91–100 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes in California are among the lowest in the nation.
On a percentage basis. 1% of $1m is still way more than 4% of $150k
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Culture and things to do include a lot more than just networking and museums. One example for instance is the vast amount of unique natural beauty surrounding the Bay Area. Even rural places that have that are also expensive- though admittedly not nearly as much so. This is generally reflected in salary though.
Those activities are also restricted and limited during COVID - either explicitly via state and local ordinances or via social pressures to not spread the virus. Basically, the optimal solution right now is to not go anywhere or see anyone unless you absolutely have to. Which if all someone should be doing is sitting at home or getting groceries, they could do that for a lot less than SF prices.
Outside of a few extremely popular spots it is not restricted in Washington, at least to my knowledge. If it is in the Bay/CA then it is news to me.
In any case, that stuff will still be there when the pandemic is over. It won’t be anywhere east of the Rockies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because a big chunk of your rent goes to property taxes. Where I am property taxes are $1k a month for a $3k/mo apartment.
Property tax is not an input to setting the market rate of rental housing, though. Changing the tax does not change the rent. Ask yourself if your rent would decrease if they decreased the taxes. Rent is a simple supply/demand system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But cities have enduring appeal - proximity to people and culture and things to do I think this is key right here. For the foreseeable future, those things won't be any more available in an expensive city compared to an inexpensive rural area. So why buy a 1 bedroom for $2 million or rent one for $3500 a month if I can do the exact same amount of networking and see the exact same amount of museums while paying sign…
Culture and things to do include a lot more than just networking and museums. One example for instance is the vast amount of unique natural beauty surrounding the Bay Area. Even rural places that have that are also expensive- though admittedly not nearly as much so. This is generally reflected in salary though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Culture and things to do include a lot more than just networking and museums. One example for instance is the vast amount of unique natural beauty surrounding the Bay Area. Even rural places that have that are also expensive- though admittedly not nearly as much so. This is generally reflected in salary though.
If nature's your priority though, you don't live in SF or SV proper. You live in the Santa Cruz mountains, Marin, or further north along the coast or in the mountains (or in the Sierras). Those aren't cheap either in many cases of course until you really get out of Bay Area commuting range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. For the economically disadvantaged, of course providing free or low cost housing is helpful and welcome. But for the majority, who have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues, a shelter or home often makes little difference. Witness for example the experiment in Manhattan to provide some homeless men with hotel rooms. They literally go downstairs to poop in…
You're absolutley wrong, various studies have been done that prove not only does no strings attached housing reduce homelesness, it is cheaper than having shelters and other economic costs. Finland is already doing this: https://english.best/toeic/exercise/finlands-radical-solutio...
I'm afraid also that Finland's socio-economic situation is rather different from that of the U.S. Up until quite recently, they have had a homogeneous culture, a much smaller population, and more social stability, versus the U.S. with its vast and highly diverse population and relative instability. I don't see how a Finnish solution would quite fit our situation, though we should of course study their methodology since they tend to have good ideas :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one can fix the root causes. But everyone can move to somewhere functional.
These are not impossible problems. They are fixable and we need to agree on the root cause before we can talk about solutions.
Moving to a city that already has a functioning society is something one person can do without permission. So people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally false. Changing the tax rate will definitely change the rent. A property tax increase will increase the floor that tenants (edit: meant landlords) would be willing to rent their places out across the entire city as they look to protect their profit margins. You don't think that a landlord will see a property tax increase and think "oh well, I guess I'm going to make less money from now on". Rent is definitely…
Nope, you're wrong. Your argument rests on the idea that landlords (I assume you meant landlords where you said "tenants") have the ability to raise prices. If they did, they would have already raised them. Landlords who are not subject to rent controls charge whatever the market will bear, and no less. Therefore property tax has no bearing on rent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property tax is not an input to setting the market rate of rental housing, though. Changing the tax does not change the rent. Ask yourself if your rent would decrease if they decreased the taxes. Rent is a simple supply/demand system.
It absolutely does if you're thinking of building new apartment building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has changed is near universal availability of high speed wireless. Followed by a national experiment in remote working. You don't have to live in the city to have a lucrative tech job.
How long does the “high paying” part stay true when companies who need technical talent can now pull candidates from the entire world? I wonder if the move towards remote work might wind up pushing down IT wages across the board. edit: instead of downvoting, maybe help me understand why I might be looking at this wrong?
That said, I do expect you see a decrease in premiums being paid for high CoL areas to the degree that living there becomes an employee lifestyle choice and a rise for tech workers in low CoL areas who can work remotely. I expect you end up somewhere in the middle.