|
FCKGW posted:A story about an old white woman who is disheartened that minorities are moving into her city and now she needs to drive an extra 3 miles to a Pavillions grocery store This reminds me of my Texan grandmother, who complained that Mexicans were filling up her city. The Southern Baptist church she attended had the demographic choice of welcoming Mexicans or withering on the vine. Guess which they chose?
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Seriously! They're great stores and one of my favorite parts of being in Orange County. I can walk to my local 99. I should go there more often, actually; right now we pop in maybe once every couple of months, when we're feeling like making ramen or sushi or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
 Miami went through this exact same cycle and guess what? Most Cuban Americans identify first as American and not Cuban and can make themselves understandable in English.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can walk to my local 99. I should go there more often, actually; right now we pop in maybe once every couple of months, when we're feeling like making ramen or sushi or something. My only problem with them is that their meat can be overpriced. I generally go to an American supermarket for meat, one of a couple of other local Korean/Phillipino markets for fish, and 99 Ranch for general miscellaneous ingredients. They're all pretty close by, so it's a nice setup. There's even a fantastic Middle Eastern market nearby with great prices on most things, but obviously it doesn't sell pork. I can't understand why people protest having new and completely different markets open up near them. They've all got new and interesting products, and they usually have better prices on certain goods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Local Persian market has bunches of Italian, Lemon and Holy basil and also bundles of mint for 33 cents each. Why does Stater Bros. sell just the plain Italian basil/mint for 10 times that  Stater's has awesome meat for a supermarket though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
Well, the situation is a bit different. The southern CA suburbs like Alhambra and Arcadia are one of the most favored places for rich mainlanders to offshore their wealth, buy houses in cash, and send their families ahead of their escape. Obviously anecdotal, but having worked with a lot of these kids (and by kids I mean 20's), they do not at all identify as American or Chinese American. They are Chinese. I am their foreigner teacher. That's not everybody of course, genuine immigrants who do want to be Americans are moving there too, and I welcome the marginalization of obnoxious suburban whites, but you can't really compare it to the Cuban American neighborhoods in FL. Maybe in a generation or two things will change and they'll actually identify and want to be American for some reason other than having a US passport to show off. Ranch 99 owns though and we shop there at least once a month.  at the white couple in that article that went in to look around and then left without buying anything. How sheltered do you have to be to not be able to find anything to eat in there? There's loads of delicious snacks and poo poo, even if you want to avoid the super Asian stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Ranch 99 owns though and we shop there at least once a month. Yeah seriously I have a very hard time not filling my cart with wondrous packages of <who loving knows but it looks delicious> every time I walk through there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
I'd never heard of Ranch 99 until now, but it sounded pretty sweet so I looked for the closest one to me. Drove all the way out (10 miles! immigrants! ) and picked up everything I need to make delicious Chinese food for the foreseeable future for under $40. Basically what I'm saying is I don't understand the problem, this seems loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Ranch 99 is the only place in the Southern California region where I can find a country ham, you'd think white people would be all over that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:Frankly, one of the biggest political problems with California is we're a "liberal" state that can't seem to field Democratic candidates that aren't either completely ineffectual or mostly corrupt, but those candidates keep getting elected easily because the other side is SO BAD. I hate Feinstein and think she's done a lot to make us less safe while lining the pockets of her family, but I still voted for her every time she came up for election. Similar to New York state it's a horrible limousine liberal political machine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Hell yes Asian markets rock, everyone should visit a Mitsuwa at least once as well (and eat at Santouka while you're there - cash only but damnit get some cash).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
I love everything about OC except it's price...and I have to move, soon. Where do poor Orange citizens usually migrate to? :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Armani posted:I love everything about OC except it's price...and I have to move, soon. Where do poor Orange citizens usually migrate to? :/ Nine oh nine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
chino hills sounds lovely
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Apologies if this has already been posted, but UC Berkeley recently dropped healthcare coverage for dependents of Graduate Student Researchers.
VikingofRock fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Apologies if this has already been posted, but UC Berkeley recently dropped healthcare coverage for Graduate Student Researchers. For their children. Still lovely though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I was in the greater LA area on holidays and some stuff stuck with me from a northern europe perspective: There's a lot of homeless tent communities; going under bridges on the Santa Ana river cycle track was like leaving reality for Cormac McCarthy's The Road. Californians are very friendly. Even the guy who turned out to be a paranoid schizophrenic who wanted to buy a rifle to "blast away the crazies" was really nice and gave me a ride back to my hotel. Your roads are too big and you have too many cars on them. Public transport in LA is very good, but it sucks when you go as far as Orange County. Amtrak seems like dogshit. Gasolene/Petrol isn't as cheap @ $4 to a gallon as I'd expect from the US. That's maybe 70-80% of what you'd pay here. Edit: Property tax seems like a big joke. The public road upkeep in some areas is impeccable and drops off sharply when property values does. A city being able to hold onto and spend what that city makes in prop. tax/tickets/etc. seems like a way to keep public funding benefiting the wealthy instead of being evenly distributed to where it's needed. breadshaped fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:
That's a California thing. I'm in Oregon right now (the state immediately north) and gas is $3-$3.20 per gallon for unleaded depending where you are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Edit: Property tax seems like a big joke. The public road upkeep in some areas is impeccable and drops off sharply when property values does. A city being able to hold onto and spend what that city makes in prop. tax/tickets/etc. seems like a way to keep public funding benefiting the wealthy instead of being evenly distributed to where it's needed. That's probably the least hosed up thing about property tax in california. The tax is frozen at time of property purchase, so two properties right next to each other can be paying 10x difference in tax. Not to mention commercial property shenanigans where a shell company is created to own property and the whole company is sold to transfer the property without triggering a tax reassessment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Your roads are too big and you have too many cars on them. Actually, they still aren't big enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's a California thing. I'm in Oregon right now (the state immediately north) and gas is $3-$3.20 per gallon for unleaded depending where you are. Really it's only a southern California thing. I'm in south San Jose and unless I go out of my way to find gas stations right on the freeway/expressways, gas is around $3.30/40/50 87/89/91. Even at the really expensive ones nobody dares break the $4 barrier - highest I've seen is $3.80 for 91 octane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That's probably the least hosed up thing about property tax in california. The tax is frozen at time of property purchase, so two properties right next to each other can be paying 10x difference in tax. Not to mention commercial property shenanigans where a shell company is created to own property and the whole company is sold to transfer the property without triggering a tax reassessment. Also Prop 13 has hosed California for close to 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:For their children. Still lovely though. Whoops, nice catch. I didn't mean to mislead people, just forgot a word. I've edited my post. In any case, this is more evidence that the GSRs need to be unionized, and it's a shame that they are legally prohibited from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Also Prop 13 has hosed California for close to 40 years. My broke-rear end uncle is about to inherit my grandmother's house, which he could not possibly do if Prop 13 weren't in place. How do we convince people like him that Prop 13 is a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
You can't. Any attempt to get rid of Prop 13 will inevitably require a "grandma clause" to protect the apparently millions of grandmas who refuse to sell their overvalued homes. You might be able to convince him that big multibillion dollar corps shouldn't get those benefits, though. Sure, he needs help, but does Disney or PG&E?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:My broke-rear end uncle is about to inherit my grandmother's house, which he could not possibly do if Prop 13 weren't in place. How do we convince people like him that Prop 13 is a bad thing? If property taxes rose, the state would be massively richer. Much of the state's money goes to social services. The elderly and children are the greatest recipients of social services. If Prop 13 wasn't here, his grandma might have been in enough better situation that she could easily afford the property tax. Also: explain to your uncle that prop 13 also protects business property; and since businesses often lease, the original owner can hang onto business property for centuries. This means despite supposedly-high business taxes in California, businesses get massive breaks on the cost of property, and that break lands on the shoulders of everyone else. Finally, you can point out that somehow grandmas in every other state aren't losing their houses from excessive property taxes. Ask him how, if prop 13 is so necessary, everyone else seems to be doing fine? You can mention that property tax in Texas is massively higher than in California while you're at it; Texas having no income tax doesn't help retirees at all, but their property taxes being way higher to make up for it must, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
What would happen if Prop 13 suddenly ceased to exist and all property taxes immediately adjusted to be based off of current assessed value? It seems like homeowners would pretty quickly have to leave and landlords would have to raise rents as soon as possible. Would that drive everybody out of the more expensive parts of the state, causing a housing market crash? Would the assessed values then crash and take the higher taxes with them? Would everybody then be able to move back in? Could we skip over the huge adjustment and crash somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
CPColin posted:What would happen if Prop 13 suddenly ceased to exist and all property taxes immediately adjusted to be based off of current assessed value? It seems like homeowners would pretty quickly have to leave and landlords would have to raise rents as soon as possible. Would that drive everybody out of the more expensive parts of the state, causing a housing market crash? Would the assessed values then crash and take the higher taxes with them? Would everybody then be able to move back in? I think house prices would instantly adjust downwards and rents would instantly rise, to compensate for increased property taxes. But no sane person would suggest a cold-turkey approach to 13: much more likely would be a gradual phase-out. e. just to clarify my thinking: Homeowners would only have to leave if they couldn't afford increased taxes. The only ones in that situation would be people who have no flexibility in their budgets to handle a large increase in property value since they bought. So if you have a house you paid $200k for and now it's worth $600k, your property taxes of ~$4k a year might jump to $12k, which would be a big increase indeed. But you also made $400k on your home. So maybe you'd have to leave, or maybe you'd have to reduce your budget a bit to cover the tax. If a lot of people had to leave, house prices fall, and falling house prices directly alleviates the tax issue. But keep in mind that most people's incomes rise over time. So if you've had time for your home to triple in value, you probably also make more money. Maybe you can afford the higher tax? Retired people's incomes tend to fall, but retired people tend to own their home outright. So while their tax rises by a lot, at some point they stopped having to make house payments so their overall living expenses are probably lower than they were when they were working. And, maybe a retired person can sell the home and move somewhere cheaper. I think the ideal situation would be a prop 13 phaseout, and perhaps additional relief specifically means-tested for retirees living on fixed incomes. Another option would be to allow taxes to adjust with property values, but reduce the overall tax rate: if it was revenue-neutral, this would be of biggest benefit to people who just bought a house, and of the least benefit to people who owned for the longest, so I'm not sure that's the perfect solution either. A third option would be to have a progressive tax rate based on value, the same way income taxes work. So your first (say) $200k of home is taxed at (say) 1%, and then the next $100k at (say) 1.2%, and then 1.4%, etc. This would place the property tax burden more heavily on people with the most expensive houses. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
The house holds tremendous sentimental value in my family. My great-grandfather built the house with his own bare hands, it has a giant grove of avocado trees that were planted by my grandfather when he first moved there, etc etc. I'm sure a lot of other families are in similar situations, in which just selling their house for a handsome profit won't make up for losing a house with so many fond memories and associations attached to it. The "grandma clause" that someone mentioned might possibly work if Prop 13 was to be revised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
I can understand the sentimental part. That's a big reason why there's a $5.43M exemption in estate taxes (so you can inherit the family farm and not owe a big chunk of it in estate tax). But one of the most important purposes of taxes, including both estate and property taxes, is to prevent the creation of a landed gentry class that locks up wealth for generations. That runs directly counter to the desire to keep valuable things in the family forever. I'm not sure how to resolve it but I think progressive rates can help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:My broke-rear end uncle is about to inherit my grandmother's house, which he could not possibly do if Prop 13 weren't in place. How do we convince people like him that Prop 13 is a bad thing? Prop 13 did not create the grandma clause; Propositions 58 and 193 did. http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can understand the sentimental part. That's a big reason why there's a $5.43M exemption in estate taxes (so you can inherit the family farm and not owe a big chunk of it in estate tax). But one of the most important purposes of taxes, including both estate and property taxes, is to prevent the creation of a landed gentry class that locks up wealth for generations. Thankfully the property is about 300k total (it's in a nice part of Arroyo Grande, but is in need of expensive repairs of various kinds), which is beans as far as CA goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I'm down for a Prop 13 dump as long as the taxes have some stickyness for residential owners, it would have hurt me bad to have my property taxes double between 2004 - 2008. People need protection from market speculation. I'm down for loving over baby boomers, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Whoops, nice catch. I didn't mean to mislead people, just forgot a word. I've edited my post. In any case, this is more evidence that the GSRs need to be unionized, and it's a shame that they are legally prohibited from doing so. Do you have more information on this? I thought GSRs didn't unionize because they have no leverage. Or, at the very least, their leverage is "we don't work on your grant programs but we also don't graduate", which is not a problem TAs have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
We will never, ever be able to get rid of p13 for primary residences. Grandma is too much of an appeal. The smart money is on getting rid of the business exemption, which is riddled with terrible examples that are sellable to most people. You might be able to attack non-homestead houses, but please don't because I plan to inheret a place that will implicate this. Further, this could have negative impacts on rent, but it is still probably a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm down for a Prop 13 dump as long as the taxes have some stickyness for residential owners, it would have hurt me bad to have my property taxes double between 2004 - 2008. People need protection from market speculation. 1. Higher property taxes will bring down home values somewhat itself. 2. Higher property taxes incentivize homeowners to vote for more housing supply, thereby acting as a counterweight to the incentive of higher home values = free money when you eventually sell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
nm posted:We will never, ever be able to get rid of p13 for primary residences. Getting rid of P13 will be painful when it happens, but it's inevitable. The system simply can't be sustained for multiple generations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Getting rid of P13 will be painful when it happens, but it's inevitable. The system simply can't be sustained for multiple generations. Oh it can, though regressive sales taxes!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
One of the worst aspects of P13 is that it ignores inflation. Sure, grandma bought that house for $12k in 1958, but uh... in 1950, $12k was a lot of money. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $100k in today's money. So sure, her house is worth $400k, it went up a lot, but she should at least be taxed on a value of $100k, not $12k! The fact that the deal gets better every year puts ever-increasing pressure on property owners to never sell. And since you can rent or lease property, and since you can inherit the assessment from a parent or (if your parents died) grandparent, you can pass that ever-decreasing assessment on indefinitely. Ever-increasing sales taxes aren't sustainable: raise them too high and buyers will turn to a black market (as they already do, importing from out of state and ignoring the entirely honor-based use tax box on their state income tax forms). Concentrating the property tax burden onto newly-sold homes just makes them ever more difficult to sell. Rising property values make those tax valuations even worse. Prop 13 just isn't sustainable. It may take 10 years, or 50, or 100... but eventually, the gross inequity has to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Cicero posted:It sounds mean to say, but hurting you bad is actually good, in a way, for two reasons: Yes, I know, but: 1) You're asking every homeowner to vote against their own short-term interest. 2) I live in Riverside which is a pressure valve for OC and LA exburbia housing and believe me it didn't solve anyone's problems. You need the right kind of housing. BTW I do agree their needs to be some pain, I'm just saying I would have had a VERY hard time with doubled property tax payments (an additional 400 dollars a month, to put this in hard numbers) that were unsustainable and happened purely due to a market bubble. A 15% cap on residential would be so, so helpful. And as everyone else has been saying, you gotta do something about the optics of pricing grandma out of her home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:25
|
|