and Fremont. According to Redfin the median sale price for 78725 (Austin) is $362k, compared to $1.225 million for 94538 (Fremont). That's more than 3x the price. Compared to California it's definitely affordable. Austin: https://www.redfin.com/zipcode/78725/housing-market Fremont: https://www.redf…

I mean, to be fair, 78725 is effectively the middle of nowhere in Austin. It makes sense if Musk's goal was to choose a fairly undeveloped exurb, but the gigafactory is as close to Manor and Webberville as it is to central Austin. I know Fremont is suburban, but it's a well incorporated suburb to both SF, Oakland and San Jose. 78725 is on the opposite side of Austin from most of the fancy neighborhoods.

All three cities you list are over an hour to Fremont via transit. 45 min to 1.5 hour via car with traffic.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#405

Post by mullingitover »

rcpt wrote: post #401
mullingitover wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be careful about directly comparing prices, real estate taxes (by rate) in Texas are significantly higher than in California. They might be overall lower given that the real estate prices are cheaper, but Texas is #6 in the country for real estate taxes while California is #34[1]. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/high-state-property-taxes-2021/

If you don't want to pay property tax then just rent. Texas rent is nowhere near CA

As a renter, you're paying 100% of your landlord's property taxes.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#406

Post by CheezeIt »

scottrogowski wrote: post #372
CheezeIt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public schools aren’t pitiful at all. California has great schools.

If we are judging by one completely objective measure (high school graduation rates) California is currently the lowest-ranked state in the country: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/high-school...

I disagree with that metric, because many students should not finish high school — I think the graduation rate is too high in every state. I would compare states based on testing performance, keeping in mind California’s demographics and the absurdly high number of kids who don’t speak English at home.

I should say I think its schools are fine, rather than great.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#407

Post by mosdl »

newacct583 wrote: post #156
mosdl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Austin already has plenty of homeless people, and the #s are quite comparable to san jose for example - they are just more visible in the bay area due to lax rules for them (plus weather).

> homeless people [...] are just more visible in the bay area due to lax rules for them I'm not normally someone who picks on phrasing, but this one is a little orwellian. The implication is that, while homelessness is endemic basically everywhere, the proper "rules" for them to obey are that they are not to be seen . And enforcement regimes that allow them to exist in public are "lax"? Yikes.

I admit, lax was the wrong term to use. Can't think of a term that means less aggressive trying to hide them.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#408

Post by rcpt »

ijidak wrote: post #301
gonehome wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even close - a crappy house on the peninsula is 1.7M, with the median closer to 2.5-3M. I mean, look at this: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/3785-Park-Blvd-94306/hom... I think Austin is better about building too, meanwhile in the Bay Area they just rejected units desperately needed in the tenderloin because they might become a "tech dorm".

> https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/3785-Park-Blvd-94306/hom... Wow. That is unreal. Yeah, no region in almost any region of America comes close to Bay Area prices.

Scroll to the bottom to "tax history" to see how this can be. Despite the value of the house going to the moon the previous owner was just sitting on a decade old assessment with no pressure to sell.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#409

Post by hnburnsy »

AlbertCory wrote: post #393
thebradbain wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes for that home in TX would be equivalent to a $1.8M+ home in CA, though (and raise every year with the market), so it's not as simple as comparison. The monthly mortgage payment for a $900k in Austin is probably comparable to a $1.2-1.3M home in CA.

Indeed, I've also checked it out. No income tax, but property taxes are at least 2% of the assessed value, and sometimes 3. You'll see that on the Zillow listing.

It is nice though that you can control your taxes via choice on a property tax, not much with an income tax.

But ultimately it seems like they get you one way or another, through sales, Income, and or property tax.

Re: Tesla’s headquarters will move to Austin

#410

Post by mhh__ »

FredPret wrote: post #342
SauciestGNU wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians are at least theoretically accountable to an electorate, whereas egomaniacal billionaires are accountable to nobody.

uhhh... they are accountable to every one of their clients, every time those clients make a purchase. For almost all billionaires, that's a far larger constituency and a much more frequent and efficient selection process compared to elections every x years by the 30% of the population who bother to vote. As soon as they stop performing, the money stops rolling in.

Ergo businesses can do no wrong?
Post reply on HN