[EconProf]

[quote=spdrun]Oh please — a 3% (meaning 5-10% of total tax burden) tax hike isn’t going to make people stay or leave a state. Especially since the highest tax is on income above $1 million. They’re already paying decent bank to live in California.

The people affected moving to Texas would be like Donald Trump moving out of NYC because his property taxes went up 10%. Right.

Though I have to say that prop 30 raising taxes retroactively was dirty ball — and possibly illegal since the Federal prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to states as well.[/quote]
You are correct that the state income tax hike to 13.3% on the highest earning CA taxpayers BY ITSELF does not involve a lot of people, and it’s not even a lot of tax revenue. But it is on top of an already high tax burden on these people, and for many it constitutes the last straw. Many of the rich who were considering moving themselves or their companies (see previous posts) are looking at the trends in CA and deciding they don’t want a future here. Remember that CA has about the highest other taxes plus el and water rates about twice the national average. Investors and employers place their bets according to where they think there is a reasonable electorate and a welcoming government. No surprise that it is Texas and not California.

[EconProf]

My CPA moved to Texas ten years ago so now I have to mail him my tax info. He had kids in their teens and said the schools were far superior, the government and people more friendly, and everything’s cheaper. Climate’s worse, but not much worse since he lived in El Cajon.
The exodus from CA to TX is well documented, and has only just begun. As the April tax deadlines approach, the high earning Californians are now looking at a (just raised) 13.3 percent marginal tax rate compared to Texas…0.

[EconProf]

[quote=henrysd]In southern Riverside county a few years ago, it was about 40 days in a semi optimal scenario – tenant answered court paper to Unlawful Detainee law suit, but didn’t show up in court hearing. It could be 25 days in most optimal case if tenant doesn’t answer court papers. For sophisticated tenant and they go to the court hearing and they can find excuses like medical issues, judge can give them a few extra months to stay. They may do multiple hearing and each hearing grants a few months of extra stay.

I don’t remember number exactly. I think roughly at those numbers:
Sounds like a month or more is the norm in CA.
While some may believe a long eviction process is pro-tenant, it actually hurts them, in at least two ways:
1. Knowing how expensive it is to get rid of a problem tenant, landlords get more choosy it who they rent to. Accordingly, the lower income applicant, or one with more red flags on their application, gets passed over until the perfect candidate shows up.
2. For the same reason, landlords demand higher security deposits since they know that that is all they are going to get from an eviction.
My deposits are $300, and I take chances on a lot of questionable applicants. I know that in 17 days they can be out.

3 days notice

2-3 days file unlawful detainee and delivered tenant copy

7-10 days wait tenant answer for court papers.
If tenant answer received, schedule court hearing which will happen 15 days later

if no tenant showing in court hearing, judge awards the landlord victory immediately. The process can get very long if sophisticated tenant shows up and he will use all kinds of excuses he learned from tenant lawyer.

Another 7-10 days for sheriff to execute lockout.

I believe San Diego county has similar numbers.[/quote]
It appears that a month or more for an eviction is the norm in CA.
This longer eviction process sounds like it is pro-tenant, but it actually hurts tenants in two ways:
1. Landlords are afraid to rent to lower income tenants or those with red flags on their application, knowing that it is more expensive and time-consuming to get rid of a problem tenant. Instead, they will wait for the perfect candidate to come along, thus hurting the poor. Some of those poor or weak candidates may be perfectly fine tenants, if given a chance.
2. For the same reason, landlords raise security deposits, knowing that is usually all they will get out of a deadbeat in an eviction.
Once again, our legislators pass feel-good and nice-sounding laws that turn out to be counterproductive.

[EconProf]

Thanks ER. I called up my old eviction attorney today, Ted Smith in San Diego, to find out how long it takes now for an eviction in San Diego. His assistant said well over a month. She described a four-step process, in contrast to AZ’s three. Theoretically if all goes smoothly & tenant does not contest, it could be done in 25 days. But CA has starved the budget for the courts, so at least a week or two must be added to the time line.
Any Piggs have any experience with evictions lately?

[EconProf]

[quote=spdrun]

And I do not recommend it, since the area is depressed, weak demographics, and little prospect for improvement.

It’s like this bartender/owner from NJ who I know. Someone sold him on buying 20 rental units (shacks, really) in some depressed part of Mississippi. His returns were amazing on paper (something like $15k per unit, $500/mo rent) but he sold it after getting tired of chasing bad tenants, 50%+ vacancy, property managers who spent the rent income on booze, etc, and generally having to fly down there every other weekend.[/quote]
It is seldom a good idea to invest in real estate far away, where you do not know the local conditions and cannot manage properly. In my case, I invested in the Yuma area when it was booming, 5 – 8 years ago. Then it collapsed with the rest of the bubble, and has barely improved since hitting bottom.
However the mostly Hispanic tenants are good: family values, hard working, and loyal long-term residents. And the quick evictions, when necessary (once or twice a year), are a plus I did not experience in CA.

[EconProf]

[quote=flu]How the hell do you run 35 units????

Nice… Cha-ching![/quote]
Not really that profitable (see above). But local labor is cheap, eager to work (unlike San Diego), and the quick evictions are a plus.

[EconProf]

[quote=spdrun]Problem with running 35 units outside of Yuma is that you have to be outside of Yuma for a large portion of your life.[/quote]
That’s right spdrun. And I do not recommend it, since the area is depressed, weak demographics, and little prospect for improvement.

[EconProf]

I wish the big box were going to be a Lowe’s or Home Depot. Neither are within a 10 mile radius of me ( which is 2 miles south). A Lowe’s or Home Depot would have somewhat of a geographic monopoly and would do well except they like to be in huge shopping districts near major highways.

[EconProf]

The whole article was scary and apocalyptic, which made me wonder why we haven’t heard more about this medical condition. The article claimed massive harm, increasing at a frightening rate, so why haven’t we heard more about it in the news?
I really stopped reading when they reported a family that had six-inch deep dust accumulating near openings in their house, dust so thick they had to wear dust masks inside their house, and dust so bad they could not see each other across the living room. This was a middle-class family, and I really doubt they would stay in such a house. Sorry, New Yorker Magazine, I’m not buying it till I see collaborating evidence.

[EconProf]

I live nearby and don’t see a problem. With all the new housing, families, and upper end suburban demographics here, a Target store is logical and will do well.
What I want is a Trader Joe’s!

[EconProf]

This dialogue is depressing. It reveals some people are actually willing to selfishly put thier dog ahead of another human being?? Amazing.
Fortunately, there are still a few good Samaritans here though.

[EconProf]

I wish the poll had been conducted somewhat differently.
They should have asked “Would you pick your dog or a foreign tourist to live? Assume you would have to inform, in person, the family of the deceased foreign tourist whose death you are responsible for.”

[EconProf]

I like dogs, but they sure inhibit your lifestyle–vacations, vets bills, poop, barking.
I’d like to own one. For about twenty minutes per day.
Is there an App for that?

[EconProf]

Now that the unions have come to dominate the teaching profession there is less incentive to be a better teacher, since one’s pay will not likely change. “Step” increases, where teachers get an automatic 2 or 3 percent raise every year just for serving their time, are common for the first five or ten years of teaching. Both the unions and school district administrators want to dodge the touchy subject of evaluating teaching quality and the progress of the teacher’s students in determining pay and promotions. As a result, good teachers get about the same pay as bad teachers, a situation less likely to prevail in the private sector. Incentives matter! Vouchers, private schools, and charter schools are more likely to resemble the private sector in this regard, which is why parents are increasingly demanding them.

[EconProf]

It is well established that teacher attrition in the first five years is high, but we must be careful in asking why. I know that one reason for some is the stultifying, unionized environment that the brightest and most dedicated new teachers find themselves in. They may have gone into teaching anxious to motivate and inspire, and find they are lumped in with tenured deadwood that are merely putting in their time toward a nice pension.
The sad fact that tenure protects the incompetent as well as the competent is why the teacher corps has such a sullied reputation. The really best and brightest teachers really don’t particularly like their unions. In a meritocracy, they would be paid much more, and the deadwood would be driven out if they did not improve. So high teacher attrition in the first few years may be eliminating some of the very best potential talent.

[Author]

Posts