Original Message: ----------------- From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:17:51 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
Dan wrote: > I understand that sentiment, and I admit that there are far more enjoyable > places to live than Houston. When Teri gets her call, I hope to move to > one of them. Cool, I know you were reluctant to move there in the first place. > But, LA isn't much better than Houston or Dallas. Austin is clearly better > than LA. Not by climate. Not by access to a diverse environment (beach in Austin? Mountians?) And by the way, I hate LA and I'd consider Austin before I would LA. Well, maybe... > Further, the direct comparision that is so critical is _the rise_ > in price of real estate in LA vs. Dallas. Since Dallas grew faster over > the time period, by your theory, it's prices should rise faster than LA. >LA is maxed out. They're overcrowded. That's why people are building >homes where they shouldn't and they get destroyed by fires and >mudslides. They've actually been on the decline for a long time so >comparisons with LA aren't really a true measure. But, LA prices rose 80% from 2000 to 2007, even though population remained steady. There are ways to build affordable condos in the area, they are just sucessfully resisted by folks who profit from the rise in prices. What is amazing is after all the talk on this list about worldwide conspiricies to stop the electric car by big oil (including Japan which has no big oil but lots of big electronics corporations), I have to push the obvious. Ineffecient use of land is protected in California because, in the short term, it seems to benefits the voters. Palo Alto is a bad example. http://www.mercurynews.com/lauriedaniel/ci_10957727 (click on the map) I think home values went down about 2% in PA over the last year or so and not much at all before that. OK, I didn't realize that Palo Alto is still outside of the SF fall back to earth. So, let me rephrase that. Palo Alto is due for a gigantic drop (60%?) in home prices because the people who live there can't afford to buy houses. At http://www.paloaltoonline.com/com_info/by_the_numbers.php we see that the median home price in 2006 was 1.4 million. With one of those fancy 0% down mortgages and 6% interest (that combination won't be seen again for a while), this results in 84k per year in interest payments. The median income in Palo Alto is 90k per year. This leaves 500 per month for everything else, including real estate taxes. By rights, one should not have housing costs of more than 30% of income. Thus, most folks are priced out of the housing market by more than a factor of 3. That's not sustainable. Something has to give. I realize that many people can afford their houses because their mortgage and their taxes are tied to the price when they bought it years ago. But, as we all grow older, it's our kids who are looking at buying houses. (My eldest is a homeowner now, with a small affordable house). Eventually, prices will have to come back to earth. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
