Message to Conservative Citizens [Archive]

View Full Version : Message to Conservative Citizens

capttankona

05-20-2009, 12:46 PM

As most of this forum seems to consist of what you term "progressives," I was curious what each of you would like to say to the more "conservative" members of our community. Is there something you would like to express that explains your ideology and why it will make this State a better and more affordable place to live, for everyone.

I ask this question in light of a fact that I heard presented by Thomas Sowell. San Francisco and the surrounding areas have experienced an exodus of citizens to outlying areas or other states. Thomas Sowell explained that this all begain around 1977, when land use set asides were created. At that time, California's homes were the same as the average prices around the country. In the following years it caused home prices to surge far ahead of the rest of the country.

The result of the increasing home prices was a decline in minority populations, decline in middle income families and a decline of families with children due to the increase in home prices. How can we repair this problem so that we can again diversify California's population.

Dynamique

05-20-2009, 11:08 PM

Could you please explain what "land use set asides" are? Is this related to zoning?

Also, who is Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell explained that this all begain around 1977, when land use set asides were created. At that time, California's homes were the same as the average prices around the country. In the following years it caused home prices to surge far ahead of the rest of the country.

Philip Tymon

05-21-2009, 04:20 PM

Hotspring 44

05-21-2009, 10:07 PM

Braggi

05-22-2009, 05:35 PM

As most of this forum seems to consist of what you term "progressives," I was curious what each of you would like to say to the more "conservative" members of our community. Is there something you would like to express that explains your ideology and why it will make this State a better and more affordable place to live, for everyone. ...

capttankona, first of all, if you want serious consideration of your points, spell your title correctly. I'm sorry but it makes you look like an ignoramus unworthy of reply when you can't even spell message. (And yes, you can edit it.)

Your question about making the state "more affordable" is a loaded and typically one-sided question. There are a whole load of reasons California is an expensive place to live. Contrary to "conservative" propaganda, businesses have not fled California because it costs too much to have a business here so let's not go into that.

Perhaps you ought to provide us with suggestions for making CA more affordable so we can discuss them. Your question is way too open to approach specifically without voluminous comments.

-Jeff

capttankona

05-26-2009, 02:45 PM

Could you please explain what "land use set asides" are? Is this related to zoning?

Also, who is Thomas Sowell?

Land use set asides are like our open space laws and such. We use our government to set aside private property. It could be to create places like Jackson State Forrest, National Forest, National Recreation Areas, the Old Green Belt of Petaluma, etc.

This has been going on since I was in High School. When I was in 8th grad my parents bought a home for $37,000 total, that was 1975. That same home is worth about $400,000 now, even with the market crash. Currently the average home price in the United States is only slightly higher the $170,000 after the crash.

In 1976, the Average Cost of a home was $43,400 through out this country. In 1976, the Average Median Cost of a home in California was $48,630, just slightly higher then the average for the nation.

In 1977, the Average Cost of a home was $49,000 through out this country. In 1977, the Average Median Cost of a home in California was $62,290, much higher then the average for the nation. This was also the first year of set asides in land use projects.

While the nation saw a modest increase in value of 12.9%, California saw an increase in value of 28.1%, more then double that of the rest of the nation. All this was do to the leftist laws created to set aside land for specific uses, rather then allowing it to stay in private ownership. Of course, these land use laws have greatly expanded, much to the chagrin of Californians.

As far as who Thomas Sowell is, he is one of the wisest economists in this country as well as being a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is a very wise person.

He is also very distinguished looking, wouldn't you say?

https://www.tsowell.com/images/tom_4b.jpg

capttankona

05-26-2009, 02:50 PM

It has always been my impression that Bay Area prices skyrocketed due to the emergence of Silicon Valley and related high-tech and internet businesses which were heavily concentrated on the Peninsula, but also prominent in San Francisco and the East Bay and even, to a lesser extent, in the North Bay. If you look at Bay Area housing prices the center of the bulls-eye is Silicon Valley and it spreads out from there in about a hundred mile radius.

I don't know who Thomas Sowell is, but it sounds like he has a (not so) hidden agenda. Beware of anyone who has a hidden agenda. And try to understand the difference between causation and correlation. Using correlations to imply causation is a very old and very common sophistic trick to con the gullible.

Let me ask you a serious question. How can you possibly know he sounds like he has a hidden agenda if you do not even know who he is? He is one of the wisest economists in this nation. He is also a very respected Professor of Economics. Please do not falsely ascribe an agenda to a person you do not even know. That is a statist tactic meant to debase a person before you have even come to understand what they are expressing. It is a very narrow minded approach.

capttankona

05-26-2009, 03:54 PM

<META name=ProgId content=Word.Document><META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11"><META name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11"><LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><STYLE>  </STYLE> <TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" class=MsoTableGrid border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 6.15in; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=top width=590>capttankona (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/members/capttankona.html) As most of this forum seems to consist of what you term "progressives," I was curious what each of you would like to say to the more "conservative" members of our community.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I'm not sure what kind of “conservative” you're referring to, because that can be considered a relative term when it comes to property owners in this state (I'm referring specifically to real estate). Depending upon what “interest” they are “protecting” anybody can be considered a “conservative” when it comes down to it.
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" class=MsoTableGrid border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 6.15in; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=top width=590>capttankona (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/members/capttankona.html) Is there something you would like to express that explains your ideology and why it will make this State a better and more affordable place to live, for everyone.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>That (my ideology); would be a much too lengthy and time-consuming plethora of explanations to put here. Besides in the long run, realistically speaking, I think ideologies are just that: ideologies, they just add to existing conflicts and mass confusion, generally speaking.
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" class=MsoTableGrid border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 6.15in; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=top width=590>capttankona (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/members/capttankona.html) Sowell explained that this all begain around 1977, when land use set asides were created.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I did a quick search for Sowell and discovered he did a lot of writing, but it all costs$, and I did not find in my quick search any articles that didn't cost money on the Internet. So I really cannot comment specifically on what Sowell wrote.
So basically, what follows is what my opinion is and doesn't reflect what I think about what Sowell wrote because I didn't read any of it.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
Basically the “back-to-the-Landers” in the late 60s and early 70s to mid 70s and on were frowned on when they moved out of the city's of California to the rural areas of California like most of Sonoma County used to be for example. However, they had “Property Rights”. So to counter that, because the authorities thought that it would clog the courts several legislative things happened around 1974 basically changing the rules about property owners Association's and homeowners associations specifically: the Davis-Stirling Act. The following 2 web pages in the links below are basically one example of how in my opinion, prices of real estate in California ratcheted up. It's a very long story and I'm not going to explain it here in much detail because I don't have the time so hopefully intelligent people that are interested in it can figure it out for themselves and make their own judgment. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Davis-Stirling Act - Civil Code Â§1369.520. Pre-litigation ADR (https://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/DavisStirlingAct/CivilCode1369520/tabid/915/Default.aspx)

Davis-Stirling Act - Civil Code Â§1369.510. ADR Definitions (https://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/DavisStirlingAct/CivilCode1369510/tabid/914/Default.aspx)
<o:p></o:p>
As far as I can tell basically, that kind of legislation opened the door to Michael Milken, AIG, and a plethora of speculators that ended up ratcheting up the cost of real estate statewide. That kind of legislation, along with others as far as financing are concerned bubbled-up. As a result; the “gentrification factor” escalated to the high cost of living here in California as far as housing is concerned.
<o:p></o:p>
Unfortunately, the condominium situation in cities probably did need something like the Davis-Stirling Act but in the rural areas it was a disaster and still is to this day. At this point it has crept across the whole country now and it really sucks! It's not just California anymore.
<o:p></o:p>
Also, certain Building Codes for certain areas other than possibly for the purpose of fire prevention in my opinion (I am specifically referring to very rural areas, where most of the subdivided land is five acres or more in size) has limited and prevented the true diversity in population as far as “Rural” areas are concerned.
NIMBY’s come in all forms whether they call themselves progressives, conservatives, liberal, right or left, wingers, or what ever, a “NIMBY Nation” we do live in. So it all really boils down to in my opinion the “NIMBY’s”!

I believe the vast majority of Americans are “NIMBY’s” of which a large percentage won't admit it.

<o:p></o:p>

So I guess what I'm suggesting is shed the “NIMBY-idiom and maybe some things will improve.

I was not reading Thomas Sowell, I was listening to him speak. He gave a very good explanation of how the land use set asides coincided with the rise in property values. If you do a search of historical property values on the internet, his timeline makes perfect sense. California's home prices were compatible with the national average until 1977, then they began to sky rocket. As I recall, while going to Casa Grande in Petaluma, that is the same time frame as the Green Belt Law they passed. I find it very interesting that home prices paralleled those laws and time frames perfectly.

capttankona

05-26-2009, 05:01 PM

capttankona, first of all, if you want serious consideration of your points, spell your title correctly. I'm sorry but it makes you look like an ignoramus unworthy of reply when you can't even spell message. (And yes, you can edit it.)

Your question about making the state "more affordable" is a loaded and typically one-sided question. There are a whole load of reasons California is an expensive place to live. Contrary to "conservative" propaganda, businesses have not fled California because it costs too much to have a business here so let's not go into that.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Perhaps you ought to provide us with suggestions for making CA more affordable so we can discuss them. Your question is way too open to approach specifically without voluminous comments.
<o:p></o:p>
-Jeff
<o:p></o:p>
Thank you for your concerns about my intelligence and spelling ability. It certainly is nice to be welcomed to such a forum by a person who has my best interests at heart and expresses it so eloquently. I would not want to be mistaken for an “ignoramus.” Life is certainly challenging enough with all the concern over how I spell things when I enter my thoughts on the fly, without notes, reading material or a spell checker handy.
<o:p></o:p>
In the future, I will endeavor to meet your standards of forum excellence and tolerance that has been shown to me in your reply to my “typical one sided question.” I certainly would not wish to insult the literary sensibilities of such a distinguished individual, unless it was specifically my intentions to do so.
<o:p></o:p>
Now, onto my response:
<o:p></o:p>
I have lived in California for nearly a half century now. I have seen Sonoma County grow from a small farm community to a rather large urban center, replete with the problems that plague other cities. High home prices being one of them.
<o:p></o:p>
California is indeed expensive. But why? That is a question that needs to be addressed. However, the increase in housing prices can be linked to the land use set aside laws. We also know that as housing prices increase families, minorities and the poor are driven away from urban centers to more rural, affordable areas or states. We have seen this exodus in action for more then 30 years now. We have blamed the people, the schools and everything but our laws, laws that make homes more expensive and less available.
<o:p></o:p>
As to businesses fleeing this state, well you can call if “conservative propaganda” all you like, but that is not true. In fact, I would suggest that you are the person engaging in propaganda if you fail to recognize that business and people are fleeing this state. Ever hear of Buck Knives my friend? An original California business, which recently left it’s home state of California for Idaho. And they are not the only ones to leave. In fact, our state revenue is decreasing because enough businesses are leaving this state to have an actual affect on taxes.
<o:p></o:p>
The following businesses have left or are in the process of leaving this state:
Buck Knives
ID Corporation
Neenah Enterprises Inc.
Gregg Industries
<o:p></o:p>
Rocklin and Roseville Today (https://www.rocklintoday.com/news/templates/community_news.asp?articleid=7520&zoneid=4)
<o:p></o:p>
Since 2001, California has lost 523,500 manufacturing jobs, representing almost 30 percent of the state’s industrial base. Over the past eight years, the state has shed nearly 600,000 private sector jobs overall, according to the Employment Development Department. In December 2000, there were 12.5 million private sector jobs. This February, that number had declined to 11.9 million. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The Small Business Survival Index 2008 – which considers a state's public policies and their impact on small businesses – recently ranked California 49th overall in terms of business friendliness. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Nevada was ranked No. 2 nationally and best in several areas, including tax rates for personal income, corporate income and capital gains.