So now wealth is a factor, but before it was GDP.
Skip the 25 mile radius which is BS. Neither city is anywhere near 25 miles in radius, and I want to compare the same properties. The median Sunnyvale household income (2006 est) is about 98.5K, whereas for my little town it is about 43.5K The household income ratio is thus 2.26
I'm picking similar neighborhoods, with circa 1950-1960's housing, (1000-1400sqft typical) which in both places have been used as both fixer uppers and knockdowns. In Sunnyvale, a typical location is residential housing a few blocks of El Camino in both Wolfe and Fair Oaks regions (I used to live there, so know the region well).
Knockdowns on 6000sqft lots have been going for >$600K (actually as high as $900K in the last year). In my town, brand new bare lots with city utilities go for $30K. The ratio is thus 20. Normalized to income it is 8.85.
Similar tax and lending rates will apply, so why the difference? Duh, jobs attract people to Sunnyvale, not eastern Oregon (why do you think the income differs by a factor of 2?). But fundamentally, even if a few more people come here, there is a ready supply of more land. In Sunnyvale there is not. The only way Sunnyvale can add more is by increasing housing density, which is why the cost of land goes up. Thus my example illustrates precisely the effect of population on land prices. Your 25 mile radius would have obscured that. I'm trying to understand, not obscure things.
Anyway, you can have the last word. There is no point in trying to argue with someone who seriously thinks that higher population pressure does not affect the price of resources which can't be increased, such as land. |
