myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Nutty California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 158, 159, 160  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16563
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As usual, Techno ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his paranoia. He also ignores the fact that the housing game in California entrenches wealth in those that have it, and discriminates against the poor and those of color. As it has since covenants and redlining first restricted selling your house to an African American.

In the United States, the tax code allows people to deduct interest from their taxes. This directly subsidizes those who are wealthy enough to scrape up a down payment and qualify for a loan. The benefits of this deduction currently go primarily (76.3%) to those making over $100,000. For 2017, that represented a subsidy of $66.4 billion, with 3/4 of it going to those of substantial means. Using Fox parlance, that is socialism for the rich. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46429.pdf

The subsidies don't end there. There are measures, most significantly trusts, that allow you to transfer this wealth from generation to generation without paying any taxes. In California, you can sell your house and not pay taxes on a significant portion of the capital gain. Is this a great country or what, the haves stay haves because of the tax code.

There is an edge of structural racism to this subsidy. Homeownership is far from equitably distributed, with about 73% of white households owning homes, compared to about 42% of black households. But let's not teach our children anything about these structures that perpetuate poverty.

Proposition 13 similarly skews the benefits to the haves--and to corporations. Half of the benefits--which don't kid yourself are subsidies--go to people making over $120,000 a year. https://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3497 Even with the benefits of Proposition 13, properties still turn over and are re-assessed every 7 years on average. But not commercial properties, so their share of costs have gone down every year.

No doubt Techno will ignore these facts. There is a word for those with means who cling to their subsidies yet scream that investing in infrastructure or paying their fair share of taxes is socialism. Greedy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8678
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just think its amusing that Techno is so interested in the Golden State...I know its boring in NC, I've been many times, but c'mon man...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4069

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boggsman

While I don't live in CA, I do observe some of what California does. The saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" is valid in a lot of ways.

This law seems like a really bad idea on the face value. I work in and around planning for residential development...residential construction...in a number of different communities as a structural engineer. I also design houses (architectural design) in a couple of jurisdictions.

What concerns me is that arbitrary laws like this do not take into account many aspects that we deal with in residential development such as traffic, utility capacity, storm drainage, snow removal (at least here) and lot coverage. These are aspects of development that local planning departments grapple with on a daily basis. And, they are important.

I would think a law that "encourages" infill development in the way of tax incentives, reduced utility tap fees, increased lot coverage (where appropriate) etc would be a better way of going about this.

I have owned four houses. Each was VERY land conservative. The largest lot was 6250 Sq. Ft. (50 x 125). My mountain "cabin" is on a 5000 Sq. Ft. lot. It includes a guest house/ADU. So, I'm into small and efficient development. That said, my neighbor being able to just unilaterally split his lot into two building sites would cause a whole host of negative issues. I support increasing density...but, done with deliberate planning.

I'm not sure how California should deal with the housing shortage. We see the handwriting on the wall here too. But, I have to ask the question. "Why is it the responsibility of the current residents to provide a place for the new comers?" I didn't move to my mountain residence as a 35 year old and expect a job and and a house. I lived in less desirable areas for most of my adult life to save the money and establish a career that allowed my eventual move to a desirable location.

If California, simply, does not have room, and the water BTW, what's wrong with folks staying in Minnesota for awhile?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8678
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good points. The main issue is one that gets casually floated all the time by folks on the right, and many in states like Texas--that is the idea that tech companies can simply relocate. But , the reality is that startups come here for the VC support, and the ecosystem--its not as lucrative to start a company in Overland Park , KS. This puts huge pressure on housing, natural resources, and labor... So, I don't see an easy way out, and I for one would love to see a few million people LEAVE!

The drive to Tahoe is brutal, the water shortage is brutal, taxes are brutal...
LEAVE !!! I say , LEAVE!! That's my solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3099

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
You are correct, all of this is my opinion, and while SB 9 will bring new housing units to market, none of you are willing to interject the possible negatives as a result of it. Your next door neighbor's house becoming a 4 or 8 plex with no parking except on the street. If this was an issue that was up to the voters, how many of you would vote yes on SB 9? It would never pass if the voters had a say. Transferring taxable property value can be done, but only once.


Transferring for over 55 year old's under Prop 19 is up to 3 times, not one.

As for my neighbor's house becoming a 4 or 8 plex with no parking on the street being a negative or positive is a matter of opinion. Right now there are many 20-30 year old's in CA that do not want more of the suburbs with wide, freeway speed streets where they are forced to use cars & show at chain stores in mega malls. They want higher density homes, smaller yards, less reliance on automobiles and restaurants/shops within walking distance on streets that are difficult for cars to navigate. They don't want to own cars but prefer the Gig car share or rental car.

I hate to keep telling you this, but you don't live here and are out of touch with CA. You are obviously getting your opinion's from someone who want's to keep the 1950's suburbia dream alive. Today's younger generation wants nothing to do with that. So what you see as a negative they see as a positive.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4069

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
Very good points. The main issue is one that gets casually floated all the time by folks on the right, and many in states like Texas--that is the idea that tech companies can simply relocate. But , the reality is that startups come here for the VC support, and the ecosystem--its not as lucrative to start a company in Overland Park , KS. This puts huge pressure on housing, natural resources, and labor... So, I don't see an easy way out, and I for one would love to see a few million people LEAVE!

The drive to Tahoe is brutal, the water shortage is brutal, taxes are brutal...
LEAVE !!! I say , LEAVE!! That's my solution.


I get it. But, the resources are scarce now. How much longer is this sustainable? It seems like the line has been crossed.

I guess the other issue is what are these tech companies doing about the housing shortage? If their industry cannot function in Texas, it would seem to me that the housing shortage is, largely, their responsibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3960

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
As usual, Techno ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his paranoia. He also ignores the fact that the housing game in California entrenches wealth in those that have it, and discriminates against the poor and those of color. As it has since covenants and redlining first restricted selling your house to an African American.


As usual, he has no idea what I am saying. I have nothing against proposition 13, two thirds of the voters voted for it. Without it, property taxes would strangle 1/4 of the property owners in Calif.

My issue is with SB 9 and the problems it generates. And I guess Mac and the other Calif. folks here on this forum are likely against it too, but Mac is so contentious that he won't acknowledge reality. So, is there anyone out there with the balls to state that they are for SB 9? It seems as though Mac is for SB 9 with the additional, and more affordable housing (that's a joke). So mac, yes or no on SB 9?

Plus, in his bizarre way mac sidetracks to issues like:
Quote:
In the United States, the tax code allows people to deduct interest from their taxes. This directly subsidizes those who are wealthy enough to scrape up a down payment and qualify for a loan. The benefits of this deduction currently go primarily (76.3%) to those making over $100,000. For 2017, that represented a subsidy of $66.4 billion, with 3/4 of it going to those of substantial means. Using Fox parlance, that is socialism for the rich. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46429.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16563
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--I have said that California has a housing problem and I don't know what the answer is. I am certain that you have no clue. Have you actually read SB9? Can you tell us all what is in it and what the problems are? No, you're just trolling.

Here it is: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9

I didn't participate in the debate over the bill, and I don't know the details. California already has a law encouraging "granny units", but it hasn't added a lot of housing. I doubt this will add a lot.

My own view is that we should densify areas near transit hubs and jobs. We've done that in Berkeley, I've supported it for over 30 years, and it has been controversial.

I stand on my critiques of single family zoning and Proposition 13, and your hysterical and uninformed panic about both.

Yes CB and Boggs, I wish there were half the number of people in California. San Diego was such a beautiful city when I visited it in the 1960's. But the jobs keep coming, and the people keep coming, and the market has not provided housing for the people who have already moved here, or were born here. Proposition 13 is one of the problems, popular and poorly understood as it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8678
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Very good points. The main issue is one that gets casually floated all the time by folks on the right, and many in states like Texas--that is the idea that tech companies can simply relocate. But , the reality is that startups come here for the VC support, and the ecosystem--its not as lucrative to start a company in Overland Park , KS. This puts huge pressure on housing, natural resources, and labor... So, I don't see an easy way out, and I for one would love to see a few million people LEAVE!

The drive to Tahoe is brutal, the water shortage is brutal, taxes are brutal...
LEAVE !!! I say , LEAVE!! That's my solution.


I get it. But, the resources are scarce now. How much longer is this sustainable? It seems like the line has been crossed.

I guess the other issue is what are these tech companies doing about the housing shortage? If their industry cannot function in Texas, it would seem to me that the housing shortage is, largely, their responsibility.


Yes, I think we are past the point of repair. Resources are depleted, and as long as global spot markets for soy and corn exist, the central valley will continue to farm something that requires a ton of water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16563
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boggs—there is plenty of water in California—if it is used in a sustainable manner. And everyone in California has an interest in a sustainable agricultural economy. But we don’t have one.

When the big water projects were built—the Central Valley Project by the feds and the California Water Project by the state—there was a lot of excess capacity in the system. So agricultural land owners were sold the “excess” water for a song. It warped the economy—cotton was grown in dry lake beds while farmers in the south were paid not to grow cotton. Alfalfa and seed alfalfa were leading crops—damaging the grazing economy of other parts of the state. Agriculture used 85% of the water.

Today, higher value crops are grown, and agricultural use is down to 80%. But corporate agriculture is not living up to the promise that it grow seasonal crops in years when there is actually excess water. Orchards and grapes are high value, and can pay much more for water than cotton—but need to be irrigated every year, not just in wet years.

As the saying goes, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. The vast plantings of almonds were not sustainable agriculture—it relied on mining groundwater, which just got more expensive. Now groundwater is being regulated, because the pumping damaged roads and freeways, and we are losing the snowpack, which represented about 1/3 of the water stored. The really good reservoir sites are developed, and all the new ideas—whether reservoirs or water reclamation—cost more than $2,000/acre foot of water. Compare that to the surplus water selling for $1/acre foot in the 1970’s. So neither the economic structure, the physical structure, nor the water rights structure is ready for climate change and the current population. But not to worry, Larry Elder will fix it. According to folks like Techno.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 158, 159, 160  Next
Page 159 of 160

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group