[temeculaguy]

I can show you a bunch, the smaller ones and the cheaper ones cash flow better. The rental market is fairly strong, until my recent purchase I was a renter. A 100k condo rents for $1100-$1200, a 160k townhouse with a 2 car garage rents for $1500 and a 200k sfr rents for $1600-$1700. A 300k sfr rents for $1800-$2000. So the rent multiplier goes up as the price goes up. It’s not a rule of thumb everywhere, but here, condos flow better than sfr’s and larger sfr’s are not as good as the smaller one.

Here’s and example of a 100k 2/2 that rents for just over a grand

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31357-Taylor-Ln-92592/unit-1357/home/6684623

In the listing they give the downpayment as $3500, P&I is $475, taxes are $280 and hoa is $200, so it’s 900 a month to own and 1100-1200 a month to rent. The taxes are actually lower than that because it was purchased in 05 for 279k (so it’s 2/3 off right now) and the taxes were likely readjusted mid year. The 3k for last year taxes is averaged from two different values so using past taxes can be misleading. I think the taxes are 1% plus 1k, so if you paid sub 100k taxes might me $180 or less. That’s a couple hundred cash flow from day one, low effort and since it’s newer, lower liklihood of major repairs needed in the next decade with a nice upside.

This next one is an example of a $1500 rental

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33625-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-B/home/12509141

You can see the taxes show 2300 a year with a 166 assessed value, it’s either a lower rate or just a more accurate full year tax rate or they got an adjustment earlier. This is probably a wash or a mild cash flower. Hoa is $185.

Both those complexes are gated and have pools, one has a gym, trash, fire insurance and lanscaping/exterior water/exterior painting/maint are included in the hoa for both. Your landlord cost are fairly low vs an sfr. One we get to the 200k sfr, rent only goes up a little, and landscaping costs/maintenance are on on the landlords tab. But the sfr’s have more appreciation upside in the longrun so you just have to ask yourself what your goals are, cash flow or appreciation.

There has been an uptick in prices, bottom has probably already passed for the low end up here because buying became cheaper than rent in late 2008. sfr’s are more balanced now with rent and prices being nuetral without considering the tax deduction. Most 3000 sq ft sfr’s can be had around 300k, and will not rent for more than 2k, that’s peak rent here. There is a demographic shift once you get to sfr’s, the people that can afford 2k rent, will usually just buy and have a 2k mortgage and get a tax deduction. The small places and codos serve a different demographic, young people not ready to buy, people going through a divorce, single people not sure where they will be five years from now and not wanting to have to sell and lose the transaction costs.

Now that I think about it, the OP can use his 100k, pay cash for a little condo and have very minimal operating costs.

[temeculaguy]

I can show you a bunch, the smaller ones and the cheaper ones cash flow better. The rental market is fairly strong, until my recent purchase I was a renter. A 100k condo rents for $1100-$1200, a 160k townhouse with a 2 car garage rents for $1500 and a 200k sfr rents for $1600-$1700. A 300k sfr rents for $1800-$2000. So the rent multiplier goes up as the price goes up. It’s not a rule of thumb everywhere, but here, condos flow better than sfr’s and larger sfr’s are not as good as the smaller one.

Here’s and example of a 100k 2/2 that rents for just over a grand

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31357-Taylor-Ln-92592/unit-1357/home/6684623

In the listing they give the downpayment as $3500, P&I is $475, taxes are $280 and hoa is $200, so it’s 900 a month to own and 1100-1200 a month to rent. The taxes are actually lower than that because it was purchased in 05 for 279k (so it’s 2/3 off right now) and the taxes were likely readjusted mid year. The 3k for last year taxes is averaged from two different values so using past taxes can be misleading. I think the taxes are 1% plus 1k, so if you paid sub 100k taxes might me $180 or less. That’s a couple hundred cash flow from day one, low effort and since it’s newer, lower liklihood of major repairs needed in the next decade with a nice upside.

This next one is an example of a $1500 rental

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33625-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-B/home/12509141

You can see the taxes show 2300 a year with a 166 assessed value, it’s either a lower rate or just a more accurate full year tax rate or they got an adjustment earlier. This is probably a wash or a mild cash flower. Hoa is $185.

Both those complexes are gated and have pools, one has a gym, trash, fire insurance and lanscaping/exterior water/exterior painting/maint are included in the hoa for both. Your landlord cost are fairly low vs an sfr. One we get to the 200k sfr, rent only goes up a little, and landscaping costs/maintenance are on on the landlords tab. But the sfr’s have more appreciation upside in the longrun so you just have to ask yourself what your goals are, cash flow or appreciation.

There has been an uptick in prices, bottom has probably already passed for the low end up here because buying became cheaper than rent in late 2008. sfr’s are more balanced now with rent and prices being nuetral without considering the tax deduction. Most 3000 sq ft sfr’s can be had around 300k, and will not rent for more than 2k, that’s peak rent here. There is a demographic shift once you get to sfr’s, the people that can afford 2k rent, will usually just buy and have a 2k mortgage and get a tax deduction. The small places and codos serve a different demographic, young people not ready to buy, people going through a divorce, single people not sure where they will be five years from now and not wanting to have to sell and lose the transaction costs.

Now that I think about it, the OP can use his 100k, pay cash for a little condo and have very minimal operating costs.

[temeculaguy]

I can show you a bunch, the smaller ones and the cheaper ones cash flow better. The rental market is fairly strong, until my recent purchase I was a renter. A 100k condo rents for $1100-$1200, a 160k townhouse with a 2 car garage rents for $1500 and a 200k sfr rents for $1600-$1700. A 300k sfr rents for $1800-$2000. So the rent multiplier goes up as the price goes up. It’s not a rule of thumb everywhere, but here, condos flow better than sfr’s and larger sfr’s are not as good as the smaller one.

Here’s and example of a 100k 2/2 that rents for just over a grand

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31357-Taylor-Ln-92592/unit-1357/home/6684623

In the listing they give the downpayment as $3500, P&I is $475, taxes are $280 and hoa is $200, so it’s 900 a month to own and 1100-1200 a month to rent. The taxes are actually lower than that because it was purchased in 05 for 279k (so it’s 2/3 off right now) and the taxes were likely readjusted mid year. The 3k for last year taxes is averaged from two different values so using past taxes can be misleading. I think the taxes are 1% plus 1k, so if you paid sub 100k taxes might me $180 or less. That’s a couple hundred cash flow from day one, low effort and since it’s newer, lower liklihood of major repairs needed in the next decade with a nice upside.

This next one is an example of a $1500 rental

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33625-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-B/home/12509141

You can see the taxes show 2300 a year with a 166 assessed value, it’s either a lower rate or just a more accurate full year tax rate or they got an adjustment earlier. This is probably a wash or a mild cash flower. Hoa is $185.

Both those complexes are gated and have pools, one has a gym, trash, fire insurance and lanscaping/exterior water/exterior painting/maint are included in the hoa for both. Your landlord cost are fairly low vs an sfr. One we get to the 200k sfr, rent only goes up a little, and landscaping costs/maintenance are on on the landlords tab. But the sfr’s have more appreciation upside in the longrun so you just have to ask yourself what your goals are, cash flow or appreciation.

There has been an uptick in prices, bottom has probably already passed for the low end up here because buying became cheaper than rent in late 2008. sfr’s are more balanced now with rent and prices being nuetral without considering the tax deduction. Most 3000 sq ft sfr’s can be had around 300k, and will not rent for more than 2k, that’s peak rent here. There is a demographic shift once you get to sfr’s, the people that can afford 2k rent, will usually just buy and have a 2k mortgage and get a tax deduction. The small places and codos serve a different demographic, young people not ready to buy, people going through a divorce, single people not sure where they will be five years from now and not wanting to have to sell and lose the transaction costs.

Now that I think about it, the OP can use his 100k, pay cash for a little condo and have very minimal operating costs.

[temeculaguy]

I can show you a bunch, the smaller ones and the cheaper ones cash flow better. The rental market is fairly strong, until my recent purchase I was a renter. A 100k condo rents for $1100-$1200, a 160k townhouse with a 2 car garage rents for $1500 and a 200k sfr rents for $1600-$1700. A 300k sfr rents for $1800-$2000. So the rent multiplier goes up as the price goes up. It’s not a rule of thumb everywhere, but here, condos flow better than sfr’s and larger sfr’s are not as good as the smaller one.

Here’s and example of a 100k 2/2 that rents for just over a grand

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31357-Taylor-Ln-92592/unit-1357/home/6684623

In the listing they give the downpayment as $3500, P&I is $475, taxes are $280 and hoa is $200, so it’s 900 a month to own and 1100-1200 a month to rent. The taxes are actually lower than that because it was purchased in 05 for 279k (so it’s 2/3 off right now) and the taxes were likely readjusted mid year. The 3k for last year taxes is averaged from two different values so using past taxes can be misleading. I think the taxes are 1% plus 1k, so if you paid sub 100k taxes might me $180 or less. That’s a couple hundred cash flow from day one, low effort and since it’s newer, lower liklihood of major repairs needed in the next decade with a nice upside.

This next one is an example of a $1500 rental

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33625-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-B/home/12509141

You can see the taxes show 2300 a year with a 166 assessed value, it’s either a lower rate or just a more accurate full year tax rate or they got an adjustment earlier. This is probably a wash or a mild cash flower. Hoa is $185.

Both those complexes are gated and have pools, one has a gym, trash, fire insurance and lanscaping/exterior water/exterior painting/maint are included in the hoa for both. Your landlord cost are fairly low vs an sfr. One we get to the 200k sfr, rent only goes up a little, and landscaping costs/maintenance are on on the landlords tab. But the sfr’s have more appreciation upside in the longrun so you just have to ask yourself what your goals are, cash flow or appreciation.

There has been an uptick in prices, bottom has probably already passed for the low end up here because buying became cheaper than rent in late 2008. sfr’s are more balanced now with rent and prices being nuetral without considering the tax deduction. Most 3000 sq ft sfr’s can be had around 300k, and will not rent for more than 2k, that’s peak rent here. There is a demographic shift once you get to sfr’s, the people that can afford 2k rent, will usually just buy and have a 2k mortgage and get a tax deduction. The small places and codos serve a different demographic, young people not ready to buy, people going through a divorce, single people not sure where they will be five years from now and not wanting to have to sell and lose the transaction costs.

Now that I think about it, the OP can use his 100k, pay cash for a little condo and have very minimal operating costs.

[temeculaguy]

The problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.

Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.

When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.

Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.

[temeculaguy]

The problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.

Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.

When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.

Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.

[temeculaguy]

The problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.

Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.

When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.

Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.

[temeculaguy]

The problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.

Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.

When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.

Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.

[temeculaguy]

The problem with retiring at a very young age and setting yourself on a path of having a fixed income is that you are very prone to getting screwed by inflation. Most people who are retired for more than 20 years get impacted, those who are retired longer have more risk. Retiring in your low 30’s is nearly impossible without some good inflation hedges like having more than one paid off rental properties.

Those numbers flu mentioned above will not look like that in 30 years and a few hundred grand isn’t going to keep pace if you are living off the capital gains or interest, every day you will get further behind. So being able to just barely make it today doesn’t translate into comfort 50 years from now.

When I mentioned 75-100k, I did mean before taxes. I’ve designed my retirement to exceed 10k a month before taxes in today’s dollars. I’m not there yet investment wise but I will be there in ten years and those additional ten years of investing and working also serve as ten less years of being exposed to inflation. I know that if live 40+ years into retirement it’s not going to go as planned and I certainly wouldn’t retire before I got my kids through college because their too many variables when you have dependants. Things might go very wrong or very right. A dependant could become very ill or very injured. A dependant could also do very well and get into medical school. Fixing one’s income while there are other’s to care for and so many variables is a recepie for disaster.

Fixing one’s income when you have 20-30 years left on the planet and nobody to take care of or pay for can and does work all the time.

[temeculaguy]

If you want to live in So cal, then Temecula is about as close as you can get to what you are looking for. 300k will get you a nice house here but I think 75k a year would be the minimum to get by, 100k and you are comfortable.

But if you are just looking to avoid snow, perhaps central california or northern california might suit your needs better. You can live in a more remote place if you are trying to live on the cheap.

I have never lived in central or northern california but there are places that have gotten whacked by foreclosures up there and the cost of living and the median income is lower. One example is Merced, now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I’ve never been there, I have no idea what it is like but it has a few things going for it. Massive foreclosures, a UC school and a household income of less than half of Temecula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temecula,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced,_California

Of course Merced was ranked #370 out of #373 cities in the sperling guide of places to live, so maybe it’s California’s Detroit. But the fact that their home prices peaked at 330k median and have lost 2/3 of their value makes me think the OP can probably buy a place for almost what his equity is. Paying cash for a house and being protected by prop 13, retirement is an option.

I only offer other options because I live in Temecula and I don’t see how I could live and raise kids on the numbers the OP is quoting.

[temeculaguy]

If you want to live in So cal, then Temecula is about as close as you can get to what you are looking for. 300k will get you a nice house here but I think 75k a year would be the minimum to get by, 100k and you are comfortable.

But if you are just looking to avoid snow, perhaps central california or northern california might suit your needs better. You can live in a more remote place if you are trying to live on the cheap.

I have never lived in central or northern california but there are places that have gotten whacked by foreclosures up there and the cost of living and the median income is lower. One example is Merced, now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I’ve never been there, I have no idea what it is like but it has a few things going for it. Massive foreclosures, a UC school and a household income of less than half of Temecula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temecula,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced,_California

Of course Merced was ranked #370 out of #373 cities in the sperling guide of places to live, so maybe it’s California’s Detroit. But the fact that their home prices peaked at 330k median and have lost 2/3 of their value makes me think the OP can probably buy a place for almost what his equity is. Paying cash for a house and being protected by prop 13, retirement is an option.

I only offer other options because I live in Temecula and I don’t see how I could live and raise kids on the numbers the OP is quoting.

[temeculaguy]

If you want to live in So cal, then Temecula is about as close as you can get to what you are looking for. 300k will get you a nice house here but I think 75k a year would be the minimum to get by, 100k and you are comfortable.

But if you are just looking to avoid snow, perhaps central california or northern california might suit your needs better. You can live in a more remote place if you are trying to live on the cheap.

I have never lived in central or northern california but there are places that have gotten whacked by foreclosures up there and the cost of living and the median income is lower. One example is Merced, now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I’ve never been there, I have no idea what it is like but it has a few things going for it. Massive foreclosures, a UC school and a household income of less than half of Temecula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temecula,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced,_California

Of course Merced was ranked #370 out of #373 cities in the sperling guide of places to live, so maybe it’s California’s Detroit. But the fact that their home prices peaked at 330k median and have lost 2/3 of their value makes me think the OP can probably buy a place for almost what his equity is. Paying cash for a house and being protected by prop 13, retirement is an option.

I only offer other options because I live in Temecula and I don’t see how I could live and raise kids on the numbers the OP is quoting.

[temeculaguy]

If you want to live in So cal, then Temecula is about as close as you can get to what you are looking for. 300k will get you a nice house here but I think 75k a year would be the minimum to get by, 100k and you are comfortable.

But if you are just looking to avoid snow, perhaps central california or northern california might suit your needs better. You can live in a more remote place if you are trying to live on the cheap.

I have never lived in central or northern california but there are places that have gotten whacked by foreclosures up there and the cost of living and the median income is lower. One example is Merced, now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I’ve never been there, I have no idea what it is like but it has a few things going for it. Massive foreclosures, a UC school and a household income of less than half of Temecula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temecula,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced,_California

Of course Merced was ranked #370 out of #373 cities in the sperling guide of places to live, so maybe it’s California’s Detroit. But the fact that their home prices peaked at 330k median and have lost 2/3 of their value makes me think the OP can probably buy a place for almost what his equity is. Paying cash for a house and being protected by prop 13, retirement is an option.

I only offer other options because I live in Temecula and I don’t see how I could live and raise kids on the numbers the OP is quoting.

[temeculaguy]

If you want to live in So cal, then Temecula is about as close as you can get to what you are looking for. 300k will get you a nice house here but I think 75k a year would be the minimum to get by, 100k and you are comfortable.

But if you are just looking to avoid snow, perhaps central california or northern california might suit your needs better. You can live in a more remote place if you are trying to live on the cheap.

I have never lived in central or northern california but there are places that have gotten whacked by foreclosures up there and the cost of living and the median income is lower. One example is Merced, now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I’ve never been there, I have no idea what it is like but it has a few things going for it. Massive foreclosures, a UC school and a household income of less than half of Temecula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temecula,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced,_California

Of course Merced was ranked #370 out of #373 cities in the sperling guide of places to live, so maybe it’s California’s Detroit. But the fact that their home prices peaked at 330k median and have lost 2/3 of their value makes me think the OP can probably buy a place for almost what his equity is. Paying cash for a house and being protected by prop 13, retirement is an option.

I only offer other options because I live in Temecula and I don’t see how I could live and raise kids on the numbers the OP is quoting.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=paramount]Facts on Temecula-Murrieta area commuting:

*A survey conducted by planning agencies in Riverside and San Diego counties found that more than half of Temecula-Murrieta-French Valley households had at least one person commuting outside the county. For them, the average drive time was one hour.

*Forbes Magazine recently ranked the area first in its list of America’s most unhealthy commutes, beating out every other major metropolitan area in the country, as Inland area drivers breathe the unhealthiest air and have the highest rate of fatal auto accidents per capita. Gas siphoning has also been noted as a problem for vehicles left unattended in the region.

*Workers who live and work in this city: 39.7%

I think when people live in an area for a long period of time, and they are happy living there perspectives become a bit skewed.[/quote]

Unfortunately these are not really facts, most piggies love analyzing data, so if you are bored, here’s the 104 page pdf of that study. I already saw the problems with the study and that is why I used the raw data and made my own percentages, however the newspapers don’t look very deep and that is where you got your percentages.

http://www.i15irp.com/Appendix%20B_i15irp_0307.pdf

One particular item of note is on page 8, where the actual city of temecula has more jobs per household than the I-15 San Diego corridor as a whole, more than escondido, more than vista, but less than san marcos.

But the real problem with the study is dividing modern traffic counts into year 2000 census data in order to determine percentages. Using 2005 traffic paterns (which is where the 29k commuters numbers come from) then factoring those into census 2000 population figures for an area that grew at a rate as fast an any area in the country is just bad math. The used temec’s 2000 pop of 57k and murr’s as 44k, and similar innacurate numbers for the other sw county communities. All of the populations need to be roughly doubled. (they did however say that 40% of the commuters don’t go more than 30 miles, because I go one offramp away, I’ve commuted to another county). Another huge problem with saying only 39% of those that live in the city work in the city is that people with a commute of 5 miles, likely work in another city or unincorporated area. Both Scardey and I live in the unicorporated areas, of course I can wak to the city, I’m 150 yards from the city, but technically, I’m crossing municipal boundaries for not only work but gas and food. There are people who live in Poway, work in Rancho Bernardo and they technically don’t live in the city they work in, one is the City of S.D., while the other is the city of Poway.

But the real reason these so called fact are produced, these are produced by and for government agencies that want to support sales tax votes, these are the mass transit and carpool lane people. This is SanDag and Wrcog, these studies are designed for long term planning but also to create sound bytes for the media to write stories, helping the next ballot measure for their 1/2 cent sales tax. Paramount, you of all people know that you can only trust the government so much when it comes to justifying tax increases.

BTW, the forbes thing is not a sw county thing, it’s ratings are more about the region itself, I’ll give you that, an hour north, the riverside/san bernadino areas are horrible, bad air, bad commutes. The 91 is probably the worst freeway I know of.

If you have videotaped your commute in the rain, I can only say one thing, you need to move. You need to be happy and you aren’t. It is true that happy people tend to overlook things that other people don’t, guilty as charged. But the reverse is true, unhappy people tend to exaggerate the negative, then they start thinking everyone is siphoning their gas.

[Author]

Posts