Buy/Sell: Retirement pay + Move to the Golden Triangle...
- Thread starter Maroon Eagle
- Start date
No, but it shouldn't be used to obstruct development just to benefit existing landowners. You don't have to allow highrises everywhere. But you could make it a lot better just by making the allowance of moderate density the norm.
those dastardly boogey men.
Or they could invest in increasing capacity. Or provide a market based rate for water, which would probably be bad for the rest of the US b/c I'm not sure what that would do to the agricultural prices.
Of course. Making non-competes unenforceable was probably a big one that was not a traditional one. But it was largely just having reasonably sane policies up until the 90's.
Name another state that has wonderful weather, deep water ports facing China, incredibly productive farm land, oil and gas, gold and silicon deposits? Certainly they did some things right along the way, but good policy couldn't have created California elsewhere.
California peaked years ago dude.
California is an extremely beautiful place... But it's also the most over-regulated place to build imaginable. The state itself doesn't make it easy by requiring lots of green (expensive) building codes, labor is more expensive due to the high costs of living (because in part of high taxes and regulations), building code adoptions are too strict in many cases, gas is 30% more expensive than the US average (Highest gas taxes), and a plethora of other issues. But just wait until you dig into some of the local fees... Whoa mama.
If you wanted to build a new house in Sacramento in 2021, the fees alone (permits, plan reviews, lots and lot of mitigation fees..) average $95,000 per home. Think about that, you are paying through the nose for a lot, crazy high labor, higher material costs due to stricter standards, and on top of all that, you get hit with $95,000 in fees by the city itself. That's insane...
List of all the fees to build in Sacramento
And a simple math explanation for why California's GDP is so great... Let's compare it to Texas, the second largest state and its closest rival in terms of size.
California 2022 Q3 GDP per capita $93,130
Texas 2022 Q3 GDP per capita $79,995
California 2022 Cost of living index - 146.79
Texas 2022 Cost of living index - 95.65
California 2022 Average Hourly Earnings - 37.44
Texas 2022 Average Hourly Earnings - 29.96
California 2022 Median House Price - $843,000
Texas 2022 Median House Price - $389,000
California 2022 Median Gas Price Per Gallon - $5.28
Texas 2022 Median Gas Price Per Gallon - $3.47
California's GDP is inflated because $1 in the entire US requires $1.47 in California to have the same purchasing power... They have to pay their employees more, they sell their houses for 3X the national average, they charge more for gas... ETC. The GDP is inflated because of the cost of living is so 17ing high. California doesn't produce more product than texas, it just spends more to produce less.
Case and point: Based on permits, in 2022 California had $99 billion worth of residential real estate contributions to its GDP. Texas had $102 billion. Of course that was only 118,000 units in CA vs 265,000 in TX.
If we are going to look at the GDP of an individual state in USD, we should look at the value of the USD in that state. No different than comparing the GDP of 2 countries in that regard.
Yes, better environment to raise their family, we have really good schools in Union County and much lower cost of living. $500K will buy a lot of house in Mississippi.
Shameful. If your "$1B" comment is true, then it is an accomplice to stunting innovation growth.
2023 Most & Least Innovative States
We’ll see what happens. I’m wanting to find out about possible raises for the next FY.
And we should get news about that soon.
I’m not so much concerned about the Legislature sitting on that $1 Billion considering their well proven track record when it comes to what they perceive to be innovation. **
(If I were @Shmuley I’d remove the sarcasterisks & make use of on occasional schtick he does and end that previous sentence with a resoundant FFFFAAAARRTTT )
Now do it with your liberal colored glasses on and your head up your ***
I thought this article was amusing. Apparently some researchers used facial recognition technology to rank states based on cheerfulness. Cali ended up in last place.
infomediang.com
I've seen California rank in the top 10 in a lot of happiness indexes so there's some 'splainin to do.
Most Cheerful States In The United States 2022
Utah, Vermont, and Colorado are happiest U.S. states in 2022 while California, New Jersey, and Indiana are the least cheerful states, here is the full list.
infomediang.com
I've seen California rank in the top 10 in a lot of happiness indexes so there's some 'splainin to do.
The masks throw off the testI thought this article was amusing. Apparently some researchers used facial recognition technology to rank states based on cheerfulness. Cali ended up in last place.
Most Cheerful States In The United States 2022
Utah, Vermont, and Colorado are happiest U.S. states in 2022 while California, New Jersey, and Indiana are the least cheerful states, here is the full list.
I've seen California rank in the top 10 in a lot of happiness indexes so there's some 'splainin to do.
rsfc- I've seen that mentioned before...message board of some sort back in the AOL dial up era, or what?
Curious what the Pescadero reference was in there.
Maria Pescadero - noted fisherwoman/troller of that group — though one would think that really “her” last name should have been Pescadera.
And the constituents that flock to those type areas are not really who I want around me on a daily basis. The older I get the more Gran Torino I get. I just want to be left alone by this confused and overly loud generation. Give me Peace in the Pines, a couple head of cattle, and a garden full of tomatoes and corn.
I'm not sure but I'd bet earthquake regs outprice any green regs. And you better know those are what the "bad policy" harpers really think are "insane" regs added since the 90s (a period where Cali was mostly controlled by Republicans).
California's legislatures have been Democratic since 1970 with the exception of separate 2-year stints of GOP control in its Senate in the 70s and the Assembly in the 90s.
With seismic stuff, you are really not getting into much for residential/light framing. For big commercial buildings it's a different animal. Most new homes in CA are built wood frame construction slab on grade like they are in most of the country these days. They do have some extra fasteners and shear wall requirements, but it would be similar to the added expenses of building in a hurricane zone in Florida. Maybe a few thousand dollars on a typical home.
I'm not talking about the green regs either (except for some of the towns that require new housing to be build to LEED standards and a few other silly policies), some expenses are added I am sure, but most of that stuff is happening everywhere that adopts IBC codes (more insulation, low flow shower heads, ACH50 scores, etc.) I am talking about the bureaucracy for the state and municipalities. Their government has gotten so big it has 10 departments doing what one can do. They need more money for budgets for all these departments so many towns are just absolutely hammering new construction.
I dug through some of those fees in Sacramento last night, here's a doozy.. Every new home is hit with a $3.66 per square foot charge for the Affordable Housing Ordinance. That's $7320 on a 2,000sf house. They use this money mostly for rental vouchers and to pay the 232 employees in the department of course. This type of program should be funded through a tax, not a "fee." They are funding affordable housing by making housing less affordable. Idiotic.
As for the other thing, no argument from me. California "Conservatives" are a sight to behold. I could tell so many stories about how stupid these clowns are... They flee California to go to a "red" state and then come and are politically active as 17 locally trying to do śhit the way they did it back in CA. In California it doesn't matter if they are left, right or anywhere in between, they are all aśsholes that want to tell everybody else how to live their life.
Has California's top-two primary system worked?
California's top-two primary election system marked its 10th anniversary last week. Has it worked as promised?
calmatters.org
Different Era. With multiple GOP governors, a plethora of extreme Republicans from the east, and the ballot initiative process always a threat, it looked much more like our crappy Congress than a leftist version of it. These days, the loony cons and libs are both irrelevant, resulting in a business friendly lefty rule. Of course, the loony cons call this insane, because of course they would.
I agree, I as thinking of why there's not more medium density development. For the typical suburban one family home, land is the driving cost there. There's only so much of it.
Another aspect we haven't discussed here is the prevalence of those peeps you see on TV: I'm a part time chef and my wife is a public teacher, our budget is $1.2M. When people who can't really afford it are willing to throw that kind of money around, prices get out of whack. People like us who put proper value on our money get driven out of the market. It's not necessarily "bad policy".
One of the things that is front and center when talking about California politics is the high speed rail that has seen such an increase in costs it
has people questioning whether it will ever be completed. It's hard to imagine an assessment of costs that missed this badly, as well as the projection for demand for the service itself which has dropped.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...alifornia-bullet-train-100-billion-in-the-red
When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his scaled-down blueprint for the California bullet train four years ago, he proposed building a 171-mile starter segment in the Central Valley that would begin operating in 2030 and cost $22.8 billion.
Today, the blueprint is fraying as costs now exceed future funding, an official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% and the schedule to start to carry people is slipping. It is raising fresh concerns about the future of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.
New cost figures issued in an update report from the California High-Speed Rail Authority show that the plan to build the 171-mile initial segment has shot up to a high of $35 billion, exceeding secured funding by $10 billion.
The cost of that partial system is now higher than the $33-billion estimate for the entire 500-mile Los Angeles-to San-Francisco system when voters approved a bond in 2008.
What’s worse, that full system cost is set at up to $128 billion in the update, leaving a total funding gap of more than $100 billion.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Bakersfield native, has long called the project, which would serve his own district, a boondoggle.
“In no way, shape, or form should the federal government allocate another dollar to California’s inept high-speed rail,” McCarthy said in a statement to CalMatters. “The California High-Speed Rail Authority has missed countless timelines and deceived the public about costs, which are exorbitantly higher than originally estimated.”
has people questioning whether it will ever be completed. It's hard to imagine an assessment of costs that missed this badly, as well as the projection for demand for the service itself which has dropped.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...alifornia-bullet-train-100-billion-in-the-red
When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his scaled-down blueprint for the California bullet train four years ago, he proposed building a 171-mile starter segment in the Central Valley that would begin operating in 2030 and cost $22.8 billion.
Today, the blueprint is fraying as costs now exceed future funding, an official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% and the schedule to start to carry people is slipping. It is raising fresh concerns about the future of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.
New cost figures issued in an update report from the California High-Speed Rail Authority show that the plan to build the 171-mile initial segment has shot up to a high of $35 billion, exceeding secured funding by $10 billion.
The cost of that partial system is now higher than the $33-billion estimate for the entire 500-mile Los Angeles-to San-Francisco system when voters approved a bond in 2008.
What’s worse, that full system cost is set at up to $128 billion in the update, leaving a total funding gap of more than $100 billion.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Bakersfield native, has long called the project, which would serve his own district, a boondoggle.
“In no way, shape, or form should the federal government allocate another dollar to California’s inept high-speed rail,” McCarthy said in a statement to CalMatters. “The California High-Speed Rail Authority has missed countless timelines and deceived the public about costs, which are exorbitantly higher than originally estimated.”
What are the winters like? I've been thinking about moving out that way somewhere lately. I'm just tired of the weather in the South, and basically having nothing but Gatlinburg for real hiking.
I could have a job whenever I wanted in Helena, MT. Not bragging, but it's just one of those deals that's in my field and always available. But I'm afraid that's a little out of my tolerability. But if it's not too far from Boise and I could work out some type of remote work......
I've never spent the winter "up north" but I think the length of their winters would bother me almost as much as the cold.
Winters out here (Northern Rockies let's say.. Idaho, Northern Utah, Western WY, Western MT, Far Eastern WA) are all about elevation, the size/orientation of the valley, and which side of the continental divide you are on. Helena for instance is just on the east side of the divide at just on 4,000'. Its not in a terribly windy valley like Bozeman, but those Alberta clippers come down out of Canada and mostly stay on the east side of the divide (think about those crazy cold temps you see in North Dakota). When you are thinking about how cold a place is, it's not just about how cold the lows get, but how low are the daily highs. Helena can get cold as 17 for a few days every year. Dangerously cold.
My house is +/-200 miles as a crow flies from Helena. I am 1400 feet higher in elevation and we have had 209" of snow in town so far this winter according to the city. That said, Helena is too cold for me. Snow is one thing, but bonechilling cold is another. At elevation, it gets cold as hell at night and the mornings. But we do not get the clippers/inversions that sink into the valley and sit for days at a time. My lowest low at our house in the last 2 winters has been -19F just before this past Christmas. But that same day it warmed up to +21F by the afternoon. Our lowest daily high in the last 2 winters was +13F (Memphis had a daily high of +14F this winter for comparison.) That same day it hit -19/+21 here, in Helena the low was -35F and the high was -19F. They shut the ski resorts down for a few days up there this winter because it was too cold to ski. Yet Missoula, which is a little further north and less than 100 miles from Helena, had a low of -19F and high of +7F. Its just west of the divide of course.
When we moved out we originally chose Boise because it was a good size and more importantly, its very warm considering how far north you are. It's in a warm/dry valley and is only at 2800' which is lower elevation than Amarillo, TX believe it or not. It is winter for several months, but 30s-40's most days for highs. In fact, the one winter I spent in Boise our coldest low was +16F. Boise also gets under 18" of snow in the winter and when it does snow, it usually melts off the roads before lunch and is only left in the shade by nightfall on the grass.
So, short story long there, but it's highly variably from valley to valley. If you see a big population center over 100K let's say (SLC, Boise, Spokane/North Idaho) its going to be a pretty warm valley. Housing is definitely expensive out here off the hoof, but other variables are less expensive that help affordability. My car insurance in TX was $1200 a year for 2 cars, it dropped to just under $500 the day we moved here with the exact same coverages. My homeowner's insurance was just over $4K a year in Texas (Thanks hailstorms.) I now pay $800 for a lot more house. Gas is $3.50 a gallon, but electricity is less than $.08 per kwh. When I lived in Boise, they actually use an aquaduct from the lake for free water for the lawn which was cool.
Not sure if I read it right, but you cannot commute to Helena from anywhere in Idaho (Boise is 450 miles away by car) any cheaper/easier than you could fly in from Dallas or something.Those passes are a nightmare in the winter and winter is from November -April. But if you want to get up to this area best bang for your buck with housing costs and milder winters is probably the North Idaho/Spokane area. Was up there this past weekend and North Idaho is a little different though... Quite the sovereign citizen feel going on up there, but Coeur d'Alene is a beautiful town. Spokane was really cool though, its considered the "conservative" city in Washington state, which actually makes it fairly balanced and normal. Great downtown too. It's under 2,000 in elevation so the snow and cold are manageable.
They aren't that long, it's April and I am about to have to start cutting my lawn already. That little section is starting to green up on me... Thinking about using the wife's bush trimmers.
And you can pay to go to Cali for long enough to enjoy it but not so long that they have time to 17 you in the
with no lube.
Still haven’t stated what attracts you to an area?
sucking? Maybe that’s your thing.
And you can pay to go to Cali for long enough to enjoy it but not so long that they have time to 17 you in the
Interesting pattern of behavior on display here
(ETA: NTTAWWT. Right, @Maroon Eagle ?)
Last edited:
Because I'm from Mississippi, I have fondness for it. But, were we to move back south and live in a Southern location that is close to great outdoors activity, hunting, fishing, (actual) hiking, decent city with music/food/cultural scene with above-average healthcare options, the Chattanooga area is hands down better than nearly every area in MS. You can pick from Mentone/Ft. Payne, AL, Rome, GA, Chattanooga, TN and get all of this stuff. Also Weiss Lake checks the "big, pretty lake" box. Chattanooga has as good of a music scene as any college town in MS.
Plus, you can get back home pretty quick if you need to be in MS for any reason. As a Denverite who is running the clock on leaving once our kids are done with school, we've considered NE Alabama/NW Georgia/SC Tenn. Also really love Boise, but we missed the housing value in that market.
Personally, I love Northern New Mexico/SW Colorado, which is the Mississippi of the West. But that checks nearly none of the boxes discussed here except outdoor sporting.
Plus, you can get back home pretty quick if you need to be in MS for any reason. As a Denverite who is running the clock on leaving once our kids are done with school, we've considered NE Alabama/NW Georgia/SC Tenn. Also really love Boise, but we missed the housing value in that market.
Personally, I love Northern New Mexico/SW Colorado, which is the Mississippi of the West. But that checks nearly none of the boxes discussed here except outdoor sporting.