[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]I get catastrophic type situations and chronic conditions, but it seems like any major employer plan is pushing $1500-$1800 per month for a family combined costs

Are families really racking up $20k in medical bills a year?

It seems like there should be a fairly cheap option where the individual pays the first $6500 of any expenses and then anything after that is covered. It doesn’t match bronze tier actuarial cost structure.

For a family structure it at $12k or $18k then 100% coverage. If your below 400% FPL give the money back on taxes.

Cut the billing bureaucracy which seems to be half of every doctors office I’ve been in recently. Literally there’s more people working the phones and insurance payments than treating people.[/quote]NSR, AFAIK, it has been law in all 50 states for at least the past 20 years to provide health coverage for one’s children. If that coverage was CHIP or “Healthy Families” and the parent(s) qualified for these programs, then that constituted “child coverage.” Every employer with 50 employees or more offered coverage for both an employee and their child(ren) because it was the the law, even before ACA.

Workers complaining of high premiums being deducted for medical insurance from their paychecks are obviously covering a spouse with a healthplan. The law does not require employers to cover a spouse’s medical premiums because it is presumed that every non-disabled adult is responsible for themselves. Some employers cover part of a spouse’s health premium as part of a comprehensive benefit pkg they offer employees but more and more employers in recent years will not offer to cover any of the spouse’s premium but still offer group coverage to employees’ spouses if the employee wants it.

If you or anyone else is paying the high premiums you describe here for “family coverage,” you really have nothing to complain about. It wouldn’t be fair to your single coworkers (parent or non-parent) if you rec’d a cash benefit for full coverage for two (expensive) adults and they didn’t get compensation to equalize their health benefits with yours. Every worker has the choice on whether to cover the spouse or have the spouse work enough hours to obtain their own coverage. It’s as it should be.

If the “family premiums” your employer is requiring you to pay cause your health premium deduction to be more than ~9.5% of your gross income and thus is “unaffordable,” then your spouse is certainly welcome to sign up for an exchange plan and possibly receive a “subsidy” to help them pay his/her monthly premium in lieu of working enough hours to receive their own coverage.

https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/articles/pages/what-is-affordable-coverage.aspx

Yes, “families” can easily rack up $20K+ of medical expenses per year without any of them ever setting foot in an emergency room!

Yes, I agree about the large staffs needed today in medical offices to wade in the “billing bureaucracy.” That was the chief reason given in letters by my two longtime providers for “retiring” from practicing medicine after the advent of the ACA. It IS ridiculous that there are more humans working as billers for the typical 2-6 physician/PA medical office (both inside the office and contract workers) than there are actual medical providers in that same office.

[bearishgurl]

I don’t blame brokers and agents for not listing a property as “pending” until all contingencies are removed in an escrow with an accepted offer. In fact, they should continue to accept backup offers (and tell these offerors it will be such). Anything could happen in escrow and a CA buyer in escrow can now apparently back out of a transaction for any reason and get their earnest money back as long as their contingency-approval date(s) have not elapsed.

The best thing for a buyer’s agent to do before writing up an offer is to find out from the listing agent if the seller has accepted an offer and also if they are accepting backup offers (if their clients are very interested in the property). A property should not be listed as “pending” on the MLS until all contingencies have been removed and the sellers agent has examined the buyer’s original pre-approval letter from their lender signed by an underwriter and even possibly spoke on the phone with the buyers’ loan officer re: their mortgage qualifications OR verified proof of buyers’ funds in a cash sale.

Anything less is not representing sellers properly. Whatever is out there on MLS aggregators (especially in a fast-moving market with little inventory) shouldn’t be counted on as actually being available at any given time. The same listings on the actual MLS for a particular region may have more notes which would assist a buyer’s agent but those notes are not carried over to public MLS aggregators. It’s as it should be.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]….The late 50/early 60s are brutal with the cost curve going very steep for age premiums.[/quote]Uhhmmm, yeah. I just got slammed going into to 2016 :=0

[quote=no_such_reality] What’s your out of pocket max?[/quote]This is the $64M question, here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=La Jolla Renter] . . . They average family was suppose to save money on Obama care. What happened? Doctors, insurance companies, and hospitals are all crying they aren’t making any money.

Who is making all the money??? I think the industry could use some transparency.[/quote]La Jolla Renter, what happened is the money is being wasted on bohemoth, bureaucratic, grossly incompetent exchanges and expensive public websites that still don’t work properly. Provider reimbursements have gone way down since 2013. I know this because I have compared my EOBs from my PPO BEFORE Obamacare (Aetna, who left the CA individual market at the end of 2013 with 5 other carriers) with my “obamacare” EOBs from my current PPO, Blue Shield of CA, a Covered CA plan. For the exact same procedures, I have found the reimbursement to providers to be 25-50% of what it was pre-ACA. On one biennial scan that I most rely on (my third, taken Oct ’15, the allowed reimbursement was so low that my scan report from IHS was just 2/3 of a typewritten page versus the detailed 9-12 page scan report Sharp did the first 2 times, with photos. Of course, Sharp won’t participate in exchange plans unless you sign up for one of their EPO plans. I’ve already lost 3 longtime providers out of 8. Two of them “retired” because they could no longer afford their overhead with the low allowable reimbursements under ACA and both of them actually had owned their own medical bldgs in SD for decades! They couldn’t even afford to pay their staffs on the new level of reimbursements and so they just decided to close up shop! The 3rd one just dumped all patients (new and old) that were on exchange plans.

The carriers participating on the exchanges are now flush with cash collecting exorbitant premiums from everyone and the gubment, in the form of subsidies (to make up for all the “very sick” people they were required to cover) and offering very narrow networks to their members located in HUGE population centers (like SD). I already have a primary care physician (one of the best in town) but he’s over 70 as well and could just decide to throw in the towel tomorrow …. cuz he can. I would HATE to have to find another primary care provider in this climate who is actually accepting new patients in a crowded market while being an exchange planholder!

Whoever thought up the ACA and put together this legislation had to be complete idiots. Certainly, they must have figured that providers were going to bow out if exchange-covered patients weren’t worth their time. And also that insurance companies can’t operate at a loss for any length of time when they are required to take anyone who applies to them and pays their premiums! The PTB is attempting to control too many moving parts by using gubment mandates and gubment cramdown on private industry (Big Insurance and providers that we, as patients need worse than they need us), and, suffice to say, this isn’t going to end well. It’s a race to the bottom but the carriers and the providers have already proved to everyone straight out of the gate that they don’t have to play and will not play if the conditions don’t suit them.

Our only hope right now is to get into office a presidential candidate who will see to it that this fiasco is scrapped in short order :=0 I don’t care how many “super-delegates” there are right now or who they are (currently) “pledged to.” Your vote counts, people, so VOTE in the primaries AND the general election … no matter what happens. Change your voter registration, if you have to. The deadline to (re)register to vote in the CA primaries is May 23 (although if you re-register that late, you will probably have to vote in person). Anything is better than the royal, unfixable mess we have today that is the “ACA.”

Okay, back to Cigna. They’re one of the six carriers who left the CA individual market at the end of 2013 but as of November 2015, came out with those three Bronze plan offerings for SD with one of them being an HSA compatible plan. Based upon the info you provided, your current coverage sounds most similar to a Silver 70 plan on the exchange.

There are 8 silver plans on the SD exchange. Their deductible is $2250 + $250 pharm ded. Their maximum out-of-pocket is $6250 (yours may be significantly lower).

The monthly premiums on the CC cost calculator for a silver 70 plan are as follows:

age 35: $274 to $373 (PPOs $327 & $346)
age 40: $286 to $390 (PPOs $342 & $362)
age 45: $323 to $440 (PPOs $387 & $409)
age 50: $400 to $544 (PPOs $478 & $505)
age 55: $499 to $680 (PPOs $597 & $631)

A big problem is the very possible narrower networks offered on these plans compared to what your current plan offers. The reason I put the PPO premiums in parenthesis is because you stated that you did not want to be forced to get a referral from a PCM in order to see a specialist. There are now TWO PPO’s to choose from on the SD exchange for 2016, BSoC and Anthem Blue Cross (which is rated lower than BSoC but is the more expensive plan of the two).

see: http://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/2016/

If I were you, I would compare the coverage details of each standard silver PPO (and maybe gold PPOs as they have no deductible) to the one you have and their prices for your age to get an idea what they cost on the exchange with or without a subsidy, depending on if you qualify for one. Then if I found one I was interested in, I would look on their list of providers for my doctors and decide if it was worth it to leave my “grandfathered plan.”

It’s easiest to use the “shop and compare tool” (above link) to do this exercise because Cigna will not quote you premiums for an off-exchange plan unless you fill out their form online and send it to them.

[bearishgurl]

La Jolla Renter, on a “grandfathered” plan such as yours, I believe the carrier only has to give 30 days notice by letter of a rate hike. In that letter, they have to tell the policyholder what their new premium will be, eff: [month] 1, [year].

Since your $2950 deductible doesn’t appear to match any of the ACA-compliant plans on the exchange (your deductible alone is between silver and bronze levels but other benefits of your plan could be closer to gold level), if you could list here the particulars of your plan and the age you will be at the time of the rate hike, I might be able to tell you if $840 month seems “fair.”

If you were thinking of taking out a Bronze plan on the exchange, do you have an active HSA to pay your big expenses from and fill in the gaps until you hit your deductible if you experience a high-use year?

You should be aware that Cigna now offers a bronze HSA plan in SD off-exchange as of 11/15/15 as well as two other bronze plans, one of which mirrors bronze exchange coverage.

see: http://www.cigna.com/assets/docs/individual-and-families/2016/medical/ca/883584-plan-comparison-medical-dental-ca.pdf

I’m not certain in your case but I think you may have to wait until “open enrollment” beginning mid-October 2016 to sign up for coverage eff: 1/1/17.

If you don’t qualify for a “subsidy” to help you with your premium, I don’t think it is worth it to sign up for a plan on the exchange as Covered CA is extremely incompetent, bureaucratic and difficult to deal with.

If it only costs $1500 month for the 3 of you to be on your spouse’s Kaiser plan, isn’t that cheaper than paying $840 month for your own plan? Is the reason you’re not on her plan because you don’t want Kaiser? (I wouldn’t want Kaiser so that’s why I’m asking.) It’s not for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]ucodegen, one of my friends grew messy and alcoholic. horrible turn to a very good life. And this guy doesn’t believe in depression and “bullshit crap” that people use to avoid personal responsibility.

I always keep my window shades open to keep the place nice and bright. I find dark places depressing.

Lot of studies on dark, messy, unhealthy environments. That matters a lot in northern climates where’s there not a lot of sunshine in the winter. In 1930s when urban planning took shape, architects wrote about the need for air and light.

I asked this question of a realtor friend. He said that 80% of the occupied homes he visits are below standards; and people know it because they apologize for the mess.

I once bought a hoarder’s home (built early 80s). It was empty when I got it, but you would not believe…. Everything had to be ripped out. When the kitchen cabinets were removed, you could see that roaches were living behind the cabinets. The walls were covered in roach shit. There were tons of mice droppings under the cabinets. If you leave food around, the bugs will come in[/quote]FIH, we bought houses like that in SD back in the ’80’s. Except in our case, the floors/carpets were covered in trash and junk to the point where one could barely make their way through the house on foot, the house had often been used by squatters for a period of time and the utilities were always turned off. We always had to make multiple trips to the dump upon COE because back then, the “seller” (HUD/VA) did absolutely nothing to the property. For example, if there was a plate of food and a glass of milk left on the counter or a 20+ lb turkey left in the (later) turned-off frig at the time of the (hurried) eviction of the occupants, it was often still there 6-12 months later, when the “winning” bidder took possession.

There were no laws back then to “protect” tenants from being evicted when a foreclosure was purchased at a trustee’s sale or reverted back to the beneficiary at the time of the sale. But the tenants were always noticed and fully expected they would have to move out due to the NOD and one or more DATED NOS’s hung on the front door over a period of months. 3+1 days after the trustee’s sale, any holdover tenants in the property were at the mercy of the new owner and the gubment (HUD/VA local “property mgrs”) always evicted them prior to placing the property on the sealed bid roster.

Luckily we had our own 1.5 ton full-size stepside pickup, ladders, scaffolding, a slew of power tools and garden tools, air mattresses and a “ghetto blaster” to listen to while we worked :=0

WE did end up purchasing these homes for a song and resold them for a profit after a lot of hard work in our “spare” time. They were all 4 bdrm, 2+ bath except one, which was 3/1.75.

However, in recent years, defaulting trustors in CA have been coddled and allowed to squat into oblivion by their defaulted-upon lenders as well as HUD/Frannie/VHA and their tenants now have “holdover rights” for a specified period of time AFTER the property has successfully been foreclosed upon. It appears that the (temporary) CA Civil Code section 2924.10 (as it applies to mod applications “in the works” at the time of an NOD filing) has been continued for yet another four years (now until 1/1/18).

For the life of me, I don’t understand why we have to coddle these folks for another four years while most of them owe back interest equivalent to $100K or more and are now paying on 40 yr (trial or “perm”) loan mods in which they will never be able to pay off even their back interest, much less any principle they “stole” out of it! I find it ridiculous that this section had to be extended by the Legislature when, by 1/1/14, the lenders could have gotten most or all their money out of the properties had they elected to timely foreclose at that point. Since these deadbeat underwater homedebtors are still so financially strapped, they can’t possibly maintain their property in any way, shape or form, causing it to slowly go to waste while their sorry a$$e$ pile up judgment and tax liens in their names because they now have “nothing to lose” :=0

Why can’t we go back to the ’90’s and prior and just make a clean sweep of timely foreclosures on everyone who is still behind on their payments (ummm … cuz they bought way too much house for themselves and/or turned their residence into their own personal ATM)? There are quite a few SS listings still around here and the vast majority of them are beyond filthy and haven’t been maintained in many years. Most of them are occupied by tenants who are paying “owners” who aren’t paying anything to keep the property …. not even their taxes in several years! Even when a SS listing is owner-occupied, it is typically full of trash and in horrible condition. These people don’t deserve to “own” real property … at all! They deserve to put down a humongous security deposit IF they can find a LL willing to give them a try and then LOSE IT ALL when they are timely evicted for nonpayment of rent. When they can’t find a willing LL anymore, they deserve to go find a well-used mobile home or RV which has been “donated” and find a place to park it and pay space rent for it. If that place is not in a CA coastal county, so be it. If they get evicted from their park due to nonpayment of space rent and not following the rules because they’re slovenly, so be it. They can find a homeless shelter to take them in (but will undoubtedly be “put to work” after checking in and getting their cots assigned, lol). Every non-disabled adult should be required to take personal responsibility for themselves but instead they’re treated like babies by their lenders (with a wink and a nod by the gubment).

I don’t feel this group needs to be given ~10 years worth of chances to get their sh!t together. They’re dragging down their neighborhoods at this very late date. G@d, I know of houses that have repeated city-fine liens for weeds/trash and every time the city pays to have it removed (at least from the front yard) the occupant just starts to pile up junk again and let the weeds grow. Why haven’t these properties been condemned by now? Vacating and boarding up these properties until they can be razed would be preferable to the sh!t we’re still looking at from the grossly incompetent mishandling of the aftermath of the “great recession.” These lots (unimproved, with nothing on them and utils brought to the curb) are worth $150K – $400K so I don’t know why we still need to play games with all these deadbeats. In LA County, in the cities of La Puente, El Monte and East LA, I noticed these same filthy longtime SS listings among an extraordinary dearth of SFR listings (way worse than SD County). Two of these listings had been “contingent” for 2 years or more! The ones in East LA had large lots, which, if unimproved (with utils at the curb), would have been worth over $650K due to their being zoned for multiple uses (incl comm’l). It’s absolutely unbelievable to me why this crap is still going on when many of these lots are worth MORE unimproved!

The above is all very unfair to the property owners surrounding these dilapidated eyesores … the ones who actually pay their bills on time and maintain their properties and there is no excuse for any of it at this (very) late date. Even the homeowners who want to have “pride” can’t because their property is only as good to a prospective buyer as the “lowest common denominator” on the block. Yes, I’m going to sit in judgment of these lazy opportunists because this BS has gone on much too long and is affecting everyone … including SFR inventory in a lot of zip codes. SD and LA Counties aren’t Detroit and never will be. As such, SoCal coastal county dwellers shouldn’t have to put up with this sh!t any longer. When are we going to be done??

[end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]I talked to the inspector. It’s not worth fighting to power that be. I will remove the improvement if necessary.

The inspector will charge for the investigation and a get a warrant, etc will incur more costs.

I hate stupidity and jealous neighbors. I’m with spdrun on this. I hope the stupid b**** gets run over by a Mack truck or her son dies of a drug overdose. Joking but it won’t break my heart is that happens.[/quote]
It will probably work out o.k. B, your inspector will be a liberal, make sure you wear your rainbow gear. If they pull up and look conservative, put a Red white and blue shirt on fast.[/quote]LOL …

[bearishgurl]

I’ve seen special assessments of up to $7K per unit imposed by condo assns and I don’t recall that any owners were legally able to get out of them.

Shoveler, your HOA dues at $400 month seem high to me as well. Over a year ago, when I was investigating purchasing a condo for my youngest kid (+ 2 roommates) to live in while attending university in LA County, I did find that two of the complexes I was considering had monthly dues of over $400 month but they had a LOT of amenities for the residents and their landscaping was pretty elaborate. I came to the conclusion that this amount was too much cuz the kids were too busy to care about “amenities” or landscaping. Hopefully, you also have a lot of amenities for your $400 month dues and are not paying MR on top of that.

When you factor in the HOA dues, possible MR, certain special assessments at a future date, and the fact that you don’t own any actual land when you buy a condo (or own a substd 1800-3800 sf “lot” with a PUD), they just don’t seem like much of a good deal. This is because a buyer can often get a SFR in the same area with an attached 2-car garage and with the same or greater sf as a condo for just $50K-$150K more than the condo and own the (often generous) lot it sits on! A SFR owner (w/no HOA) can also make improvements as they see fit and at a price they negotiate themselves.

This thread illustrates one of the biggest reasons why I don’t like condos. I like to “control” my own property myself :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=joec][quote=no_such_reality]
But really, I’m like the other already pointing out, really laughing at your reaction when the big government dictation you always pander for gets directed your way.[/quote]

Gotta agree here. I forget what work/job you do FiH, but in the end, I think everyone is just looking out for their own wallet/skin/life…

Immigration probably isn’t a negative in your life/whatever you do and would probably be a positive for rentals (more demand) so your views probably tilt towards that direction. It’s not really about the issues of what is better/worst for the overall environment/society, but ultimately, what makes it better for us and our family financially.

Just the type of world we live in I think…[/quote]

I guess I have been kind of naive. I will never again underestimate neighborly self interest. It seems the more people think they are the cream of the crop type the worse they are. With this easement I legitimately bought before most of my neighbors lived here at least 5 out of 7 were quite willing to screw us to some degree to keep us from developing it. This is just a fricken driveway! Not saying all of them are complete monsters, but man , it’s ugly. No they don’t hold themselves to the same standard at all! It’s not like we are the bad apples either ,none of these people like each other. Everything for them nothing for the other guy.[/quote]I now see this whole situation as a case of NIMBYism, plain and simple. Once people finally get a little piece of land all their own anywhere within a hour’s drive of CA’s coast (your area qualifies, Blogstar), they are scared sh!tless of anyone grading next to them, looking as though they’re going to add unit(s), etc and want to make sure they get their two-cents in … cuz in accordance with the law, they can! Available 2/3+ AC lots are so far and few between in CA coastal counties that they are a precious commodity … especially if purchased for horse setups or RV/”toy”/”antique” vehicle storage, etc. Lots of homeowners out in east county erect 2000+ sf metal outbuildings on their land just for that purpose (even with vehicle hoists installed in the concrete pad) and get legal permits to do so. But many of them still end up dealing with all their neighbors within 300 feet of their parcel and end up getting smacked down from adding a shower to that half-bath out there (so they can come into the house cleaned up after working all day in their “shop”). Close neighbors don’t want to see any more “living-units” or even a semblance of anything that can pass for a “makeshift living unit” at a later date. The fact that you are 8-9 miles from the int’l border could be exacerbating the problem you’re having with your neighbors, I think. And I can’t say I blame them. Land (with utils already brought to it) isn’t all that “cheap” where you live …. if any is left at all. People who buy lots out there, regardless of the condition of the existing dwelling on it, buy it with the expectation that there will be no density or development whatsoever around them … and rightly so.

Based on your posts thus far, Russ, I’ve come to the conclusion that your neighbors are just paying close attention to your activities, cuz you own heavy equipment and you already built a (legally-permitted, yes?) 2nd house on your parcel a few years ago which is an obvious “rental unit” so they are paying attention to what you might do next. They’re making phone calls and taking other action to “cause trouble” for you cuz they can.

I lived in Bonita for about 12 years … an uninc area of SD County directly to the west of you about 8-9 miles (as the crow flies) and can tell you that the same problems you’re describing here happened there. For example, if a homeowner wanted to build a pool cabana, the neighbors were right on top of it, to make sure it didn’t have a “full bath” or kichenette and could be therefore be surreptitiously turned into a “living unit.” Likewise for horse stalls which were often built on a (very visible) raised part of the lot 12-14 feet above the back of the house. The homeowner sure as h@ll better be building stalls only (2 horse bays only allowed in subdivisions). A tap coming out of the ground for horses was acceptable but plumbing facilities for humans were not!

When people buy into into the “tonier” uninc areas of the county such as Bonita and Jamul (zoned 3 units to an acre … or less), they expect it will remain that way and so they should.

I’ve been to multiple city and county meetings over the years where I’ve personally heard dozens of neighbors at each one testifying against a neighbor’s proposed “project.” This even goes on in dense parts of the city where neighbors are beyond fed up with too many (permitted and unpermitted) 2nd stories over garages and granny flats off alleys rented to tenants and they and their friends/overnighters hogging up street parking (read: beach and “uptown” locations).

This is just my view of a very possible reason for all that you have been going thru in the aggregate, Russ. Maybe you should just get to know your neighbors a bit better … including the “Wackos” adjoining you … since they … and you … apparently aren’t going anywhere anytime soon :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I feel for you scaredy. I used to have to deal with a pool.
Unless you are willing to pay whatever it takes for someone else to take care of your pool, it’s not worth having one.[/quote]I’ve had backyard pools as well and yes, they are a source of constant maintenance and can be a $$$ drain over the years in parts, maintenance and utilities. I prefer the Y where, for $40 month, an olympic sized pool and 20-person jacuzzi is maintained (and preheated) FOR me, in addition to having access to circuit training and a multitude of classes.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Temecula actually already has some failrly large BioTech firms.

Also CSUSM does have an extension in Temecula.[/quote]An “extension” is NOT the same as a CSU campus. It’s usually just 1-2 floors in an office bldg. Perhaps tech firms are trickling in to the IE (with branches/satellite ofcs?). But it is still a “remote outpost” with “branch-office towns.” It would be highly preferable to me to live much closer to work if I worked in one of those sectors. I feel that in the absence of being able to afford a SFR near a SD tech center, even an older, large (1700+ sf) condo in the UTC area would be preferable for tech workers to live in as opposed to moving 45++ miles away from their jobs. Yes, even those workers with kids! At least if the HOA dues in those complexes are now ~$350 month, the homeowner would actually be receiving valuable services such as a pool, jacuzzi and weight room, etc, for their monthly dues. These well-located, well-established complexes have very nicely held their value over ~3 decades :=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl]Bakersfield doesn’t need a “job center” but does have many teaching, govm’t jobs and medical jobs. Like Fresno, it is primarily an agricultural hub. People who are highly trained in high tech jobs, for example, wouldn’t have any reason to move to Bakersfield.[/quote]

Bakersfield is a good long term investment IMO. High speed rail, cal state, medical and oil industry, and land for suburban development, etc… Build it and they will come.[/quote]Is that train actually going to come into fruition, FIH? I thought I’d be boarding it to see my friend in Delhi with my walker and bifocals on …. That is, if we’re both still alive at that time!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]

Or you can bump into terrorists.

Not worried. Even in 2001, there was more of a risk dying of being hit by a car than of a terrorist attack in the US.[/quote]

I know some people who are really concerned about terrorism and crime. They live in safe suburban areas and turn to local news everyday. They post and repost crime stories everyday day. Obsession.

Maybe I’m out of touch, but i don’t know anything about local crime because I don’t watch local news. I only read business and real estate sections of local papers online.[/quote]I have the same problem, FIH, except that my “offenders” are addicted to cable “news” networks. I have had to tell a couple of people not to text me anymore with garish photos from FoxTV and OAN :=0

It’s not that I have my head in the sand, but I lived the “crime and punishment” thing 40 hrs per week for decades. I get it but have been “desensitized.” Unless some tragedy happens within 50 yards of my house, I won’t be paying attention to it. I don’t even care about neighbors’ vehicle break-ins cuz I park in the garage. They walk around warning everyone who will listen but they made their own problems due to their garage being stuffed with junk. Nor do I care about new “registered sex offenders” moving in around me. (I get these e-mail warnings from my credit-monitoring service every couple of months.) I’ve posted before here that I don’t care if a “PC 290 registrant” moves across the street from me and sets up a telescope in his LR window. Go for it!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Bakersfield doesn’t need a “job center” but does have many teaching, govm’t jobs and medical jobs. Like Fresno, it is primarily an agricultural hub. People who are highly trained in high tech jobs, for example, wouldn’t have any reason to move to Bakersfield.[/quote]
But your reason as to why Temecula is an exurb is its distance to job centers. Temecula have all the jobs you listed for Bakersfield and Fresno.[/quote]Yes it does (to a lesser degree because it is not a “county seat” like Bakersfield). And it doesn’t have its own CSU. But ….. there seems to be a LOT of tech and biotech workers who have moved out to TV with no hope of a good job within 35-45 miles of their homes. That’s sheer folly in my mind. It’s crazymaking because in most cases (primarily in SoCal) they could buy a (likely, smaller, older) home MUCH closer to work (w/no HOA/MR) for the same amount of money (or even less with all costs considered). Possibly even <10 miles away. But they choose not to.

For example, Santee is only 12-18 miles from several major SD job centers and has many homes which are 25+ years old with no HOA/MR (which could easily total an additional $150 to $750 month in housing expenses over and above PITI).

Scattered govm’t installations, police/fire stations, schools, universities and medical facilities found in every county in CA (urban to rural) aren’t “job centers.” Their jobs are needed to serve the population of that county or region. Many smaller cities in CA (even with <20K pop) have ALL of these types of jobs.

High tech and biotech workers (who typically work in "job centers" which have these types of companies) don't move to Bakersfield or Fresno because they have no reason to. They're not the types of cities that attract these workers because the counties they are situated in are self-contained and somewhat isolated unto themselves. For example, at 3+ hrs one way, we aren't going to see too many daily morning commuters from Fresno to Oakland :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Back to the Model 3, I don’t understand why you would say the owner of a Model 3 would be immune to fuel costs. Have you checked your SDG&E bill lately? If you don’t have solar, I wouldn’t say you’re immune to fuel costs.

I would say autonomous cars would affect the commute more than an EV. With autonomous car, you can actually work while you’re “commuting”. Then, essentially, you’re no longer “commuting”, since you can start working as soon as you get into the car.

As for road noise, I think tire noise is much louder than the noise the engine make at ~2k RPM driving down the freeway. So, I don’t think EV would make that big of a difference.

You also have to keep in mind that EV today is only viable for a small group of people. It’s not suitable for 18-wheelers, worker trucks, poor people, people who live in older areas in a condo/apartment, etc. I think EV has a long long way to go to be suitable to replace majority of vehicles on the road. Unless there’s a breakthrough that would drastically decrease the cost of producing batteries and drastically increase the density of the battery and drastically reduce the charge time of the battery (20-30 min down to 2-3 minutes).[/quote]All good points, AN. It’s not suitable for me, either. When on a road trip, I need to go at least 300 miles before getting gas again. And I might be “fueling up” at a truck stop in Podunk BF Egypt. I doubt there would be any place around there to plug my car in for 30-45 minutes while I waste time off the road chatting with truckers in the TV lounge :=0

[Author]

Posts