I hope it passes and California stops exporting quite so much of its housing crisis to Oregon, where I live.
What do the CA refugees do for work in Oregon? I thought the demand for housing in CA is because so many high paying jobs are in CA.
They retire here. A few work remotely. A few entrepreneurial types actually pitch in and create companies, so it's not all bad, but it'd be nice if people came here because they like it rather than "cheap!"
As someone who grew up just 30 minutes north of the California border, I also want California to leave its problems at the door. My family (and other locals), who are multi-generational Oregonians, have always had negative bias against Californians, due to problems they bring when they move to Oregon. Anything from advocating more tax avenues or higher taxes, to gentrification, to excessive speeding (Oregon has max speed of 65 in the entire state), to nanny-state type laws. The culture difference between California and the PNW is very different.
Why should my neighbor have a lower property tax bill than me? This is a prime cause of the financial issues of municipalities in California, when you buy property, your property tax gets rate capped, incentivizing people to hang onto property and rarely sell.
I'm a YIMBY. I'm happy for people to move here if they like it. What dismays me is that it's purely a financial decision because of California's fucked up housing policies.
It will just make the problem worse. If you have a tulip bubble, slowing adding tulips to the supply on exacerbates the problem. The solution is to allow the market to disincentivize people from moving here. But that would hurt certain industries and decrease tax revenues that certain groups want to use to do good.
No, there are valid concerns about the effectiveness of SB-827, but this is a mischaracterization of the problem and a fundamental misunderstanding of bubbles.
How so?
Huh. So cheap. Maybe I'll move from Melbourne to Fremont for the ridiculously cheap land available in the U.S.
A lot this size would sell for at least $2M in the Sydney harbour area, even if the house is just a wet cardboard box.
“They didn’t buy the house ... They bought the dirt.”
Yeah, this type of coverage is getting exhausting. "9,400" sq. foot lot is a lot for the bay area.
Exactly. Just read a story in Mpls Star Tribune today about a $12.5M tear down in Minnesota (Lake Minnetonka). Location, etc.
I remember the story of a former co-worker who was bidding on a property somewhere around Palo Alto if I recall. $6 million and it came with a house that the city had condemned and any buyer was required to pay to have it torn down before they paid to build a house in its place. This was in 2001.
This is no surprise. I saw a vacant lot in Oakland littered with trash and other refuse sell for $500,000.
Isn't that obvious? Land is land, regardless of whether there is a house on it, a ton of trash, or a lemonade stand. The location is all that matters.
I fear for california if it had a tech sector crisis and/or a shift of taxes into land value tax.
"The house ended up selling for about a quarter-million dollars over its asking price."