| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2008/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50116 Activity:nil |
6/1 question for MOTD Armchair Economists, are home prices in CA
artificially high because of old people homeowners and Proposition 13?
are rents artificially high because property value is so high?
are rents really artificially skewed in the Bay Area because land
is more precious than gold, Prop 13, rent control and what the hell
throw in all powerful fabulous and fabulously wealthy gay couples?
\_ according to Master Dimwit, they are high because of speculation.
Speculators think it'll be high, so they keep buying until...
they're too high for speculators. In all seriousness, dimwit
will most likely say something to the effect of free-market,
supply and demand, etc.
\_ Bay Area is more expensive because of several reasons. One is
a much much stricter land use control. Lots of areas are reserves
and hippies from Sierra Club fight to preserve whatever land is
available in the Bay Area, so developers have less land to build.
The other reason is average income. N Cal on average has higher
income and educational level and attracts more immigrants who
are well educated or well to do. In contrast LA has been the
manufacturing and service hub of CA and attracts different types
of immigrants and workers. In addition LA has been sprawling
crazy in the past few decades so homes are plentiful and
cheap and attracts a much diverse populace, from those who are
super rich all the way to those who are super poor. Proposition
13 is just one of the few components, and just as important
as Prop 13 is the low property tax, which drives demand from
investors from all over the world who hold on to their investments
for decades but don't really use (look at all the empty and
expensive homes in Arcadia and San Marino), since homes in CA
have much lower tax to deal with (compared to say 3% prop tax
in Texas), which make properties in CA very good long term
investments. CA properties attract certain types of buyers
(investors) similarly to FL properties that attract certain
types of buyers (criminals... because properties in FL are not
repossessed even if you go bankrupt). All of these things make
\_ WTF are you talking about? If you don't pay your mortgage
in FL you lose your home just like anywhere else.
\_ In FL, if you paid off your home and then declare bankruptcy,
they can't repossess your property back. This is why
Al Capone "invested" heavily in FL properties, and ditto
with many criminals.
\_ You are confused about the Homestead Exemption:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/63bs5f
(No need to read the whole thing, just read the five
states that allow unlimited HE, FL is not one of them)
Also, Federal bankruptcy code changes have considerably
limited this kind of protection.
\_ Dude! Capone! Obviously we are still living in the
30s! Now why aren't you wearing a suit and hat?
CA homes highly desirable, which then drive up huge demands from
all over the world, which then drive up prices. It's all
inter-related.
\_ What makes you think rents are too high and if they are too high
then why do people pay them? All things considered I find rents
in CA reasonable compared to income. I can't believe people pay
$1000/month to live in places like Alabama. (I own a rental
home in Alabama so I know what rents there are.) |
| 7/9 |
|
| preview.tinyurl.com/63bs5f -> findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3714/is_200404/ai_n9391790 Link Editors' Synopsis: This Article contains an overview of the history of the federal bankruptcy law and the federal homestead exemption. The author argues that varying state homestead exemption laws have created a chaotic and nonuniform system, and he discusses recent proposals to amend the federal exemption that will produce greater uniformity. "1 The significance of this aphorism should not be disregarded because lawmakers have linked the collapse of Enron Corp. In addition to Texas, four other states allow homeowners to protect the full value of their home in bankruptcy. Florida, Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota have adopted homestead exemptions that authorize debtors to protect an unlimited amount of equity from the claims of creditors. Unlike the five states just identified, homestead exemptions in the remaining forty-five states are considerably different because they impose some form of dollar limitation upon the debtor's exemption. While the majority of states have homestead exemptions that limit the dollar amount of equity a debtor may exempt, the dollar limitations that have been adopted are noticeably different. It comprises two elements: the homestead and the exemption. "10 Consequently, the accuracy of the aphorism depends on the debtor's residency at the time of his bankruptcy filing. Even states within a similar geographic region have homestead exemptions that are afforded disparate treatment in federal bankruptcy proceedings. Despite this disparity, the homestead exemption's fundamental purpose of providing debtors with a source of protection in bankruptcy has remained constant since the mid-nineteenth century. The principal objective of the homestead exemption in the early twentieth century was to provide security for the family. "19 Part I of this Article focuses exclusively on state homestead exemptions and will address different policies in various states. Part II of this Article examines the history of federal bankruptcy and the federal homestead exemption. It has been suggested that state homestead laws have resulted in a lack of equity and reasonableness. While this suggestion can be debated, it is indisputable that state homestead laws are far from uniform, and the "opt out" provision in federal bankruptcy has created the lack of uniformity that exists today. |