Open Thread for Thursday
Gary L. ToebbenPresident & CEO
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Family homeownership has always been central to the California dream. Throughout the past 50 years, millions of people flocked to California and staked their claims in the nation’s fastest-growing state. Families invested in their first home and began developing nest eggs for the next generation. Those once-affordable investments helped provide a sense of permanence, community and economic promise throughout the Los Angeles area.
As a new resident of L.A. who is looking at housing this week, I have become acutely aware that for many of our residents, the California dream is a distant memory.
Today, too many people are facing the stark reality that they may never be able to purchase their own home. Even lower-priced condominiums, developed as alternatives to the conventional detached single family home, are equally unaffordable. The problem in L.A. is especially critical; our city’s homeownership rate is the third lowest in the nation.
The City Council is moving forward on efforts to place a $1 billion citywide affordable housing bond on the November ballot. If done right, the bond will be an important step towards reversing the slide of housing affordability and availability. It will also bring hope and opportunity to young people beginning their careers and families, and those who have been shut out of the housing market.
The figures are startling. The median home price in L.A. County skyrocketed from $195,000 to $508,000 in the past six years, according to the California Association of Realtors. At the same time, the number of households that can afford a median-priced home dropped from 38 percent to only 12 percent. Homebuyers need an income of more than $100,000 per year just to break into the market.
As more people move into the Inland Empire and Santa Clarita, where land and housing are at the lower end of the high prices, our freeways are jammed with commuters who spend three to four hours on the road each day. That’s precious time away from family and work. The experience is so prevalent that the term “bedroom community” is now part of our regional vernacular.
Even more troubling is the effect on our sense of community. Many local police and firefighters live miles away from the cities where they work. The Los Angeles Police Department cites this as a major reason why they aren’t meeting recruitment goals. Teachers often live outside of their school districts, reducing the amount of time they spend on campus and with students. How can we expect first-rate law enforcement and quality teachers if they can’t afford a place to live?
This isn’t simply a housing bubble. The market may be overvalued, but the fact is that high home prices in L.A. are due to demand far outstripping supply. Southern California’s population is growing by nearly 300,000 people per year – adding the population of two Chicagos by 2020. Developers are building new housing at an increasing pace, but it’s not keeping up with demand.
The housing crunch is hurting our quality of life and our region’s ability to attract top notch business investment. High home prices are forcing many workers to leave the area for more affordable communities. Businesses are finding it more difficult to recruit new employees from outside of Southern California. Building affordable housing is a smart investment for our region’s future.
Many people hear the words “affordable housing” and equate them with the high-rise urban projects of the 1960s and 1970s. Today’s affordable housing is much different. Indications are that a portion of the bond funds will be used to fight homelessness. That’s vitally important. Much of the funding, however, will help young professionals, police officers, teachers, firefighters and nurses realize the currently unattainable dream of homeownership. New affordable housing often includes innovative, mixed-use developments along transit routes that incorporate retail with residences. Residents have easy access to public transportation, with shopping and cultural opportunities within walking distance.
For any local housing bond to be successful, two important factors must be addressed: process and partnerships.
Process includes the city’s requirements for building new projects – expediting permits, city department approvals and integrating new housing with an overall planning vision for L.A.
Major strides have been made in recent years, but residents and developers still find themselves caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Perhaps the most important need is that the city updates L.A.’s master development plan to reflect the need for transit-oriented, smart-growth development. With innovators such as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Planning Director Gail Goldberg at the helm, this can certainly be accomplished.
Regional partnerships are also crucial. The city must partner with surrounding municipalities and the county to maximize the bond’s effectiveness. This is a regional problem and every community must work together for affordable housing, smarter growth and more cohesive urban planning processes. And partnerships with the private sector – both builders and equity investors – will be essential to provide incentives to build and finance the housing.
We still need to examine the bond’s details and discuss exactly how it will be implemented. But one thing is for sure – if nothing is done to dramatically increase the amount and affordability of quality housing, more families will see their California dream extinguished. The result will be an exodus of jobs, families and economic opportunity to areas that can solve this problem.
That would be unacceptable, and we can and must do better.
And that’s The Business Perspective.
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 7/06/2006 12:00:00 AM
43 Comments:
Vote "no." Heaping an even greater tax burden on the residents and businesses of L.A. is not the way to make housing "affordable."
And here's a news bulletin: housing is always more expensive in major urban areas than in Podunk. Try buying a single family dwelling in Manhattan, London, Paris, or Tokyo.
It is unfair to tax renters to provide a subsidy so that others can become a home owner. Indeed, it is unfair to tax anyone to help someone else become a home owner.
You say you just moved here and are shocked by the prices. That's your problem, not ours. You didn't do your research. Your choices are: move back to wherever you came from; ask for a raise; or do what millions of people all over the world manage to live with, namely, rent an apartment or house.
Your personal desires, and inability to achieve them immediately, simply do not constitute a legitimate reason to tax everyone else.
Welfare should be for the poor, for those who are unable, due to some kind of physical or mental defect, to care for themselves.
You want affordable? Stop taxing everyone here to death.
Right then Wacko. You're against raising taxes to make housing in LA affordable. What then, do you propose be done, other than taxes, to help our leaders achieve that goal?
BTW, what's the dirt on this Toebben guy? He's not even from LA, according to the email. I miss Mr. Hammer already, he's a helluva guy.
Yet another bond measure...sigh
So i can raise the rents on my units to make up for the tax hike right? Go ahead, raise the taxes. I'm already going to charge my tenants for the trash fee hike.
Hell no not another bond. If city council and the mayor would learn how to make this city function with what it has we wouldn't be in this mess. Also Bureau of Street Services is saying city council will put another bond to help with street repairs.
This is bullshit. This is the only way Antonio and Duffy can get support for school takeover. They have the nerve to say there's nothing wrong with this?
dailynews.com
Parents' and community groups that have backed UTLA's school reform vision have received thousands of dollars from the teachers' union, officials acknowledged Wednesday - a disclosure that raises questions about the organizations' independence. Community Coalition, Inner City Struggle, CARECEN, Families in Schools, One L.A.-IAF have received more than $40,000 in donations since October 2005 - some, just days after they publicly endorsed the union's proposal for reforming the Los Angeles Unified School District.....A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, said the union has contributed regularly to some of the groups over the past few years but vehemently denied it had "bought" the groups' support.
P.S.
If businesses are having trouble attracting the talent they want due to the price of housing, here's something they could try instead of increasing our taxes: pay your employees more.
Of course, they don't want to do that. They would rather have you, the renter, the taxpayer, the long-time resident, subsidize their employee compensation program by paying higher taxes.
I oppose the housing bond. Walter is right. Let the market decide. It adjusts itself periodically. If we try to manipulate the market, we will end up with a mess in the end.
P.S. 10:41 pm obviously has a limited volcabulary if he / she must use the word "wacko." It is also rude.
Build affordable housing for who? Illegal aliens? Give me a break. This guy just got here in L. A. and already he is spending our money on foreigners.
It's gotten worse than using the word "wacko." As per a new item I just posted on the main page, someone has now started making fraudulent postings using my name, to make it look as though I'm saying terrible, racist things. He will presumably use this same technique to attribute idiotic or offensive comments to others, so watch out when you read comments that appear to be from named sources.
Wacko,
You're still not offering a contsructibe solution to the region's affordable housing crisis, you racist cunt.
8:11 AM,
Actually it was the owner of this blog, Mayor Sam, who came up witht the 'Wacko' moniker, and with good reason. Please don't question my language abilities, imbecile.
Hell, yeah, we need the bond. Go Antonio!
Hey Toebben, stop your whining! You should have researched the high price of real estate before you moved here. If you can't afford it, rent like I did for years or leave. These clowns answer to everything is to raise fees, taxes, and place bond measures on the ballot. Vote NO.
HEY, if the "Wack" hat fits, wear it Walter... 99 percent of the city saw through you last year.
(And, wasn't it the blog owners HERE like Mayor Sam that COINED the phrase "Wacko Walter" about the same time they ENDORSED Villaraigosa? They sure used it for many months, check the archives.)
Indeed I did coin the phrase Wacko Walter. But do you honestly think that I view Walter as Wacko as much as I viewed Jim Hahn as having a problem going to the bathroom in his pants? Its all part of the Mayor Sam schtick.
Walter can be colorful and different, but he's often right on. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do concur a massive bond is NOT going to make a $1.5 million three bedroom flat in Sherman Oaks go to 500K.
move to the ghetto, prices are cheaper there.
The housing bond is going to be diverted into the pockets of politically connected developers. I have a friend who works for an "affordable housing" outfit and she says it's one of the most crooked joints going--graft everywhere. It's like a Vegas casino in the '70s.
What really needs to happen is a massive upzoning and commensurate infrastructure development program, but folks like "westsider" would rather eat ground glass than admit that a city of one-story detached single-family homes is unviable given current economic conditions. It's not 1955 anymore, people. I'm not saying that we need to go on a high-rise orgy, but there are an awful lot of detached single-family neighborhoods in very close proximity to major job centers--neighborhoods that should be rezoned R-2 or R-3 and covered with 2/3/4-plexes and small apartment buildings.
BTW, Walter, saying "just rent" is not a viable solution given that rental occupancy rates are above 98%. NIMBYs have suppressed the construction of rental housing to such an extent that it's common to see 8-10 adults living in a two-bedroom apartment. Landlords have a huge incentive to undertake illegal evictions. Housing policy guru/demographer Dowell Myers once pointed out something very interesting: perceptions to the contrary, the ratio of dwelling units in multifamily dwellings to total dwelling units remained roughly constant in California between 1920 and 1980 or so, then went into a steep decline thereafter. "Slow-growth" policies such as Measure U have made it very difficult to build multifamily units, meaning that virtually all of the housing built in the state over the past quarter-century has been single-family homes on previously undeveloped land. Combine that with land conservation programs like Ventura County's SOAR or the huge open space reservations in south Orange County and you get a serious housing shortage.
How much of this so-called afforable housing is planned for Brentwood? Any zoning changes planned for Arnold's neighborbood?
If Toebben wants an affordable house in this area, realtor.com lists a single family property for sale for $215,000 in zip code 90059.
Peter --
I agree with you 100% on "affordable housing" programs being a scam.
I respectfully disagree with you about the "need" to facilitate even denser housing than we have now. Here's why:
Those of us who chose to live in a low-rise city, and who worked our butts off to purchase a home, owe no duty whatsoever to the rest of the world to accommodate their moving here. That billions of people would love to live in L.A. does not mean we must, or even should, change zoning to allow denser housing here.
Not everyone can afford to live everywhere. There are professionals with six-figure incomes who can't afford to live in Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes. That doesn't mean those cities have an "affordable housing crisis." It means instead: not everyone can afford to live everywhere. The choices we make in life -- how hard to study, how hard to work, how much to spend and save, whether to have children -- affect our options. That is not a public policy problem, it is life.
I don't know a whole lot about this housing bond, but I also agree that it is probably not the best way to make housing more affordable. However, I get very annoyed when people who bought into the market before 2000 refuse to admit that housing affordability is a major problem. It's easy to say "I got mine, too bad you don't got yours" but that kind of attitude won't make the problem go away.
Mr. Moore, I don't know if you have children or plan on having any, but you need to think about the next generation of Angelenos. Nearly all of our population growth is coming from births and will continue to do so even if illegal immigration is curtailed. I have a hard time believing that when your children grow up and can't afford to live here that you will simply tell them it's a shame they were born in L.A., not everyone should be able to afford housing here, and that they had better move somewhere else although that means you will never get to see them or your grandchildren.
Furthermore, a couple days ago you posted that taxes were keeping businesses out of L.A., yet you won't acknowledge that a lack of affordable housing near major job centers is an even bigger deterent. Today, you wrote that these businesses should simply pay their employees more money, and that kind of policy is just as unfriendly to businesses as high tax rates. Government is a big employer here -- are you suggesting that we pay the police officers, firefighters, and teachers the $100K/yr salary they need to afford a home here? If the government raises salaries that much, imagine the impact on taxes!
Mr. Moore, you wrote "it is unfair to tax anyone to help someone else become a home owner." And yet, our own Federal government gives tax breaks to those who own homes (the mortgage interest deduction), which effectively raises taxes on those who do not own homes to help those that do. Proposition 13 prevents those who have owned homes for many years from paying their fair share of property taxes, which effectively raises taxes on those who recently bought homes in order to help those that bought comparable properties at far lower prices. For all your libertarian rhetoric on the inequity of taxes that enable others to own homes, I sincerely hope you advocate repealing the Federal mortgage interest deduction and Proposition 13. By your own logic, these mechanisms are just as unfair as the proposed housing bond.
Peter is right; government intervention serves to make housing less affordable, not more. Restrictive zoning and "red tape" have made housing near job centers nearly impossible while encouraging it on the urban fringe, forcing people to live dozens of miles from their jobs and to clog our congested freeways. Westsider and others, be advised that a housing bond can't change zoning, all it can do is encourage some of the units already permitted by current zoning to be offered at more affordable prices. The bond doesn't get at the root of the problem.
It's about "the invisible hand" of economics: supply and demand. When you have a large demand for housing, constraining the supply only leads to higher prices. Land is a finite commodity, making it hard to cut demand. If the price gets too high, no one will move to L.A., business will leave, and we'll be left with another St. Louis or Detroit. If you increase supply to meet the demand, the "market" is in balance, the city remains viable, and everyone's happy.
No one in this town is advocating that single-family neighborhoods in Westchester or the Valley be destroyed in favor of apartment towers. Increasing zoning and reducing government regulation doesn't necessarily lead to huge buildings or changing the low-rise character of most our city's neighborhoods. However, it could lead to low-rise "garden" apartments and condos near Metro stations, encouraging folks to walk or ride transit to work (or to the store) without clogging our roads. It could also lead to homeowners adding a small unit on their properties that can provide affordable housing opportunities while helping them pay the mortgage without changing the character of their neighborhoods. Let's get creative here!
There are some neighborhoods that would welcome denser housing. The challenge is for planners and politicians to engage the residents of our neighborhoods, find out what they want, and identify areas where higher density housing is desired. Those areas could probably comprise less than 5% of our city's area while meeting the housing demand of the next 50 years. Once we all agree on that 5%, let's make building multi-family housing there just as easy as remodling a kitchen. If a neighborhood doesn't want denser housing, we don't have to force it on them.
It's terrible to simply state "not everyone can afford to live everywhere" and tell 78% (yes, 78%!) of our neighbors "tough luck" and to leave L.A. It's even worse to simply tell people to pursue jobs that pay more than $100K, not pump a dime into the economy beyond their bare essentials, and never have children. I graduated from college after the housing boom started, took a civil service job that allowed me to pursue public service in lieu of personal wealth, and want to have children someday, and these "choices" mean I will never be able to afford a house here. I'm insulted when you say I've made the wrong choices and never deserve to own a home. Just because you got into the housing market before 2000 doesn't mean you made better choices than me, it doesn't mean you worked harder than me, and it doesn't mean that civil servants like me don't deserve to live in this city. How dare you -- were you making over $100K a year when you got into the market? I doubt it.
Our children will resent us if we tell them they can't stay in the city they grew up in unless they are in the top 12% of wage earners. Were you in the top 12% of wage earners when you bought your first home? Perhaps you want your kids to live in your house for the rest of their lives, but I don't.
Mayor Sam and Mr. Moore, let's hear some constructive ideas on how to address this (relatively new but urgent) issue on the local political scene. If the housing bond won't work, what will? Let me say that if we continue giving mortgage interest tax breaks, allowing inequitible property taxes under Proposition 13, and preventing the construction of any new housing, the problem will only get worse. We need leadership, not myopia.
Thank you, Mitch Glaser. I live with - rent from - a complete imbecile who got lucky in an accident settlement 9 years ago which allowed her to buy the 3 bedroom home we live in. Am I supposed to listen to hear when she bitches about others getting "breaks" if the affordable housing bond passes? She's able to charge myself & a 3rd roommate up the butt because we now can't afford RENTS because housing is so damn high no one is buying houses.
I have news for Walter Moore, too. You're so concerned that TAXES are what's preventing me from owning my own home? I just did the math on my pay stub and even if my taxes were ELIMNATED there's no way I could afford anything closer than the crappiest part of South Central or worse- Van Nuys. I'm also not like the new Chamber guy - I've lived here 17 years. Between paying to drive to hell and back and the high rents and the increasingly horrible wages - I do hope Walter realizes taxes or not, wages adjusted for inflation are lower than in 1990 - higher medical costs, how the hell am I supposed to save up $10,000 let alone the $30-40,000 I'd need as a bare minimum to get into a shithole?
Maybe I should do what my landlord roommate did - get rearended by an old guy doing 35 & throw myself into the street in pain and collect $100,000. Plus never work again because I'm "disabled" - funny how she ain't disable when she's shopping, screwing or working out at Gold's Gym. But you tell me SHE is more deserving of a decent, affordable home than I am?
It's like we have a new caste system - homeowners vs never-to-be-homeowners. Great - more to hate about LA.
Well, you can do what several 40 and 50-somethings do in my single family neighborhood -- live with their parents.
Walter Moore's ideal Los Angeles would be like Milan or Paris, where everyone except the trust fund babies lives with their parents until they're 40 because they can't even afford to rent an apartment, let alone buy a condo or a house.
Wacko Walter's brand of "libertarianism" (no honest libertarian supports zoning) is best summed up as, "I've got mine--fuck you." He doesn't mind the state intervening grotesquely in the market on his behalf. If government intervention benefits anyone that he doesn't like, though, it's "waste" or "theft from honest taxpayers."
One last thing, Walter: do you realize that a Double-Double would cost $15 if employers followed your recommendations and just paid more?
Mitch, Westchester is one of the areas that should be upzoned significantly. The areas around LAX (including El Segundo and Marina del Rey) form one of the major job centers in greater Los Angeles, on the level of Warner Center or downtown Glendale. Folks in Westchester may have this fantasy that they live in deep suburbia, which is why they hate Playa Vista, but they shouldn't kid themselves.
I own my own home and have built up a great deal of equity. It was a struggle but it has payed off. Now you are asking to pay for someone elses home. Sorry, I still have kids to put through college and retirement to save for.
Homeownership for you is not my problem. I am tired of people who always have their hand out.
Peter,
For someone who is a Ph.D candidate in Urban Planning at USC, you seem to be sadly underinformed on planning issues in Los Angeles.
About three years ago, Westchester decided against upzoning when the community completed an update the Westchester/Playa del Rey Community Plan. (Since Los Angeles is so vast, the city’s General Plan is broken down into Community Plans.) The community strongly supported retaining most of the existing zoning or down zoning in some cases.
The community also vigorously fought the proposed expansion of LAX. This was not a NIMBY issue- it is a regional planning issue and our outlying airports need to be built up so that we don’t have so too many people driving to LAX to catch a flight. Lack of convenient flights from regional airports is part of our freeway gridlock problem.
You may also note that LAX is buying out most of the dense rental housing in the Manchester Square area bordered by Century and Aviation, thereby reducing the amount of “affordable” housing in Westchester.
Why is that you claim that people in Westchester hate Playa Vista? Could it be traffic, traffic, traffic?
Westchester is a wonderful community. It is truly a hidden gem in L.A. Please don’t try to destroy it with your idealistic ivory tower plans of upzoning and pushing more development. In the mornings, we already can’t drive north on Lincoln and Sepulveda because of the all of the people trying to bypass the 405 freeway, not to mention all of the people who use these same streets to access LAX.
We don’t need the housing bond. What we need is mass transportation improvements such as bringing the Green Line into LAX and then going north to Expo and Red Lines.
6:09 Right on.
It took years to save for my house, building good credit, relocating thousands of miles for careers, sacrifices etc. We don't need this bond, especially as LAUSD soaks us every few years to build new failing schools.
Repeat afer me:
No more bonds!
No more bonds!
Los Angeles is literally called Welfare city.
7:35,
I sympathize with Westchester residents over their traffic problems, given that many of them stem from the anti-development agenda in Santa Monica that has suppressed the housing supply there for 25 years even as employment has skyrocketed. It's not a very pedestrian-friendly area, either, making traffic that much more aggravating. However, the fact remains that Westchester's location is simply too desirable for it to remain a neighborhood of single-family homes.
Also, by significantly improving the Westside's jobs-housing balance, Playa Vista diverts traffic from other parts of the city and suppresses overall housing price growth. Every resident of Playa Vista represents one less potential buyer in other parts of the city, or a car taken off the 405 or 10 and relocated closer to the Westside job centers. I suppose it doesn't seem fair that Westchester has to bear the brunt of this, which is why I support a rail line along Sepulveda or Lincoln, such as an extended Green Line.
As for the airport: I tend to agree. The failure to build an airport at MCAS El Toro represents one of the biggest public policy mistakes in the region's history. However, even if El Toro had been built, there would still be an awful lot of traffic at LAX, and Westchester residents would still be bitching about it.
If you find it too expensive to live here, live somewhere else or do what most of us who own homes did: work hard and save.
And yes, we are entitled to maintain the zoning laws as they are, rather than ruin the city merely to accomodate whiney 20-somethings who apparently feel they have a right to "affordable housing," wherever they want, because....? The world does not owe you a living, and it does not owe you a house. You have to earn it.
As for the "I have mine, screw you" line, do you think those of us who own homes were GIVEN the homes? Here's a recap: we worked hard and saved. We then signed loan documents, and continued to work hard and save.
For those of you who urge denser and denser housing, there's already several places for you: New York, Tokyo and Mexico City, for example.
You say you're against the preservation of historic architecture and skylines? Then don't visit Venice, Florence, London, Paris or even Savannah, Georgia.
As for the mortgage deduction, that is a tax break to let homeowners keep more of their own money; it is not a tax on renters that is given to homeowners.
Finally, those of you who think high taxes don't drive up the cost of living here need to enroll in remedial Econ 101. By the time you add up property taxes, federal income taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, cell phone taxes, etc., etc., you'll see most of us are working for the government, regardless who signs our paychecks. You pay for all taxes, not just those you pay by checks to the IRS and the FTB.
Mr. Moore, I may be a "whiney 20-something," but I have worked hard and I have earned my keep in this city. I make over $60K a year, which means I am doing better than most people here, yet even that kind of salary won't qualify me to buy a house here, no matter how much I've saved (unless I save for 70 years or so).
Don't tell me I'm not working hard enough. People who made my kind of salary 10 years ago could afford a decent house. Most of the people who "got theirs" couldn't buy a house here today under similar circumstances. The housing affordability issue isn't about laziness.
Mr. Moore, would you tell your 27-year-old child who makes $60K a year but can't live anywhere near you, his or her beloved father, that he or she is simply too lazy to buy a house? If our leaders maintain your viewpoint, they should expect a "brain drain" of young people that ensures a collapse in the economy and a reduced quality of life for everyone.
We can debate about taxes and zoning until the cows come home. My question to you, as a man who wants me to vote him to be our Mayor, is what are we going to do about the housing affordability crisis? Is your answer simply tell school teachers, engineers, and small business owners to live somewhere else and ensure that our city will cease to function in the near future?
I want answers, not insults. I want solutions to the problem, not an ignorant denial that the problem exists.
There are 3.9 million people in the City. That's plenty. More than plenty. If you want to buy a house, and can't afford to, that is YOUR problem, not the public's problem. If you live in a low-rise, low-density city, and want to live in a high-rise, high-density city, again, that is YOUR problem. Don't expect cities to morph to suit your whim.
If you thought you were going to get rich by going into _______________ (fill in the blank, teaching, urban planning, photography), and it's not working out, maybe you need to consider a career change.
Not everyone can afford to live everywhere. Nearly four million people somehow manage to afford to live here. They cannot all afford to buy a house, a yacht, a helicopter, or a horse. That is their problem, not the public's.
If I had a 27-year-old son or daughter, I would keep my advice to myself unless he or she asked. But if asked my opinion on how best to make money these days, I would say get into contracting. You can make a fortune, and beat out 97% of the competition, if you just show up when you promise to do so.
I would also point out that money isn't everything, and that if you love doing something else (e.g., teaching, urban planning, photography), then you should probably do that, regardless of whether you get "rich" doing it. Money is just one aspect of enjoying life.
to July 7, 6:09 - You bitch that we're asking you to pay for someone else's home, then you declare you need the money for your kids' college fund. Made me realize - I paid for YOUR damn kids to go to school, along with everyone else's brats. I don't have kids but over half the state budget goes to K-12 education. How is THAT fair but helping ME not live in my car or the gutter NOT fair?????????????
Whether you like it or not, living & thriving in this state gets subsidized by someone who will never use certain services. Now we're at a point where some of us may need a hand and you smack it. So where do I send the bill to you and your friends for paying for their education?
Get into CONTRACTING??? What the fuck is Walter Moore smoking? Walter, I can't wait til you hit a rough financial patch and see how you manage to pay for a place to live. I've never even considered buying a home here because it's always been too expensive but now I will be forced to move out of town after 22 years here because I can no longer even afford the rent, and I can no longer stomach the 1 hour plus commute from the only place I CAN afford to get to my job. Every year I've had to move farther away and it's just not worth staying here anymore. Especially when you consider that the "haves" keep telling us "have-nots" to get the hell out of here if we aren't rich.
I'd like to thank Walter Moore for giving us all the quotes we'll need to keep from holding any public office in the county, let alone the office of mayor. I'm keeping a file to throw in his snotty, holier-than-thou face as soon as he starts his movement. Telling people it's their own fault for not making $175,000 a year in order to live here - is this what we want running this already fucked up city? He is the right-wing mirror image of the left-wing nuts who want us to take in every illegal alien in Mexico.
Like Mitch Glaser, I work hard and make what would have been considered a great salary just a few years ago. But I'm lower middle class now, all because I have to give half my check to rent a decent apartment. Shockingly, not all of us think high-rises and mass transit are horrible ideas. At least when I lived in expensive San Francisco, I got a break in the fact I didn't have to own a car.
But worst of all is Walter's total bullshit about mortgage interest tax deductions being kosher because they're meant to help homeowners "keep more money in their pocket"!! Do you even listen to yourself you idiot?? We'd ALLLL love to keep more money in our pockets - but if only home owners get the government benefit to do so, that's discrimination pure and simple. If you think otherwise, Walter, explain how it's OK? Explain how it's OK for the gov't to give a tax break to one group over another? The disabled - fine. The elderly poor - fine. But just because you own a fucking HOUSE? Screw that.
Try again 7:59, I send my kids to private schools at a great sacrifice. You only have one chance to educate your children and I sure would not take a chance on the LAUSD.
I have worked hard for many years and have never taken government benefits. I have likely paid for your education.
I must have struck a nerve. I guess you're one of those folks you always has a hand out.
Grow up, take a little pride in yourself, and try to go it alone for once.
My grandparents grew up in the depression and worked hard their whole lives. They did not own their first home until they were 35.
Some referred to folks who lived during that time as the Greatest Generation. I suspect you are from the "What about me generation."
Here is some advice. Get a job, work hard, save your money (that means no vacations, driving old cars, packing a lunch everyday, eating your meals at home), buy a starter home in a working class neighborhood and trade up.
Oh and not to worry, the Feds say I make to much money and have to much equity in my home to get assistance for my childrens college education. I would prefer to spend my money on my children and not to pay for your home. So lets dump the bond issue and you pay your way and I will pay my way.
Fuck YOU, 8:39 - I've never taken unemployment, let alone welfare. My mother worked 2 jobs to pay for private religious schooling for 10 years. I was a freshman in college at 16 on full CORPORATE scholarships - and I worked my ass off to apply and qualify for all of them.
You're full of shit when you say you've never taken ANYTHING from the government. You get a fucking kickback from the government just for putting yourself into debt to buy a house! On top of it, you pay less tax than me and the rest of the country due to Prop. 13.But you didn't mind THAT helping hand being dictated by the government - did you? That explains your insane sense of entitlement. That's why you assumed I take handouts. You feel you're better than anyone who isn't rich and that those of making less than $100,000 a year take CHARITY - what educational system is responsbile for your stupidity?
When my husband got brain cancer ten years ago, insurance paid less than 50% of what it costs us before he died. My savings went to HIM, not a house. I took ZERO from the government or charity. It took me 4 years just to pay off the hospital but I did it. But I'm sure a prick like you would say it's my own fault for not letting him rot in county - right? That I should have somehow been saving 10 grand a year out of the $250,000 bills I had to pay back. You think you work so fucking hard? Then you should thank your lucky stars you HAVE a job after 40, or God forbid 50 - ask any of the millions of past-their-prime jobless where they'll get the money for a house in this town. Or ask the employed who've taken paycuts just to keep working because their corporation finds payroll easier to slash than the fuel charges for the executive jet.
Not everyone makes enough money to afford a house, DICKHEAD - and your mandate that we should get out of YOUR town if we don't make enough to live up to your standards is so elitist I can only say fuck you AGAIN. My taxes subsidize YOU and every other homowner in this state because you get an unfair tax break that I don't - if your monthly mortgage and my monthly rent are the same figure, why do YOU get a govt break and I don't? You're such a moron you can't wrap your mind around the fact that not everyone goes through life able to pour money into a bank. People get sick, people get laid off, people get salary cuts, people get victimized by crime, people get passed over for jobs that would get them out of this shit. It's called LIFE and when shit happens in life most human beings have the ability to understand what another human being is going through. But not you. You should be so proud - you are THE typical Angeleno. Self-centered, narcissistic and arrogant. I can't wait for the earthquake, you jerk.
The urban planner elite and the liberal social engineering politicians are largely the cause of the affordable housing shortage.
Zoning has become the tool of those in power to repay their contributors by confiscating homes by eminent domain for allegedly creating a better tax base and preventing the construction of homes closer to the inner city, preventing construction of efficient public transportation, and encouraging more illegal immigrantion that put the squeeze on the bottom side of the housing market.
There is a lot more available underdeveloped land that could be used for housing if the public really had a say in how the land that is available is used.
2:05, You act as if people who own their a home have won life's lottery. Most of us worked hard to own a home for years. I was never handed anything. Everybody has a hard luck story because they veiw others in relationship to themselves. Meaning, "If they have more, I deserve more."
I pay enough in taxes to ensure safety nets for those down on their luck. I should not have to pay for them to own a home.
Government should not take my money to buy you a home.
Government is already taking MY money to pay for YOUR home - again, you are too much of a selfish bastard to see anything but YOUR side. By the way you fucking shit, I'm not asking you or anyone else to buy me a home. But I demand equal treatment in that I can't afford a fucking decent apartment because of you asshole homeowners. Along with the asshole parents of multiple, publicly educated children. Whether your mongrels went to public or private is irrelevant - SOMEBODY'S kids are going to public school that I'M paying for.
Once again I have proven my point - there are plenty of thing my tax dollars pay for that don't benefit me in any way - your mortgage interest deduction, all those public schools my non-existent kids will never afford. In other words - government already subsidized PLENTY. You're just pissed off that in this case YOU don't benefit - gee, there's a shocker, the old "What's in it for me" is OK as long as it's YOU saying it. You are beyond selfish.
10:38, Admit it, you just want a hand out and to not want to feel guilty about it. You look at people who play by the rules and succeed and ask why not me!
Anyone that has $1 more than you should give you half. Maybe the reason you do not own a home or have a good job has something to do with you. Look in the mirror, tens of millions of people own homes but you do not.
There are a great many working class and middleclass folks who own homes but you are not one of them.
Save your money and buy your own home and you to can recieve the benefit of the home mortgage deduction and be classified by the havenots as the wealthy, selfish, ruling elite.
7:15
Well said. Thank you for your many excellent and logical points.
The fastest growing segment of home sales is 2nd and 3rd homes. That means it is mainly rich people who are becoming homeowners.
What the bragging homeowners here refuse to acknowledge is that things have changed considerably from when they bought their homes. Not that many years ago one could purchase a home if one made a "reasonable salary". My brother bought a home 20 years ago that cost $70,000. His & his wife's combined income at the time was around $40,000. That was a comfortable cost to salary ratio. But consider someone today who makes a decent salary - say, $60,000 - and perhaps the spouse earns the same. A combined income of $120,000 is still not nearly enough to afford the $600,000 homes that make up the bulk of housing in a decent neighborhood. Additionally, 20 years ago one did not have to worry about being fired after 40 - as another poster pointed out post-40 and post-50 workers are much more at risk now of losing their jobs than even just 20 years ago.
Clearly, the circumstances for homeowners in California today are vastly different than they were even just 10 years ago. I work with a civic group that tries to attract out-of-state busines to LA. I can tell you that the cost of housing is absolutely costing us business. Top-tier, high wage jobs are lost with the loss of these businesses. For example, a bio-tech company in the Raleigh-Durham tech region recently told me they would no longer ever consider moving their firm to LA - they felt they would lose top employees because they would spend so much more for homes here. The company already pays them good salaries. To pay them what they'd need to live an "equal lifestyle" they estimate would require at least doubling not just every executive's salary, but every researcher etc. If you make $50,000/yr in Raleigh you can well afford that attractive $200,000 3 bedroom home.
I'm afraid the homeowners who are so vociferously opposed to any state and/or government "interference" are living in a time that no longer exists - one that allowed something as simple as "hard work" to get one into a home. That is simply not the case anymore so it is ridiculous to base this argument around that premise. The argument should be: what can we do to maintain a healthy business, good wage, decent neighborhood environment for LA and the state. If we ignore the disastrous situation we face in the next 5 years, I fear all you happy, smug homeowners will live in a lovely home in an entirely unlivable city.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home