- This topic has 88 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
CardiffBaseball.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 29, 2007 at 11:27 AM #10096August 29, 2007 at 11:36 AM #82408
an
ParticipantOne thing I can think of is property tax. Their tax get readjust every year and I think it’s around 2-3% range. My number might be a little bit off but that might explain why people there don’t really want their house to go through the roof.
August 29, 2007 at 11:40 AM #82409hipmatt
ParticipantNo shortage of land, schizophrenic weather, humid, flat, and lacks many of the amenities found in CA or NY, etc. That’s not to say it isn’t worth considering. I would look into TX someday, when I get a chance. ESP Austin or San Antonio.
August 29, 2007 at 11:40 AM #82410pepsi
ParticipantWhenever the price goes up, people who can not afford the new tax bill will forclose and drive the price down.
And, with tax running from 2-4%, no one can not afford to wait out the RE cycle.
August 29, 2007 at 11:45 AM #82412drunkle
Participanthuh. texas, a solid red state is willing to put up with 2-4 times the tax rate of california, a blue state…
and it’s not like it’s a poor folk tax like sales tax, it’s an asset tax… mystery of mysteries.
August 29, 2007 at 11:47 AM #82413bsrsharma
ParticipantCA: Water on one side, mountains/deserts on other, border on third.
NY/FL/NJ: Water on some side.
Colorado: Lots of mountains
AZ/NV: Completely irrational. Housing here is worth nothing once water/energy shortage hits.
Tx: Lots of flat land -> land is worth little.
Considering the amount of land in US, this country should have plenty of affordable housing for everyone. It is sheer mismanagement that caused this crisis. It is going to cost the nation very dearly in international competition. Higher housing costs drive up labor cost that in turn encourages outsourcing. US citizens have been served badly by their leaders at all level of governments. We have become a nation of drug addicts – the name of that drug is Debt. This is the withdrawal time.
August 29, 2007 at 11:52 AM #82416an
Participanthipmatt & bsrsharma, you make it seems like all of CA is like SD, LA, and SF. Have you gone to places like Fresno and Bakersfield? There are plenty of flat land. Yet, it’s still 2X more expensive than houses in TX. Although TX have high property tax, they don’t have income tax. The valley is just as hot and cold as TX, so weather is not very desirable at all. The valley air is also extremely worse than TX. It’s always either unhealthy or bad when I watch the news.
August 29, 2007 at 12:03 PM #82419Alex_angel
ParticipantThere is no HOLLYWOOD in texas or asians!!!!!!
August 29, 2007 at 12:06 PM #82421bsrsharma
ParticipantFresno and Bakersfield?
I agree it is irrational for them to be 2x TX. But, I think SJ valley is very good agricultural land. That may have some effect on prices. Both land value & demand wise. I don't think TX grows anything valuable, does it? So, outside of oil patch, what is the use for TX land?
August 29, 2007 at 12:10 PM #82422bsrsharma
Participantasians!!!!!!
Actually lots of them in Houston. PetroChem & NASA. Many in Dallas/Austin high tech belts.
August 29, 2007 at 12:10 PM #82423Anonymous
GuestAustin suburbs have a lot of room to grow but central is not cheap.
Here’s an example:
http://tinyurl.com/3agcjzIt will be interesting to see how central Austin will be affected. Maybe refugees from other areas will prop it up for awhile. Any ideas?
August 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM #82426CardiffBaseball
ParticipantIf I had to live as far inland as even Poway, I’d probably consider Texas. 1/3 the price, no state income tax, same salaries. Sure the property tax % is higher, but if the value of the home is 1/3 less, you end up paying the same, so I can’t see what difference that makes.
I can say being in the 150K family income range that the lack of state income tax, is a far bigger savings than any extra percentage of property tax. However, with the coastal climate I at least have aesthetic reasons for sticking around here.
August 29, 2007 at 12:41 PM #82432greekfire
ParticipantTexas is ranked 6th in terms of shoreline mileage with 3,359. It has only 68 fewer miles of shoreline than California. The coastline measurement is a bit different (see definitions below).
Obtained from Yahoo! Answers:
Top ten longest shorelines:
1 FLORIDA 8,426 miles (longest saltwater shoreline)
2 Louisiana 7,721
3 Maine 3,478
4 California 3,427
5 North Carolina 3,375
6 Texas 3,359
7 Virginia 3,315
8 MICHIGAN 3,288 (longest freshwater shoreline)
9 Maryland 3,190
10 Washington 3,026Top ten coastlines:
1 FLORIDA 1,350 miles (longest saltwater coastline)
2 California 840
3 Louisiana 397
4 Texas 367
5 North Carolina 301
6 Oregon 296
7 Maine 228
8 Massachusetts 192
9 South Carolina 187
10 Washington 157Definitions:
Shoreline is the perimeter of the land along the water’s edge, measured to the closest exactness possible. Shoreline is, therefore, usually longer for a particular location than is its coastline.
Coastline follows the general line of the coast, but sometimes, in the case of small inlets or bays, the coastline is measured as running directly across the bay or inlet to rejoin the coastline on the opposite side. Coastline is not measured as precisely as is shoreline.August 29, 2007 at 12:44 PM #82433CostaMesa
ParticipantUm, Texans, maybe?
BTDT. 😛
August 29, 2007 at 12:49 PM #82434surveyor
ParticipantPrices, dirt
I’ve made this comment before in other threads, but will say it again:
Basically in Texas, it is cheaper to build a house there than in California, New York, and New Jersey. More availability of developable land and light land use regulations and restrictions.
As for the other states (Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Florida), I do not know why they cost more than Texas. Nevada and Arizona have similar land use regulations and have traditionally been low cost like Texas. However, the migration of California money into Nevada and Arizona has been one factor.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.