[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by SeaDoo342

Not really when comparing coastal CT to LA.... I researched moving there, LA rents were cheaper than Fairfield County...

I just looked it up (comparing Stamford/Bridgeport to LA) and housing was almost exactly the same (difference of 1%) but taxes/utilities were way more in CT. The overall COL in CT was higher, so if you made 50k in LA, you'd have to make 53k in coastal CT to maintain the same quality of life...

Are you counting the entire LA metro area or just the defined city border?

LA is a huge metro area and yes the COL in places like the IE or valley are "cheaper" than downtown, WH, or Malibu. Going by official borders LA alone is over 500 square miles which overlapped with FFC would extend all the way from the coast past the state border and into NY. Add in those "cheaper" areas like the inland empire and LA metro is bigger in area than all of FFC.

[SeaDoo342]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

Are you counting the entire LA metro area or just the defined city border?

LA is a huge metro area and yes the COL in places like the IE or valley are "cheaper" than downtown, WH, or Malibu. Going by official borders LA alone is over 500 square miles which overlapped with FFC would extend all the way from the coast past the state border and into NY. Add in those "cheaper" areas like the inland empire and LA metro is bigger in area than all of FFC.

Don't think it includes the inland empire... because those have their own parameters, so does Orange County... I'm pretty sure it includes LA proper.. but yeah, inland empire is CHEAP. You can build a new, 2-3k square foot house there for less than 300k!

[BicoastalAnn]

I just moved out of LA a few weeks ago...grew up there and was about to move to FFC to save money (yes, believe it) until a change in employment situation. If you're just talking about the coastal areas in LA (Malibu, Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Manhattan Beach) it is much more expensive to buy than in FFC generally - I didn't look at rent prices. If you wanted to be along the coast in FFC you could go Stamford, Norwalk or Fairfield and get a very nice 3b2ba for like $600k. There are very few places in the entirety of LA proper, not including some pockets of the valley, where you could get a SFH at that price except for the projects.

On rent... not sure where you were looking but anywhere even just outside of the valley it really spikes. For example the apartment I left in Burbank was a 2b2ba renting for $3200 as of this year but a 2b2ba within the same property management company in Stamford or Mamaroneck was going for like $2500.

[BPt111]

CT is still facing nealry 1 billion in red ink starting july cities and town will lose millions in state aid

Spending cuts target education funding - Connecticut Post

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

I just moved out of LA a few weeks ago...grew up there and was about to move to FFC to save money (yes, believe it) until a change in employment situation. If you're just talking about the coastal areas in LA (Malibu, Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Manhattan Beach) it is much more expensive to buy than in FFC generally - I didn't look at rent prices. If you wanted to be along the coast in FFC you could go Stamford, Norwalk or Fairfield and get a very nice 3b2ba for like $600k. There are very few places in the entirety of LA proper, not including some pockets of the valley, where you could get a SFH at that price except for the project.

Stamford and Norwalk are considered the more affordable cities in southwestern CT and have underperforming schools. You can easily find a decent $600k home near LA in a similar underperforming district.

I lived in greater LA for a bit (Valley). As a whole, rents in southern CT are higher than LA. LA house prices are higher. The difference between the two is slight, though. There is no doubt CT property taxes are higher, which translates to higher monthly mortgage payments. Utilities in CT are also a significant difference - thousands difference per year in my experience. That can easily even out the cost of buying a home since in many cases, people are paying 2k per MONTH in property taxes in lower Fairfield, even with a low mill rate. As in LA though, the further up the line you go in CT (equivalent to further inland in CA) the cheaper it gets. The inland empire is dirt cheap, though. But who wants to live there?

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Stamford and Norwalk are considered the more affordable cities in southwestern CT and have underperforming schools. You can easily find a decent $600k home near LA in a similar underperforming district.

I lived in greater LA for a bit (Valley). As a whole, rents in southern CT are higher than LA. LA house prices are higher. The difference between the two is slight, though. There is no doubt CT property taxes are higher, which translates to higher monthly mortgage payments. Utilities in CT are also a significant difference - thousands difference per year in my experience. That can easily even out the cost of buying a home since in many cases, people are paying 2k per MONTH in property taxes in lower Fairfield, even with a low mill rate. As in LA though, the further up the line you go in CT (equivalent to further inland in CA) the cheaper it gets. The inland empire is dirt cheap, though. But who wants to live there?

This was really not my experience this year. And yes you can find a decent $600k in an "okay" school district but it's not going to be as close to a business center as Stamford is to NYC/Westchester/itself. Even living in a good school district in the valley, you'd be driving at least 1.5 hrs each way to get into and out of LA - not even talking about the west side here. I know because I did this! Oh yeah I was dreaming of those days just sitting back on Metro North.

And property tax savings are slight... it's about 1.25% of your selling price which in my calculations were pretty equal to CT (I was looking at about $600k in Ridgefield). Of course this will vary depending on different mill rates, but in a comparison of West Hills vs Ridgefield as 2 areas to get good schools, a decent commute, at the same price point... everything was better in Ridgefield - services, quality of home, prestige, etc.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

This was really not my experience this year. And yes you can find a decent $600k in an "okay" school district but it's not going to be as close to a business center as Stamford is to NYC/Westchester/itself. Even living in a good school district in the valley, you'd be driving at least 1.5 hrs each way to get into and out of LA - not even talking about the west side here. I know because I did this! Oh yeah I was dreaming of those days just sitting back on Metro North.

And property tax savings are slight... it's about 1.25% of your selling price which in my calculations were pretty equal to CT (I was looking at about $600k in Ridgefield). Of course this will vary depending on different mill rates, but in a comparison of West Hills vs Ridgefield as 2 areas to get good schools, a decent commute, at the same price point... everything was better in Ridgefield - services, quality of home, prestige, etc.

I know Ridgefield well and agree that it's a great deal for your money. One of the best in the area IMO.

One thing prevalent in FFC/Westchester is that many companies relocated to the suburbs after 9/11, allowing bedroom community residents a much easier commute to work. That's not as prevalent in LA in my opinion. That being said, an extreme southwestern CT commute to midtown Manhattan is still an hour. Granted Stamford has many offices, but the major employment center in the area is still NYC.

Anyway, my experience (and my sister's, who just moved into a home there from southwestern CT last year) is that once you factor in taxes and utilities, monthly payments are about the same. Also, something has to be said for not having to deal with snow.

Edit to add: here are the most expensive rental markets in the country as of 7 months ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-and-families/

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

This was really not my experience this year. And yes you can find a decent $600k in an "okay" school district but it's not going to be as close to a business center as Stamford is to NYC/Westchester/itself. Even living in a good school district in the valley, you'd be driving at least 1.5 hrs each way to get into and out of LA - not even talking about the west side here. I know because I did this! Oh yeah I was dreaming of those days just sitting back on Metro North.

And property tax savings are slight... it's about 1.25% of your selling price which in my calculations were pretty equal to CT (I was looking at about $600k in Ridgefield). Of course this will vary depending on different mill rates, but in a comparison of West Hills vs Ridgefield as 2 areas to get good schools, a decent commute, at the same price point... everything was better in Ridgefield - services, quality of home, prestige, etc.

I agree, we also looked at coastal S. Cal, particularly San Diego, and $600K was miles inland and not great schools. Forget about a couple of miles within the coast. Here I'm a short jog/bike ride away from the shoreline no problem in that price range.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I know Ridgefield well and agree that it's a great deal for your money. One of the best in the area IMO.

One thing prevalent in FFC/Westchester is that many companies relocated to the suburbs after 9/11, allowing bedroom community residents a much easier commute to work. That's not as prevalent in LA in my opinion. That being said, an extreme southwestern CT commute to midtown Manhattan is still an hour. Granted Stamford has many offices, but the major employment center in the area is still NYC.

Anyway, my experience (and my sister's, who just moved into a home there from southwestern CT last year) is that once you factor in taxes and utilities, monthly payments are about the same. Also, something has to be said for not having to deal with snow.

Yes I think Ridgefield and West Hills are probably the "bargains" of these areas. You're very right about the bedroom community issue... it's especially scary to buy a home in LA because who knows where your next job could be. Some of my friends bought close to work only to lose their jobs/move on and then have to commute 30-60 miles each way at their new job. I did 30 miles and, while this isn't too far, it was a grueling 1.5 hrs in the car... watching bloody (not in the british sense) accidents each day whoo.

One thing I didn't calculate that could be significant is the hidden cost of buying an older home in CT... with septic issues, snow damage, gardening, etc. so I will admit that. Houses here are generally very easy to maintain.. heck many don't even have a lawn these days.

Of course for all that calculating, I ended up in SF which.. don't even get me started on the costs here.

[beerisgood02]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

I just moved out of LA a few weeks ago...grew up there and was about to move to FFC to save money (yes, believe it) until a change in employment situation. If you're just talking about the coastal areas in LA (Malibu, Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Manhattan Beach) it is much more expensive to buy than in FFC generally - I didn't look at rent prices. If you wanted to be along the coast in FFC you could go Stamford, Norwalk or Fairfield and get a very nice 3b2ba for like $600k. There are very few places in the entirety of LA proper, not including some pockets of the valley, where you could get a SFH at that price except for the projects.

On rent... not sure where you were looking but anywhere even just outside of the valley it really spikes. For example the apartment I left in Burbank was a 2b2ba renting for $3200 as of this year but a 2b2ba within the same property management company in Stamford or Mamaroneck was going for like $2500.

Spot on. Malibu, Santa Monica, etc are much more expensive than FFC. I just saw an 880 sft home with 2 bedrooms/2 bath in Santa Monica listed for $1.149m. At $1,368/per sft, that's extraordinary. And taxes are 9k (!). Forget rivaling Greenwich; it pile drives right thru it.