Are the Flippers Laying In Wait?

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CricketOnTheHearth, Prop 13 started in 1978. I’m not sure if that’s a coincidence or not, but I think that could be one factor. Just look at other states that don’t have prop 13, like Texas. What is so different in Texas vs CA that cause CA property to run up faster here than TX? Why can builder build a $100-200k house over there and still be profitable while they can’t do that here? Price is determine by supply and demand. Increase supply above the demand and price will fall. Why control demand while you can easily increase supply? I think it’s retard that you limit how many house a person can buy. Limiting the amount of property a person can own is almost like limiting how many car a person can buy, or how many trip a person can take, or how many pollutant a person can create. In CAR’s mind, clean air is a limited resource just like land.[/quote]

AN,

Have you ever been to Texas? Nothing but land there, as far as the eye can see.

California has approximately 91 people per sq. km., and a total population of 36,756,666 living in 403,931.96 sq. km.

Texas has approximately 35.88 people per sq. km., and a total population of 24,326,974 living in 678,051.12 sq. km.

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm
——————-

Personal Income Per Capita in Current and Constant(2000) Dollars By State: 1990 to 2005:

California is #9 in 2000, and #11 in 2005

Texas is #23 in 2000 and #27 in 2005

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/income.pdf
——————–

Some history on Prop 13 (and why I vehemently support it):

In 1966, after an assessors’ scandal, the Legislature enacted a reform bill (AB 80) to keep assessments at a uniform percentage of market value. As a result, during the 1970s, when real estate values escalated rapidly, so did home assessments.
By 1978, with home ownership threatened by escalating property tax bills, the fate of Proposition 13 was sealed. The tax revolt was born, aided in part by the release of new assessments just prior to the election showing large increases in assessed value for many taxpayers.

http://www.caltax.org/research/prop13/prop13.htm
———————

California’s housing market has historically been much more volatile than markets in other states. Just as we’ve seen this past decade, speculators, “investors,” and immigrants (foreign and domestic) have served to drive up housing costs for native and long-time Californians. In response, California residents passed Prop 13 so that residents could no longer be “priced out” of their own homes.

This is where I strongly support private property rights. If you bought a single, primary residence, no speculator or new resident should be able to tax you out of your own home.

Like adjustable-rate mortgages, variable propery tax rates/costs make budgeting nearly impossible. Under Prop 13, buyers **choose** their tax payments when they buy a house. If all buyers were smart enough to budget for the full PITI payment, perhaps they’d learn not to overpay for their properties. They should not offer to pay a certain tax when they purchase, then complain about it later on, when the taxing authorities make they comply with their agreements.

Prop 13 protection for seniors and other prudent buyers does not bother me. It does bother me when we allow tremendously wealthy people to buy up all the homes, then force people to rent from them so the wealthy can secure a stream of income. Prop 13 effectively subsidizes their **profits** which is something I am very opposed to.

[an]

CAR, question is, have you been to Fresno, Sanger, Barstow, Bakersfield? There are A LOT of flat usable land there too. I can bet you there’s more land in Fresno ready for development than Dallas or Houston or Austin. There are A LOT more high paying jobs in those TX states than Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. Yet, how come property price is cheaper in those TX area than even Fresno? CA have LA, SF, SJ, SD to skew to comparison. But when comparing the CA valley vs TX metro, it’s really get you wondering why property in CA are so expensive, even in cities like Fresno.

No one is forcing anyone to rent. Some people choose to rent and other choose to buy. If you can’t afford to buy in an area you want, move. There are plenty of happy people in other cities that have lower cost of living. Why should anyone get subsidies for living in an area they choose. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the CA system for making it expensive to develop here. Its purely supply and demand. Build more and things will be cheaper. Cheaper houses will yield lower taxes, even w/out prop 13. Many states do not have prop 13, yet seniors are doing fine there.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully loving prop 13 and will be taking advantage of it fully. I just find it ironic that you railed against government subsidies for a group of people you don’t like but then also praised other government subsidies to other group of people YOU think should get it.

[an]

CAR, question is, have you been to Fresno, Sanger, Barstow, Bakersfield? There are A LOT of flat usable land there too. I can bet you there’s more land in Fresno ready for development than Dallas or Houston or Austin. There are A LOT more high paying jobs in those TX states than Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. Yet, how come property price is cheaper in those TX area than even Fresno? CA have LA, SF, SJ, SD to skew to comparison. But when comparing the CA valley vs TX metro, it’s really get you wondering why property in CA are so expensive, even in cities like Fresno.

No one is forcing anyone to rent. Some people choose to rent and other choose to buy. If you can’t afford to buy in an area you want, move. There are plenty of happy people in other cities that have lower cost of living. Why should anyone get subsidies for living in an area they choose. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the CA system for making it expensive to develop here. Its purely supply and demand. Build more and things will be cheaper. Cheaper houses will yield lower taxes, even w/out prop 13. Many states do not have prop 13, yet seniors are doing fine there.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully loving prop 13 and will be taking advantage of it fully. I just find it ironic that you railed against government subsidies for a group of people you don’t like but then also praised other government subsidies to other group of people YOU think should get it.

[an]

CAR, question is, have you been to Fresno, Sanger, Barstow, Bakersfield? There are A LOT of flat usable land there too. I can bet you there’s more land in Fresno ready for development than Dallas or Houston or Austin. There are A LOT more high paying jobs in those TX states than Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. Yet, how come property price is cheaper in those TX area than even Fresno? CA have LA, SF, SJ, SD to skew to comparison. But when comparing the CA valley vs TX metro, it’s really get you wondering why property in CA are so expensive, even in cities like Fresno.

No one is forcing anyone to rent. Some people choose to rent and other choose to buy. If you can’t afford to buy in an area you want, move. There are plenty of happy people in other cities that have lower cost of living. Why should anyone get subsidies for living in an area they choose. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the CA system for making it expensive to develop here. Its purely supply and demand. Build more and things will be cheaper. Cheaper houses will yield lower taxes, even w/out prop 13. Many states do not have prop 13, yet seniors are doing fine there.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully loving prop 13 and will be taking advantage of it fully. I just find it ironic that you railed against government subsidies for a group of people you don’t like but then also praised other government subsidies to other group of people YOU think should get it.

[an]

CAR, question is, have you been to Fresno, Sanger, Barstow, Bakersfield? There are A LOT of flat usable land there too. I can bet you there’s more land in Fresno ready for development than Dallas or Houston or Austin. There are A LOT more high paying jobs in those TX states than Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. Yet, how come property price is cheaper in those TX area than even Fresno? CA have LA, SF, SJ, SD to skew to comparison. But when comparing the CA valley vs TX metro, it’s really get you wondering why property in CA are so expensive, even in cities like Fresno.

No one is forcing anyone to rent. Some people choose to rent and other choose to buy. If you can’t afford to buy in an area you want, move. There are plenty of happy people in other cities that have lower cost of living. Why should anyone get subsidies for living in an area they choose. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the CA system for making it expensive to develop here. Its purely supply and demand. Build more and things will be cheaper. Cheaper houses will yield lower taxes, even w/out prop 13. Many states do not have prop 13, yet seniors are doing fine there.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully loving prop 13 and will be taking advantage of it fully. I just find it ironic that you railed against government subsidies for a group of people you don’t like but then also praised other government subsidies to other group of people YOU think should get it.

[an]

CAR, question is, have you been to Fresno, Sanger, Barstow, Bakersfield? There are A LOT of flat usable land there too. I can bet you there’s more land in Fresno ready for development than Dallas or Houston or Austin. There are A LOT more high paying jobs in those TX states than Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. Yet, how come property price is cheaper in those TX area than even Fresno? CA have LA, SF, SJ, SD to skew to comparison. But when comparing the CA valley vs TX metro, it’s really get you wondering why property in CA are so expensive, even in cities like Fresno.

No one is forcing anyone to rent. Some people choose to rent and other choose to buy. If you can’t afford to buy in an area you want, move. There are plenty of happy people in other cities that have lower cost of living. Why should anyone get subsidies for living in an area they choose. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the CA system for making it expensive to develop here. Its purely supply and demand. Build more and things will be cheaper. Cheaper houses will yield lower taxes, even w/out prop 13. Many states do not have prop 13, yet seniors are doing fine there.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully loving prop 13 and will be taking advantage of it fully. I just find it ironic that you railed against government subsidies for a group of people you don’t like but then also praised other government subsidies to other group of people YOU think should get it.

[SD Realtor]

Who is being “forced” to rent? Are you forced to rent in Encinitas because you dont WANT to buy in Spring Valley?

Yes Texas does have land… nothing but land. It also has high humidity, is HOT as all hell, and has no features… no mountains. You have two months of decent weather and then it is either hot as hell or very cold. You cannot go to big bear to snowboard and then drive to the beach in the same afternoon. Perhaps that is the reason why people pay 216k for nice spread out there.

Last time I checked, the one axiom of real estate that still holds to be fairly true is location. To be angered at the established wealthy people of this country and portend that they are “forcing” you to rent by gobbling up all the precious homes in Carmel Valley or Encinitas is understandable. However to think you are somehow entitled to live in these or any other areas is something I disagree with. If you can afford to live there but CHOOSE not to, then that is okay, and good for you for not choosing to pay the crazy fees. However you are not entitled to live there any more then a slacker is, or anymore then a high priced attorney is.

When it boils down to it, the laws of supply and demand hold true. So it is okay to demand that the wealthy should not get to own property in desireable areas then is it also okay for the wealthy not to own turd homes in crappy neighborhoods for section 8 rentals?

You may love to bring up the Texas comparison but also there is inherent unfairness as well. While there is no income tax you will pay 2-3 percent property tax. So a poor person with little to no income gets killed owning a home. A guy with a decent income pays much less proportionally of his paycheck to own his home then a poor man does.

Finally and still left unaddressed is that the golden age of a govt controlled system still doesn’t address the limited desireable areas. In a price controlled situation, who would get the home in a nice area? Would it be a lottery? Would it be a govt official? Would it be a friend of a friend? When a family gets a nice home in a nice area why would they ever sell at all?

Again, I don’t have answers right now but I don’t think that all the wealthy people are buying up homes and stealing all the inventory from nicer areas. I think that conversely, the nicer the neighborhood, the less you have wealthy people buying homes and making them rentals.

[SD Realtor]

Who is being “forced” to rent? Are you forced to rent in Encinitas because you dont WANT to buy in Spring Valley?

Yes Texas does have land… nothing but land. It also has high humidity, is HOT as all hell, and has no features… no mountains. You have two months of decent weather and then it is either hot as hell or very cold. You cannot go to big bear to snowboard and then drive to the beach in the same afternoon. Perhaps that is the reason why people pay 216k for nice spread out there.

Last time I checked, the one axiom of real estate that still holds to be fairly true is location. To be angered at the established wealthy people of this country and portend that they are “forcing” you to rent by gobbling up all the precious homes in Carmel Valley or Encinitas is understandable. However to think you are somehow entitled to live in these or any other areas is something I disagree with. If you can afford to live there but CHOOSE not to, then that is okay, and good for you for not choosing to pay the crazy fees. However you are not entitled to live there any more then a slacker is, or anymore then a high priced attorney is.

When it boils down to it, the laws of supply and demand hold true. So it is okay to demand that the wealthy should not get to own property in desireable areas then is it also okay for the wealthy not to own turd homes in crappy neighborhoods for section 8 rentals?

You may love to bring up the Texas comparison but also there is inherent unfairness as well. While there is no income tax you will pay 2-3 percent property tax. So a poor person with little to no income gets killed owning a home. A guy with a decent income pays much less proportionally of his paycheck to own his home then a poor man does.

Finally and still left unaddressed is that the golden age of a govt controlled system still doesn’t address the limited desireable areas. In a price controlled situation, who would get the home in a nice area? Would it be a lottery? Would it be a govt official? Would it be a friend of a friend? When a family gets a nice home in a nice area why would they ever sell at all?

Again, I don’t have answers right now but I don’t think that all the wealthy people are buying up homes and stealing all the inventory from nicer areas. I think that conversely, the nicer the neighborhood, the less you have wealthy people buying homes and making them rentals.

[SD Realtor]

Who is being “forced” to rent? Are you forced to rent in Encinitas because you dont WANT to buy in Spring Valley?

Yes Texas does have land… nothing but land. It also has high humidity, is HOT as all hell, and has no features… no mountains. You have two months of decent weather and then it is either hot as hell or very cold. You cannot go to big bear to snowboard and then drive to the beach in the same afternoon. Perhaps that is the reason why people pay 216k for nice spread out there.

Last time I checked, the one axiom of real estate that still holds to be fairly true is location. To be angered at the established wealthy people of this country and portend that they are “forcing” you to rent by gobbling up all the precious homes in Carmel Valley or Encinitas is understandable. However to think you are somehow entitled to live in these or any other areas is something I disagree with. If you can afford to live there but CHOOSE not to, then that is okay, and good for you for not choosing to pay the crazy fees. However you are not entitled to live there any more then a slacker is, or anymore then a high priced attorney is.

When it boils down to it, the laws of supply and demand hold true. So it is okay to demand that the wealthy should not get to own property in desireable areas then is it also okay for the wealthy not to own turd homes in crappy neighborhoods for section 8 rentals?

You may love to bring up the Texas comparison but also there is inherent unfairness as well. While there is no income tax you will pay 2-3 percent property tax. So a poor person with little to no income gets killed owning a home. A guy with a decent income pays much less proportionally of his paycheck to own his home then a poor man does.

Finally and still left unaddressed is that the golden age of a govt controlled system still doesn’t address the limited desireable areas. In a price controlled situation, who would get the home in a nice area? Would it be a lottery? Would it be a govt official? Would it be a friend of a friend? When a family gets a nice home in a nice area why would they ever sell at all?

Again, I don’t have answers right now but I don’t think that all the wealthy people are buying up homes and stealing all the inventory from nicer areas. I think that conversely, the nicer the neighborhood, the less you have wealthy people buying homes and making them rentals.

[SD Realtor]

Who is being “forced” to rent? Are you forced to rent in Encinitas because you dont WANT to buy in Spring Valley?

Yes Texas does have land… nothing but land. It also has high humidity, is HOT as all hell, and has no features… no mountains. You have two months of decent weather and then it is either hot as hell or very cold. You cannot go to big bear to snowboard and then drive to the beach in the same afternoon. Perhaps that is the reason why people pay 216k for nice spread out there.

Last time I checked, the one axiom of real estate that still holds to be fairly true is location. To be angered at the established wealthy people of this country and portend that they are “forcing” you to rent by gobbling up all the precious homes in Carmel Valley or Encinitas is understandable. However to think you are somehow entitled to live in these or any other areas is something I disagree with. If you can afford to live there but CHOOSE not to, then that is okay, and good for you for not choosing to pay the crazy fees. However you are not entitled to live there any more then a slacker is, or anymore then a high priced attorney is.

When it boils down to it, the laws of supply and demand hold true. So it is okay to demand that the wealthy should not get to own property in desireable areas then is it also okay for the wealthy not to own turd homes in crappy neighborhoods for section 8 rentals?

You may love to bring up the Texas comparison but also there is inherent unfairness as well. While there is no income tax you will pay 2-3 percent property tax. So a poor person with little to no income gets killed owning a home. A guy with a decent income pays much less proportionally of his paycheck to own his home then a poor man does.

Finally and still left unaddressed is that the golden age of a govt controlled system still doesn’t address the limited desireable areas. In a price controlled situation, who would get the home in a nice area? Would it be a lottery? Would it be a govt official? Would it be a friend of a friend? When a family gets a nice home in a nice area why would they ever sell at all?

Again, I don’t have answers right now but I don’t think that all the wealthy people are buying up homes and stealing all the inventory from nicer areas. I think that conversely, the nicer the neighborhood, the less you have wealthy people buying homes and making them rentals.

[SD Realtor]

Who is being “forced” to rent? Are you forced to rent in Encinitas because you dont WANT to buy in Spring Valley?

Yes Texas does have land… nothing but land. It also has high humidity, is HOT as all hell, and has no features… no mountains. You have two months of decent weather and then it is either hot as hell or very cold. You cannot go to big bear to snowboard and then drive to the beach in the same afternoon. Perhaps that is the reason why people pay 216k for nice spread out there.

Last time I checked, the one axiom of real estate that still holds to be fairly true is location. To be angered at the established wealthy people of this country and portend that they are “forcing” you to rent by gobbling up all the precious homes in Carmel Valley or Encinitas is understandable. However to think you are somehow entitled to live in these or any other areas is something I disagree with. If you can afford to live there but CHOOSE not to, then that is okay, and good for you for not choosing to pay the crazy fees. However you are not entitled to live there any more then a slacker is, or anymore then a high priced attorney is.

When it boils down to it, the laws of supply and demand hold true. So it is okay to demand that the wealthy should not get to own property in desireable areas then is it also okay for the wealthy not to own turd homes in crappy neighborhoods for section 8 rentals?

You may love to bring up the Texas comparison but also there is inherent unfairness as well. While there is no income tax you will pay 2-3 percent property tax. So a poor person with little to no income gets killed owning a home. A guy with a decent income pays much less proportionally of his paycheck to own his home then a poor man does.

Finally and still left unaddressed is that the golden age of a govt controlled system still doesn’t address the limited desireable areas. In a price controlled situation, who would get the home in a nice area? Would it be a lottery? Would it be a govt official? Would it be a friend of a friend? When a family gets a nice home in a nice area why would they ever sell at all?

Again, I don’t have answers right now but I don’t think that all the wealthy people are buying up homes and stealing all the inventory from nicer areas. I think that conversely, the nicer the neighborhood, the less you have wealthy people buying homes and making them rentals.

[CA renter]

When speculators/investors hoard a significant portion of the housing inventory and turn them into rentals, people are **forced** to rent from these people because they have essentially cornered the market. If the houses provide positive cash flow, then these renters would have been able to afford to buy these homes for their families.

I will try to find the statistics, but believe about 57% of California’s (or San Diego? can’t remember) population consists of renters. IMHO, this is largely due to the protection and subsidy LLs get from Prop 13. If a LL’s property taxes rose with prices, they’d be forced to put their properties on the market during bubbles (because many of these houses would no longer produce positive cash flow). This would help stabilize prices and help prevent the wild swings we see in housing prices.

Yes, I believe society is far better served if regular families were more “entitled” to own their own home rather than have the wealthy feel “entitled” to hoard precious inventory so that they can earn a profit at the expense of working families.

Obviously, that is a subjective belief, and I don’t expect everyone else to share it.

[CA renter]

When speculators/investors hoard a significant portion of the housing inventory and turn them into rentals, people are **forced** to rent from these people because they have essentially cornered the market. If the houses provide positive cash flow, then these renters would have been able to afford to buy these homes for their families.

I will try to find the statistics, but believe about 57% of California’s (or San Diego? can’t remember) population consists of renters. IMHO, this is largely due to the protection and subsidy LLs get from Prop 13. If a LL’s property taxes rose with prices, they’d be forced to put their properties on the market during bubbles (because many of these houses would no longer produce positive cash flow). This would help stabilize prices and help prevent the wild swings we see in housing prices.

Yes, I believe society is far better served if regular families were more “entitled” to own their own home rather than have the wealthy feel “entitled” to hoard precious inventory so that they can earn a profit at the expense of working families.

Obviously, that is a subjective belief, and I don’t expect everyone else to share it.

[CA renter]

When speculators/investors hoard a significant portion of the housing inventory and turn them into rentals, people are **forced** to rent from these people because they have essentially cornered the market. If the houses provide positive cash flow, then these renters would have been able to afford to buy these homes for their families.

I will try to find the statistics, but believe about 57% of California’s (or San Diego? can’t remember) population consists of renters. IMHO, this is largely due to the protection and subsidy LLs get from Prop 13. If a LL’s property taxes rose with prices, they’d be forced to put their properties on the market during bubbles (because many of these houses would no longer produce positive cash flow). This would help stabilize prices and help prevent the wild swings we see in housing prices.

Yes, I believe society is far better served if regular families were more “entitled” to own their own home rather than have the wealthy feel “entitled” to hoard precious inventory so that they can earn a profit at the expense of working families.

Obviously, that is a subjective belief, and I don’t expect everyone else to share it.

[CA renter]

When speculators/investors hoard a significant portion of the housing inventory and turn them into rentals, people are **forced** to rent from these people because they have essentially cornered the market. If the houses provide positive cash flow, then these renters would have been able to afford to buy these homes for their families.

I will try to find the statistics, but believe about 57% of California’s (or San Diego? can’t remember) population consists of renters. IMHO, this is largely due to the protection and subsidy LLs get from Prop 13. If a LL’s property taxes rose with prices, they’d be forced to put their properties on the market during bubbles (because many of these houses would no longer produce positive cash flow). This would help stabilize prices and help prevent the wild swings we see in housing prices.

Yes, I believe society is far better served if regular families were more “entitled” to own their own home rather than have the wealthy feel “entitled” to hoard precious inventory so that they can earn a profit at the expense of working families.

Obviously, that is a subjective belief, and I don’t expect everyone else to share it.

[Author]

Posts