Thursday, June 01, 2006

Poll [Updated: Results of the Poll]

14 Comments:

Blogger Marinite said...

FYI: that typo was a mistake, not on purpose (PollHost won't let me change it).

Jun 1, 2006, 3:38:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

NIMBY protectionism and a fear to try new urban planning ideas has led more than any other single factor. There are solutions to this problem out there, but as soon as they are presented to communities, the response is almost universally - hell no. Go try and solve the problem somewhere else. Hence developers, planners, etc are limited to "solutions" that havn't worked in the past. It's crazy.

Jun 1, 2006, 4:29:00 PM  
Blogger Marinite said...

Hmmm, that 'Other' category is getting more votes than I would have thought.

If you voted 'Other' and didn't leave a comment but wanted to but didn't because you didn't want to create an account then go ahead and email your comment to me and I'll post it anonymously I guess. Sheesh. Please put 'Other category' or something useful like that in the subject line to help me out. Thanks.

Jun 1, 2006, 4:44:00 PM  
Blogger reagent said...

Supply and demand. Most of the people who live here are from somewhere else, or their parents were. We have in the past had better jobs than elsewhere, and we have better weather, and natural amenities. I came here in 1965 listening to the Mama's and Papa's singing "California Dreaming"

Jun 1, 2006, 6:15:00 PM  
Blogger marin_explorer said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Jun 1, 2006, 8:04:00 PM  
Blogger marin_explorer said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Jun 1, 2006, 8:07:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Dawg said...

I voted other. Houses were expensive before Prop 13 and wqent down for several years under Prop 13. Low taxes are just low taxes.

Sure as heck isn't land use either. Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the nation. People think it is sprawled but in fact it is just the opposite. Try to tell anyone in the Inland Empire that development restrictions are too tight. Bring body armor.

Jun 2, 2006, 6:56:00 AM  
Blogger rejunkie said...

Robert-

I think the density prize goes to New York City, which incidentally is also cheaper than here AND cheaper than LA (metro area, that is, not just Manhattan). Brooklyn has 2m residents and is a "suburb" of the city.

Also, the problem with Prop 13 is not that it lowered taxes per se, it is that it created huge disparities in property owners' obligations to support local infrastructure merely based on the how long they had owned the property. It is completely arbitrary and unfair. It stifles the marketplace since people have a disincentive to move; it means that local coffers go up and down based on the number of transactions rather than just the natural growth of the property values (making it a challenge to do long-term infrastructure planning) AND it also shelters commercial property owners.

Had Prop 13 just lowered the rate from 1.2% to something else, easing the tax burden on everyone equally, it would not have created this distorted tax collection model.

Jun 2, 2006, 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger burbed said...

I voted for other - because there's no 1 main reason. It's a confluence of factors.

Accidents are typically because 1 factor. Disasters require multiple factors. To blame unaffordable housing on just 1 factor is short sighted.

In the last few years, loose lending standards would also be a big factor.

Jun 2, 2006, 1:25:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Dawg said...

I think the density prize goes to New York City

That's why you need to get up to speed or just plain old trust me. LA is the densest urban area in the nation with a bullet. NYC is denser but arbitray political boundaries are not used by any serious demographers in density studies hence the use of urban area.

Same with Prop 13. Prop 13 removed the arbitrary taxation and replaced it with cnsistent, verifiable and transparent assesment. Arbitrary WAS when your neighbor and the assesor decide how much you are supposed to think your house is worth.

Jun 2, 2006, 1:25:00 PM  
Blogger Marinite said...

burbed -

This poll stems from your comment left on the previous post where you said:

Personally, if I were you Marinite, I'd take down this post. That article is just a deflection of the root cause of the problem: Prop 13.

So you have me confused because the problem being discussed was unaffordability.

Jun 2, 2006, 1:41:00 PM  
Blogger rejunkie said...

Robert-

According to my source, the US Census Bureau, the NYC MSA has a population density of 2029 people/square mile with a total population of 21.2m and the LA MSA has 482 per sq. mile and 16.5m total population.

Nevermind statistics, I think a visit to each city would make it pretty obvious which one is more densely populated.

Although I now feel like I am participating in Monty Python's argument sketch since this is totally off-topic and not particularly relevant to the thread ("Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position"), I can't help but ask -- what is your source.

And I take it you are a Prop 13 fan? How well do you think it is working for us? And if it is so fiscally sound, why does Warren Buffett oppose it?

Jun 2, 2006, 8:52:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Dawg said...

The LA MSA includes National forest land which is why the correct cachement is Urban Area.

http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm

Surprised that the LA urban area is a third denser than the NY urban area?

http://www.demographia.com/db-nyuza1800.htm

Anyway I'm a Prop 13 agnostic. It's a tax system, of course it is unfair. What it isn't is arbitrary or capracious. That puts it way ahead of most other systems. The only serious problem is the commercial transfer loophole. There might be some merit to triggering at least partial revaluation as part of refinancing as well.

Jun 2, 2006, 10:23:00 PM  
Blogger rejunkie said...

(OK, so we are really off-topic here but I love a good argument...)

Yes it does suprise me but what surprises me more is a source that suggests that San Jose is more dense than NYC and that Davis (!!) is two spots behind it (in 6th place nationwide). I lived in Davis for 7 years and there is no way anyone can describe it as densely populated.

I tried to find out how they defined urbanized area but could not.

Jun 3, 2006, 9:13:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Terms of Use: The purpose of the Marin Real Estate Bubble weblog (located at URL http://marinrealestatebubble.blogspot.com/ and henceforth referred to as “MREB” or “this site”) is to present and discuss information relating to real estate and the real estate industry in general (locally, state-wide, nationally, and internationally) as it pertains to the thesis that recent real estate related activity is properly characterized as a “speculative mania” or a “bubble”. MREB is a non-profit, community site that depends on community participation and feedback. While MREB administrators do strive to confirm all information presented here and qualify all doubtful items, the information presented at MREB is neither definitive nor should it be construed as professional advice. All information published on MREB is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind and the administrators of this site shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages arising out of use of this site. This site is moderated by MREB administrators and the MREB administrators reserve the right to edit, remove, or refuse postings that are off-topic, defamatory, libelous, offensive, or otherwise deemed inappropriate by MREB administrators. You should consult a finance professional before making any decisions based on information found on this site.

The contributors to this site may, from time to time, hold short (or long) positions in mentioned and related companies.