Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,726 posts, read 58,079,686 times
Reputation: 46195
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And the loss of tax revenue to the State is what caused a very painful transition when Prop 13 first went into effect. Overnight, UC Berkeley's budget got slashed. ....There must be a compromise solution somehow...
Of course, those feeding at the pig trough of public education are opposed to anything that might put them on a diet.
Imagine the benefit to all western states if CA would have implemented a Real Estate equity freeze in 1960. No more than average US home value could flee the State. And RE valuation gains must remain invested within CA.
CA would be sitting pretty right now, Previous CA property owners would be enjoying positive cash flows on investments residing there, as well as significantly less housing costs in their new states. The locals could still afford to live in their homes.
Life would be much simpler and free. ( I worked 1 week / month just to fund Californication cost of living increases). That week would have been far more valuable invested into my family and community.
There has been a tremendous cost to society. It's of no value to have your home rachet up in valuation, and have to support the excess insurance, taxes, financial burden and obligation, just to keep your family housed, head dry, and a safe and comfortable place to use as your sanctuary from the busy and demanding world. Somewhere we (USA) fell into the trap... Increased Home valuation makes you richer. Wrong. It is another millstone around your neck.
Of course, those feeding at the pig trough of public education are opposed to anything that might put them on a diet.
Imagine the benefit to all western states if CA would have implemented a Real Estate equity freeze in 1960. No more than average US home value could flee the State. And RE valuation gains must remain invested within CA.
CA would be sitting pretty right now, Previous CA property owners would be enjoying positive cash flows on investments residing there, as well as significantly less housing costs in their new states. The locals could still afford to live in their homes.
Life would be much simpler and free. ( I worked 1 week / month just to fund Californication cost of living increases). That week would have been far more valuable invested into my family and community.
There has been a tremendous cost to society. It's of no value to have your home rachet up in valuation, and have to support the excess insurance, taxes, financial burden and obligation, just to keep your family housed, head dry, and a safe and comfortable place to use as your sanctuary from the busy and demanding world. Somewhere we (USA) fell into the trap... Increased Home valuation makes you richer. Wrong. It is another millstone around your neck.
Something needs to change, RE prices and COL are up so high that many people(including many friends and coworkers) are simply cashing out and moving out of state. This year, I expect to see major labor shortages severely effect the operational viability of many aspects of life/business in this state. Pharmacies, gas stations, grocery store staff, handymen, plumbers, electricians, nurses/assistants, mechanics, painters, transportation workers-Ferries, and so on are already in short supply. Washington's high cost of living(some areas in the top 5% highest in the nation now), high crime, heavily taxed lifestyle is going to attract them?
Of course, those feeding at the pig trough of public education are opposed to anything that might put them on a diet.
Imagine the benefit to all western states if CA would have implemented a Real Estate equity freeze in 1960. No more than average US home value could flee the State. And RE valuation gains must remain invested within CA.
CA would be sitting pretty right now, Previous CA property owners would be enjoying positive cash flows on investments residing there, as well as significantly less housing costs in their new states. The locals could still afford to live in their homes.
Life would be much simpler and free. ( I worked 1 week / month just to fund Californication cost of living increases). That week would have been far more valuable invested into my family and community.
There has been a tremendous cost to society. It's of no value to have your home rachet up in valuation, and have to support the excess insurance, taxes, financial burden and obligation, just to keep your family housed, head dry, and a safe and comfortable place to use as your sanctuary from the busy and demanding world. Somewhere we (USA) fell into the trap... Increased Home valuation makes you richer. Wrong. It is another millstone around your neck.
Yes, housing prices would be lower if we had socialism and banned private sale of property and froze all house prices at 1960 levels.
No builder would ever build a new one, and you would be on a 40-year wait list to buy an old one. The house itself might only cost $15,000 but you could sell your spot on the wait list for $1.25 million.
Last edited by texasdiver; 01-19-2023 at 08:19 PM..
We have to concede, that one person's socialism is another person's free-market, and a third person's good neighborly comity. Agreement is... elusive.
Personally I'd prefer a national system, where property tax is nationally uniform, and all sorts of housing-related regulations (building restrictions, water rights, environmental impact, transaction fees,..) are set nationally and adapted by local administrators to local conditions. Then people could buy and sell real estate without the corruptions and vagaries of local rules, and we'd have a truly national free-market.
All material purchases are potential investments, be they houses, cars, furniture, even clothing or electronics. Whenever we buy something, we ought to be mindful of resale value and potential for appreciation. If the item in question does NOT appreciate, it's just an item of consumption; go as cheaply as possible! If it DOES appreciate, then it's an investment. That rewards buying larger or more sumptuous or higher quality, than what one might otherwise have done.
This is also why the buy vs. rent comparison is so fraught. If renting, one goes for the smallest, dinkiest and cheapest apartment possible... maybe even just a room. However, if buying, one might buy a substantial house with excess rooms and fine finishes, even if one is single and only needs a single room.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,726 posts, read 58,079,686 times
Reputation: 46195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
We have to concede, that one person's socialism is another person's free-market, and a third person's good neighborly comity. Agreement is... elusive.
... If it DOES appreciate, then it's an investment. That rewards buying larger or more sumptuous or higher quality, than what one might otherwise have done.
...
and some of us (few I presume). Consider our homes, not as an 'investment' but as our retreat / sanctuary from the conflict of the world. We design and build our own, 'brick-by-brick', as cash and ability allows, with no intent or desire to ever sell it. Just peacefully age there until we turn to dust. (Our home goes to charity).
Thus (to us) there is ZERO value in valuation increases. On the contrary, it only increases the taxes, insurance and hassle (people wanting to buy it, including the tax assessor).
The tax assessor could just have the box on the form... "write me a check", or... "defer to my estate"
But of course the leeches depending on our generous tax contributions to support their lavish lifestyles would be robbed of their posh lives. That certainly wouldn't be fair!
Yes, housing prices would be lower if we had socialism and banned private sale of property and froze all house prices at 1960 levels.
No builder would ever build a new one, and you would be on a 40-year wait list to buy an old one. The house itself might only cost $15,000 but you could sell your spot on the wait list for $1.25 million.
Exactly, and if you are lucky your new car will be ready around the same time!
... We design and build our own, 'brick-by-brick', as cash and ability allows, with no intent or desire to ever sell it. ...
I have considerable respect for your mechanical skills. But a house isn't generally a work of art. If you choose to thus view that, that's of course your personal prerogative. But it's unreasonable to expect the mass of humanity to share this view. We buy and sell houses by the pound. They're a commodity, like the raw land on which they sit. Their subjective significance, such as a place where parents raise their children, is secondary to their market-value at any given point in time. However precious one's house might be, hypothetically given enough money, one wouldn't hesitate to sell it.
I have a hobby-car that you might appreciate. All sorts of calculations, learnings and labors went into it. Its market value isn't high, but even so, if some fawning enthusiast would offer me even say $100K, I'd still likely not sell it. Why? Because its value transcends money. It's as it were priceless. From a personal view, this is laudable, even noble, just like your adventures with your house. But from a market view, my stance is irrational.
Having bounced from one part of the country, to another and another, I have positive feeling about moving to WA for the economic reasons... decently rising property values, but not so high, that the ratio of house price to prevailing incomes is unsustainable (unlike Los Angeles). No state income tax. Moderate (relatively speaking!) property taxes. It isn't any particular desire to join and partake of some community, neighborhood or way of life. It's mostly just a financial calculation - hopefully an accurate one!
Interesting conversations. I think the divergence in views partially reflects the state's ideas on taxation including property tax laws. If there is no general consensus on either a need for change or a way to improve the current structure, it will likely remain since the inertia required to attain critical mass is too great for anything to happen. So, things will remain as they are which for some isn't necessarily bad even if not for all.
Nope, we are getting the mid-rises all over town in the Urban Villages along Samish Way and in the Fountain District as well as in Cordata and Woburn areas.
Plumbers can well afford to live here and other employees (lower paid service) join roommates.
What’s wrong with being a NIMBY? We stopped a huge development in our area 15 years ago that would have multiplied density by 80 times and incurred huge upgrades to infrastructure which would have burdened our rural neighborhood. Btw, we are not wealthy but our gentrifying neighborhood is (wealthy neighbors weren’t here when project was fought).
We're getting a few mid-rises in certain "urban village" development areas in town, but increased density isn't happening all over town. And we are definitely not building enough housing - both in quantity or in diversity of housing types - to reasonably accommodate a growing population.
As to your other assertion about everyone being able to afford to live here, no- that's totally incorrect. I'm not getting political here, and it may surprise you to hear it from a fairly progressive person like myself- but there's little doubt among experts that the often liberal development plans of the past have led to a lack of lower to middle housing inventory - especially on the West Coast - which has in turn led to skyrocketing prices and to some degree, homelessness. As rkcarguy posts about often, and which I agree, these types of strategies - inflexible zoning, excessive regulations, etc. have led to situations where it's become almost impossible to live or relocate here for anyone who's not rich.
That's not to say that people shouldn't try to organize against certain developments, or giant, out-of-scale behemoths that significantly change the character of the immediate area. And you're right, infrastructure needs to match development so that it's not overburdening and causing more problems. Not decimating the environment is a good thing, too.
This isn't personal- we're all NIMBY's, to some degree. But actually dig in and do the research- and I'd encourage you to look up anyone doing any sort of regression analysis on the subject - and you'll find that NIMBY-led opposition and policies (from the rich AND poor, conservative AND liberal, with the common denominator being home ownership) are absolutely a big factor in why housing prices are absurdly high on the West Coast.
Last edited by bartonizer; 01-20-2023 at 09:52 PM..
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,726 posts, read 58,079,686 times
Reputation: 46195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
...
Having bounced from one part of the country, to another and another, I have positive feeling about moving to WA for the economic reasons... decently rising property values, but not so high, that the ratio of house price to prevailing incomes is unsustainable (unlike Los Angeles). No state income tax. Moderate (relatively speaking!) property taxes. ... It's mostly just a financial calculation - ...
Come with eyes wide open.
Very much depends on your income and spending habits, but many WA friends who have retired and relocated to MT, ID, CO, SD, WY, NM, AZ, NV, MO, FL, TX, TN, & AR (and US Protectorates)... enjoy their lower CoL in those areas, sometimes by a great amount. States that offer a Homestead Exemption can be very beneficial to allowing retirees to stay and retain their homes into old age and until they die. WA really loses it's luster once you have no income. (i.e. a J-O-B, in most cases), but it can be advantageous during your earning yrs. Some retirees probably have annual earnings above $300k, and they might have an incremental benefit to living in WA. Those under the 28% federal bracket will probably not see a tremendous benefit, and of course there are several other states who have no income tax. (some have a much lower CoL than WA). So... if it's all about money, I wouldn't bother.
Consider it likely there will eventually be an income tax, or some other fees that will equal the average USA state income tax amount. (It is very trivial at average retirement income levels). WA is not a positive outlier for total tax burden. But much depends on your income structure / sources + your eligible deductions and credits.
BTW, I don't follow your car example, any more than any 'collectible' asset class. My home, nor my car ($35 purchase that runs on free bio-diesel home brew) are not 'collectibles', and not held for potential or intrinsic gain. Since my home is in a federally protected area, it cannot be replaced... similar to the few that exist within Teton NP. There's nothing special about it, the average Joe does not give a rip about the stonework and built-in handmade cabinetry done strickly for my enjoyment. (nor should my assessor care). I still have Formica and linoleum ($38/sf total building costs, including land, well, septic, landscaping). It was not build for resale (at any price) Who would want it? it's a junker, just a nice place for ME to lay my pillow, then... it is GONE... Earthquake, wildfire, freak Columba Gorge winds (it's survived countless 100+ mph days and weeks). Death... then it's history. Maybe I can use it as a final crematorium! Very likely just as the retired couple in Grand Lake. We built it, our family and friends enjoyed it, we'll disappear with it. Done deal. Except the charity is gonna get stuck with a cleanup bill and taxes on acreage that probably will never be able to be built on again. It would probably be bought (or siezed) by The Friends(?) of the Gorge Land Trust, then transferred to the U.S. Forest Service. So has been the occasional demise of the neighbor's places.
Poof, it's gone.
Last edited by StealthRabbit; 01-20-2023 at 10:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
($38/sf total building costs, including land, well, septic, landscaping). It was not build for resale (at any price) Who would want it? it's a junker
, just a nice place for ME to lay my pillow, then... it is GONE... Earthquake, wildfire, freak Columba Gorge winds (it's survived countless 100+ mph days and weeks). Death... then it's history. Maybe I can use it as a final crematorium! Very likely just as the retired couple in Grand Lake. We built it, our family and friends enjoyed it, we'll disappear with it. Done deal. Except the charity is gonna get stuck with a cleanup bill and taxes on acreage that probably will never be able to be built on again. It would probably be bought (or siezed) by The Friends(?) of the Gorge Land Trust, then transferred to the U.S. Forest Service. So has been the occasional demise of the neighbor's places.
