|
Space-Bird posted:I just assume anyone who tries to go to bat for prop 13 probably has a parent/grandparent/aunt or something with a nice over-valued property...and is just holding out until they roll it into a trust fund for them. "No hahaha see it's actually NOT uh...the problem..."
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:You're not incorrect. An overvalued home belonging to a parent or grandparent is all that some of their children have left after being ratfucked out of their pensions or retirement savings. Can't say I blame them. Too bad the home was destroyed by grandma's neglect in her twilight years. Human fecal matter in the bedrooms drives the selling price way down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Too bad the home was destroyed by grandma's neglect in her twilight years. Human fecal matter in the bedrooms drives the selling price way down. If that was true the mission wouldn't be so overpriced
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Too bad the home was destroyed by grandma's neglect in her twilight years. Human fecal matter in the bedrooms drives the selling price way down. Thankfully the land alone is worth 1 million. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Thankfully the land alone is worth 1 million. You must be working with an old definition of "over-valued" in California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:You're not incorrect. An overvalued home belonging to a parent or grandparent is all that some of their children have left after being ratfucked out of their pensions or retirement savings. Can't say I blame them. The concept of anything being left to anyone is super strange to me, I guess. e: with regards to expecting an inheretence
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:The concept of anything being left to anyone is super strange to me, I guess. Yeah like, on the one hand, I think it's a cultural cancer that people expect and feel entitled to inheritances. On the other hand, what are you going to do? Outlaw people giving things to other people? There's no fundamental difference between "here, you can have my house" and "here, you can have my house, once I am dead." The $2.5M exemption in inheritance taxes means you generally can give someone a lot more when you die, tax-free, than you can while you're alive, which is pretty perverse... but that's a matter of tax law and not the basic premise of "you can give other people stuff."
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:When you're taxing on asset values, the property tax just changes slower like on a longer time constant. So during those downturns you're just asking for a larger percentage of those people's income at a time when they are least able to pay. Tax income and treat property like a capital gain, taxing it only at transfers (on gains). I guess I misspoke - by "tax base" I mean the tax revenue, not the taxpayers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
On the topic of corrupting and wasting money: does anyone have a breakdown of where that $62 billion for high-speed rail is supposed to go? It seems absurdly expensive. If my exchange rate and inflation calculations are correct the entire Chunnel project (building a tunnel under the loving ocean) cost $12 billion in 2016 dollars. China built a network of 12,000 miles of high speed rail for around $300 billion. California HSR is only 800 miles. It seems like there must be a lot of graft involved to inflate the number to $62 billion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:On the topic of corrupting and wasting money: does anyone have a breakdown of where that $62 billion for high-speed rail is supposed to go? It seems absurdly expensive. If my exchange rate and inflation calculations are correct the entire Chunnel project (building a tunnel under the loving ocean) cost $12 billion in 2016 dollars. Not to suggest that the California high speed rail line has necessarily been well budgeted, but China building its rail system fast and on the cheap has not been without consquences. Trying to match the speed and price at which China built its high speed rail probably isn't advisable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Too bad the home was destroyed by grandma's neglect in her twilight years. Human fecal matter in the bedrooms drives the selling price way down. Trabisnikof posted:If that was true the mission wouldn't be so overpriced lol a home sold for over $1.5 million in SF last year, $500k over the asking price. Must be a nice enough house. It had a crazy hoarder living in it for 5 years, with her giant piles of garbage, rats, black widows, jars of urine, mold, and her mother's mummified corpse. The SFPD said it was the worst case of hoarding they ever encountered. Build more loving housing, SF/CA 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Rah! posted:lol a home sold for over $1.5 million in SF last year, $500k over the asking price. Must be a nice enough house. It had a crazy hoarder living in it for 5 years, with her giant piles of garbage, rats, black widows, jars of urine, mold, and her mother's mummified corpse. The SFPD said it was the worst case of hoarding they ever encountered. I think you just proved why that will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:It seems like there must be a lot of graft involved to inflate the number to $62 billion. I wouldn't be surprised if right-of-way acquisition were a pretty sizable chunk of those billions. Speaking of CAHSR, turns out the Fresno Bee has pretty good news coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
CPColin posted:I wouldn't be surprised if right-of-way acquisition were a pretty sizable chunk of those billions. Oh yeah, eminent domain is a bitch when you're in a property bubble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Speaking of CAHSR, turns out the Fresno Bee has pretty good news coverage. That's not surprising. CAHSR will be nice for people traveling between LA and San Francisco, but it's potentially revolutionary for the inland cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Also, the Chunnel is around 30 miles long through sovereign/international waters. The California HSR (Phase 1) is over 500 miles long through at least 20 townships, a significant number of which brought lawsuits against the state to keep it out. So they're not really comparable for cost or construction times, even ignoring the differences between subterranean and elevated rail. Since the shift to the build phasing for phase 1, the timeline and costs improved a little bit, but yeah I'm a bit skeptical about both - particularly the construction time. At a guess I'd say that most of the work will be performed during daylight hours only, probably due to noise concerns at the stations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Even where HSR follows existing rights of way, there are probably hundreds or maybe thousands of existing level crossings that have to be dealt with, because you can't have a train trucking along at 100+ MPH through normal road level crossings. Where it's forging new rights of way you still have to deal with every single road, freeway, street, bike path, and trail that currently crosses that right of way. A single overpass or underpass for a smallish road is multiple millions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
It's certainly a lot of money to spend on long distant transport infrastructure that is a lot slower and will probably not shake out to being that much cheaper than flying. I can get a flight from SF to LA for like $60 on Southwest. The plane will get me there in 1 hour vs 10, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Sydin posted:It's certainly a lot of money to spend on long distant transport infrastructure that is a lot slower and will probably not shake out to being that much cheaper than flying. I can get a flight from SF to LA for like $60 on Southwest. The plane will get me there in 1 hour vs 10, too. No plane trip is 1 hour, because you spend more time than that just getting to the airport, waiting (because you have to get there well before your flight leaves), going through security, and getting off at the other end. That said, yes, air is probably going to still be a lot faster than rail. This is also true in countries like Japan and France, who nevertheless see large useage of their high speed rail systems. The big value is in the shorter, commutable lengths - say, San Jose to Fresno, or Palmdale to LA. Especially if security isn't too onorous, being able to arrive and park at a train station ten minutes before your train is scheduled to depart, and then walk off at the other end and be fifteen minutes from work or a convention or a sports event or something.... plus having the ability to sit comfortably, use a laptop with wifi, have a cell phone conversation, or take a nap along the way? The other thing about adding a transportation network that gets overlooked a lot is that its job isn't just to serve an existing demand; a new transportation option can create demand, by prompting individuals and businesses to take advantage of the opportunity it offers. That doesn't always pan out, but it's at least a possibility. e. Oh and 10 hours wouldn't be high speed rail. Wikipedia says the plan is a one-seat ride from LA to SF to take two hours and 40 minutes. My guess is it'll be more expensive of a ticket than an airplane ticket, though, and that door-to-door times for a traveler who doesn't live right next to the train station will still be a little faster by air, too. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Sydin posted:It's certainly a lot of money to spend on long distant transport infrastructure that is a lot slower and will probably not shake out to being that much cheaper than flying. I can get a flight from SF to LA for like $60 on Southwest. The plane will get me there in 1 hour vs 10, too. Rail transport is meant to replace cars, not airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Even where HSR follows existing rights of way, there are probably hundreds or maybe thousands of existing level crossings that have to be dealt with, because you can't have a train trucking along at 100+ MPH through normal road level crossings. Where it's forging new rights of way you still have to deal with every single road, freeway, street, bike path, and trail that currently crosses that right of way. Hahaha an at-grade crossing for a bullet train would be awesome - just mount an enormous cowcatcher on the front capable of shifting a produce tractor-trailer For real though, my understanding is that although they're using some public and some big swathes from rail corps like Union Pacific, significant runs involve the acquisition of new rights of way. The first segment alone (Madera to Fresno) was something like 400 parcels, so it's a little nuts, yeah. Sydin posted:It's certainly a lot of money to spend on long distant transport infrastructure that is a lot slower and will probably not shake out to being that much cheaper than flying. I can get a flight from SF to LA for like $60 on Southwest. The plane will get me there in 1 hour vs 10, too. It'll operate at 220 mph to get you from SF to LA in a bit under 3 hours. That's about how much time you'd spend between parking at LAX and stepping outta SFO. But more importantly it'll also get you from someplace like Fresno to San Jose in around an hour of not-driving. Or Bakersfield to LA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Then why have high speed rail at all? It seems like the money would be better spent beefing up BART and LA metro if getting cars off the road is the goal. This is just another giveaway to shitholes like Fresno.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Then why have high speed rail at all? It seems like the money would be better spent beefing up BART and LA metro if getting cars off the road is the goal. Because for some strange reason a lot of people like to drive between LA and San Francisco and if you get those people off the road, you reduce carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
What do you do once you're in LA with no car though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is just another giveaway to shitholes like Fresno. Which came first, the not-shithole or the infrastructure spending?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Then why have high speed rail at all? It seems like the money would be better spent beefing up BART and LA metro if getting cars off the road is the goal. I think that some people in state government aren't as ready to write off the interior as irredeemable shitholes as you are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I tried googling but I couldn't find any numbers on the non freight volume from SF to LA. I can't imagine it would be more than within SF and/or LA. As other posters pointed out, most people regularly commuting between SF and LA/OC/SD fly southwest. I was doing it for a while. It's a bus in the sky with the same people making their commute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because for some strange reason a lot of people like to drive between LA and San Francisco and if you get those people off the road, you reduce carbon emissions. I'd bet that two rides on the bullet train would be cheaper than that $300 LAX-SFO Friday-Sunday round trip ticket. And if it's anything like Amtrak then there's zero security/bag searching and BYOB. And yeah they're getting carbon emissions/cap'n trade funds for the construction due to the savings over burning gas or jet fuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Weembles posted:I think that some people in state government aren't as ready to write off the interior as irredeemable shitholes as you are. I'm OK with it being a stimulus for those regions but why not present it as charity as opposed to some environmental/actually useful boondoggle?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What do you do once you're in LA with no car though. Uber? Subway? Get a lift from a friend? Same sort of stuff people who fly into the city do. It gives you the option of going carless. Even if you end up needing to rent a car, you still have saved the fuel it would have taken to drive down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What do you do once you're in LA with no car though. It's gonna end up in Union Station so as long as you're not trying to get out to the suburbs you'll be ok. Or if you are, you can always call an Uber and get pitched a screenplay for free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm OK with it being a stimulus for those regions but why not present it as charity as opposed to some environmental/actually useful boondoggle? Because they're linking them up with SF and LA; two places with exceptionally high costs of living that are filled with people who are interested in purchasing a house for an order of magnitude less and taking the train in to the office. Or restaurant. This isn't a complicated idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm OK with it being a stimulus for those regions but why not present it as charity as opposed to some environmental/actually useful boondoggle? Because it is actually useful and good for the environment in addition to being a stimulus for the interior. People tend to gravitate towards arguments that most appeal to them and since nobody on the coast cares about the Central Valley, you tend to hear a lot more about saving carbon emissions than about improving the lives of people in Visalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Also, this isn't a replacement for driving/flying: they're not closing the airport or the freeways. California's population is growing, and we need additional capacity. From Wikipedia:quote:Alternatives to HSR If you think of it as "how much money are we gonna need to spend, to add capacity to keep up with rising demand," HSR is going to be substantially cheaper than building more freeway lanes and expanding airports. e. And if we do neither? Rising demand means that bus in the sky commute between LAX and SFO is going to get a lot more expensive as demand exceeds capacity. And that drive down 101 or I5 is going to get a lot more miserable as demand exceeds capacity and traffic jams get more frequent and worse. We have no choice but to either invest in expanding transportation capacity, or throttle the potential growth of our economy while simultaneously pricing transportation options to greatly favor those wealthy enough to afford the only actually reasonably fast options over the regular fucks who either can't afford to go at all, or have to waste their lives in horrible traffic. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
southwest burbank to oakland is a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
CA Senate approved raising the smoking age to 21 and also regulating e-cigs the same as tobacco products, banning them in certain locations and restricing the sale and advertisement of them. Goes to Jerry Brown for approval or veto. My favorite quote: quote:Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, opposed the bill, saying it would deprive people who return from war a chance to smoke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Because they're linking them up with SF and LA; two places with exceptionally high costs of living that are filled with people who are interested in purchasing a house for an order of magnitude less and taking the train in to the office. Or restaurant. Won't someone please think of the suburbanites. Suburbanites are the new subalterns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Won't someone please think of the suburbanites. Suburbanites are the new subalterns. If you're not going to build housing stock you're going to have to have suburbanites. They may as well be suburbanites who don't use their cars that often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Won't someone please think of the suburbanites. Suburbanites are the new subalterns. Hahaha. In reality, the primary opponents to the HSR project have been the people out in the exurbs and central valley ag owners. People in the populous parts of the state tend to love it, again, because of the untenable housing situation in those places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
I agree. Why are we giving garbage people a stimulus they don't want when we could build more infrastructure in the cities that matter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 21:20
|
|