Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Live2Sail who wrote (43781)	10/30/2005 3:16:55 AM
From: David Jones	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>I have found a number<<< I couldn't find your number where is it? It took two minutes to find Calif numbers at the NAR site. Although the numbers are taken from the 2000 cences. 99 and the first three months of 00. snip:....California for that year was 6.5 percent.... realtor.org >>>>4) Prop. 13 was introduced because of perceived profligate spending by the government.<<<< Wrong. There was nothing perceived about spending. The fact is people were losing thier homes. Taxes were doubling for some in a single year. The same could be happening today if not for 13. Currently it's the only sane thing about real estate here.

To: Live2Sail who wrote (43781)	11/1/2005 11:16:24 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 306849

1) What about my other post showing that I should buy sooner rather than later to enjoy the benefits of prop. 13 immediately? What about it? You ignored your own advice, presumably you have a good reason or you maybe you don't believe it yourself. The benefits from buying before a 100%-200% rise in selling price is even greater than the benefits from prop 13 (I can tell you this from experience). Plus, neither is guaranteed! Ask Lizzie how much benefit she got from both prop 13 and appreciation buying that SV house in 1999. 2) Please give me your number for existing homes in CA. Here's a good place to start, click on the link to "housing" in the first section: factfinder.census.gov You can see it ain't as easy as it seems because of condos that look like houses and apartments that sell like houses. Then you have the single family home divided into several units sold all at once. In 2004 there were 7,364,386 single unit detached homes and 943,772 single unit attached (townhouses) in CA according to the PLUMs survey estimates. Making for 8,308,158 single family homes. Add in about a million multi occupancy units that could be sold one at a time, like an apartment condo. That gets us to around 9,308,158. NAR lists CA existing single family and condo sales for 2004 at 610,000 units. If we use that 9.3 million figure, than 610 thousand is slightly more than the 6.5% turnover for single family units that I've been throwing around. 3) I don't know why you compare housing turnover in the U.S. to Japan's. I don't ...except it is an interesting factoid. You want turnover to be higher (presumably to give more a chance to be homeowners or make more real estate professionals rich I suppose) and people in other parts of the world wonder why we have little or no attachment to own own homes. It's funny to me. You cite a high turnover in CA during a period of the greatest boom ever. Yes! Just when the supposed gains you cite from hanging onto a low basis home are the greatest. Back when the appreciation rate was slower in the 1990s the turnover ratio was lower. That is when all your accademics did their studies, they saw a slowing turnover and never equated it with a relatively stagnant rate of price appreciation. Notice on the PLUMs table linked above, the "Year householder moved into unit". It's pretty interesting just how few people have lived in their existing home since the 70s. 5) Prop. 13 would have a much larger burden on the elderly because they have had the chance to enjoy the benefit longer. That's Lizzie's biggest beef. If one is not for kicking people out of their homes, then rent control should be considered. The difference is that when one rents it isn't their property, they don't own it. Property taxes are a way for governments to slowly chip away at your right to own property. Property rights are a fundamental requirement for a capitalist society, a free society where the government doesn't decide where you live, but you do. When government imposes rent control, they are essentially destroying a private citizen's property without compensation. Plus, the other well known effect is that they interfere with the market in such a way that is reduces the supply of rental units, the opposite of their intent. 6) If you think that you've got some statistics to dispel some fallacious thinking, then you have quite a large audience. It seems that most here think that Prop. 13 creates a "Lock-in." Most of my friends and acquaintances in CA think P13 creates a lock-in. Prof. Hal Varian of Cal-Berkeley, who literally wrote the damn book on Econ, believes it. You will find that "what most people think" is pretty damned worthless as a way to determine the truth. That goes double for econ profs at Berkeley until proven otherwise. You've got a lot of work to do to convince people one-by-one on SI. I don't care what you think or if I convince you. I'm here to take your money, not help you make it. It's perfectly fine with me if you remain as ignorant as when we started this conversation. I'm assuming your money spends as well as the next guy's. 7) In reality, it will be near impossible for either of us to prove our point. You don't have a point to prove, just a prejudice which you've proven beyond a doubt.