Why do people Buy Property in California
Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 31k+ posts · 20k+ votes
Why do people Buy Property in California
Most Popular Reply
Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
1yWhere do you think people are growing richer with real estate.....Los Angeles or Cleveland? Owning just a few typical properties in California turns you into a multimillionaire very quickly. Owning a few typical properties in Cleveland gets you an extra $500 a month.
District Invest Group545 Reviews
203 Replies
- 1yAllen MarisPro MemberInvestor · Santa Ynez, CA · Member since 2008 · 375 posts · 175 votes
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Allen Maris:
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
Agreed.. as born and raised in CA and back in the 60s those born in CA were still kind of rare as so many people were moving in from other states.. But I am a big believer in the majority simply loves were they were raised no matter where it is.. Other wise people would not live in Bismark ND :) Personally I have been to every state in the US and have done bizz in probably 20 plus states and spent significant time in each.. they all have their benefits. the bottom line though CA still has the Best weather basically in the world everything considered .. And a diversity of natural attractions and landscapes that no other state in the union can come close to matching.. But if you lived all your life or most of it in Ohio or the mid west somewhere thats what you know and love and nothing wrong with it.. same thing with nothing wrong with loving whatever part of CA your from or like.. There are plenty of places in CA I would never live or do I like.. for instance Barstow would not be on the top of my list :) - 1yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votesAnd no one has yet mentioned California's Balance sheet, which has that pesky Un-funded (un-fundable?) pension debt. If Cali were a business no one would buy it. Sure, 5th largest economy and all that, but that's gross sales. Add in the cost of doing businessn (P&L) and the long-term debt vs assets, and all of a sudden it don't look so rosy.....
Quote from @Adam Michael Andrews:
I’m not specifically bullish on CA due to debt to income
Just my $0.02 - 1ySean O'KeefePro MemberCPA | Accepting new clients | 50 States · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 871 votes
Following - I'm based in California
- Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 31k+ posts · 20k+ votes1y
Quote from @Allen Maris:
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
Of course someone who doesn't live in California would be one to say this. If we wanted to live in California we could. We choose not to.
- 1yVictor PatelBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2022 · 133 posts · 89 votes
I moved to OH from CA 30+ years ago. I went to high school and college in the Bay Area. It was a nice place in the 80's. Now I only go back to visit family. Once there I can't wait to get back to OH. Tired of stepping over land mines in CA and having to look over my shoulder even in the daytime.
Most of my clients in Cincinnati have been from CA. They bought several apartment buildings from me and couldn't be happier. They told me they couldn't have done that in the Bay Area.
- Severna Park, MD · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 7k+ votes1y
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @James Wise:
As for the weather, with all of this global warming,'All of this global warming' may be/probably is temporary in the big picture, just psrt of the cyclical nature of our wonderful planet. I personally would not base any business decisions on the weather....
Just my $0.02...
So much for global warming , I have had my trucks and equipment out plowing and salting for the last 6 days here in Maryland . Dollars from the sky
- Incorrect, look at my previous post again. Less than 25% of the nations homeless which includes all homeless: those that sleep outside and those that sleep in shelters but are “experiencing homelessness”, are in CA. What you wrote is that 51% of homeless and unsheltered live in CA. That is incorrect. The number is less than 25%. You are still a gentleman and a scholar and I still respect you, but think about it, how could 51% of the nations homeless people live in CA? That can’t be right and it’s not. It’s less than 25% (which is still a lot, I’ll give you that, but 25% is less than half of what you wrote). The only thing the “45% of unsheltered homeless in the USA are in CA” statistic tells us is that more homeless people sleep outside in CA than other states, which makes sense because the weather is warmer there than a lot of other places where homeless people sleep in shelters. For example in Colorado the shelters all fill up when the temps dip below freezing, so we have a lot less homeless people sleeping outside “unsheltered” than in CA.
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Steve K.:
A) I had to fact check this after your last statement about the CA population declining ended up being false due to only accounting for our-migration and not including immigration,
B) The actual estimate is that less than 25% of the nations homeless people live in California, not 51%.A) Immigration by foreign individuals is not counted (generally) because it is not a definitive marker. As you probably know, California includes all foreign immigration - both legal and illegal to boost the numbers. What does counting hordes of illegals tell us? Other than that we're all F'ed. Even legal immigrants are not reliable numbers because they will/may be short-term residents and also do not have the same benefits or detriments of US citizens. Using state-to-state numbers is much more accurate as far as telling us what is going on with our country and states.We need to know where US CITIZENS want to live and why. It's just common sense. (BTW - The NET loss was about 700 people per day.)
Newsweek - More Americans left California between 2023 and 2024 than any other state across the country, according to new data released by the Census Bureau.
The Golden State lost a total of 239,575 residents to other states, the largest net domestic migration loss in the country over the past year.
B) So you're going to combine unsheltered people and basic homeless? They are different according to the homeless community. https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-un...
"Unsheltered is a more general term that is only sometimes meant as a synonym for homeless. In everyday use, it could just mean “exposed to the elements” like an unsheltered bus stop. When it comes to homelessness, it usually refers to someone who is living in an area that is not meant for human habitation, like a car, sidewalk, or park. In that sense, it would exclude homeless people who are living in shelters or other temporary housing."So when you add up the 'homeless' and the 'unsheltered' you actually do get 51%....
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Steve K.:
A) I had to fact check this after your last statement about the CA population declining ended up being false due to only accounting for our-migration and not including immigration,
B) The actual estimate is that less than 25% of the nations homeless people live in California, not 51%.A) Immigration by foreign individuals is not counted (generally) because it is not a definitive marker. As you probably know, California includes all foreign immigration - both legal and illegal to boost the numbers. What does counting hordes of illegals tell us? Other than that we're all F'ed. Even legal immigrants are not reliable numbers because they will/may be short-term residents and also do not have the same benefits or detriments of US citizens. Using state-to-state numbers is much more accurate as far as telling us what is going on with our country and states.We need to know where US CITIZENS want to live and why. It's just common sense. (BTW - The NET loss was about 700 people per day.)
Newsweek - More Americans left California between 2023 and 2024 than any other state across the country, according to new data released by the Census Bureau.
The Golden State lost a total of 239,575 residents to other states, the largest net domestic migration loss in the country over the past year.
B) So you're going to combine unsheltered people and basic homeless? They are different according to the homeless community. https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-un...
"Unsheltered is a more general term that is only sometimes meant as a synonym for homeless. In everyday use, it could just mean “exposed to the elements” like an unsheltered bus stop. When it comes to homelessness, it usually refers to someone who is living in an area that is not meant for human habitation, like a car, sidewalk, or park. In that sense, it would exclude homeless people who are living in shelters or other temporary housing."So when you add up the 'homeless' and the 'unsheltered' you actually do get 51%....
The population of CA grew by 233,000 people in 2024: https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/12/19/californias-sees-larg...
https://ktla.com/news/california/californias-population-is-n...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-12-23/californ....
CA gained more than twice as many people as AZ did last year (109,000): https://www.orionprop.com/topfive/censu
Just the raw numbers, no spin.
- Member since 2021 · 18 posts · 3 votes1y
People buy property in CA because 5% appreciation on $2mil houses is 100k. You can buy 10 properties in other states and not make that appreciation. Also, yes taxes and expenses are high in CA but you pay more for places that are more of a sure bet for the most part. People from all over the world want to live in LA, they mostly don't know where Akron or Memphis even are at. Prices in CA have risen significantly and consistently for 100 years now similarly to NYC, Miami or Other hotspots where people want to be.
- Coupeville, WA · Member since 2016 · 93 posts · 73 votes1y
I know syndicators who say they won't buy in CA because it's too expensive. However they do choose to live in CA for many of the positives listed by folks previously. Weather, diversity of options between beach, desert and mountains. If you have never been in the coastal redwoods it is a must do experience, it's like traveling back in time and expecting to see a Dinasaur coming around the bend.
Food, stunning scenic beauty and oh yeah the weather again. It certainly has it's challenges but there are many reasons why it is the most populous state in the Union.
- Coupeville, WA · Member since 2016 · 93 posts · 73 votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Steve K.:
A) I had to fact check this after your last statement about the CA population declining ended up being false due to only accounting for our-migration and not including immigration,
B) The actual estimate is that less than 25% of the nations homeless people live in California, not 51%.A) Immigration by foreign individuals is not counted (generally) because it is not a definitive marker. As you probably know, California includes all foreign immigration - both legal and illegal to boost the numbers. What does counting hordes of illegals tell us? Other than that we're all F'ed. Even legal immigrants are not reliable numbers because they will/may be short-term residents and also do not have the same benefits or detriments of US citizens. Using state-to-state numbers is much more accurate as far as telling us what is going on with our country and states.We need to know where US CITIZENS want to live and why. It's just common sense. (BTW - The NET loss was about 700 people per day.)
Newsweek - More Americans left California between 2023 and 2024 than any other state across the country, according to new data released by the Census Bureau.
The Golden State lost a total of 239,575 residents to other states, the largest net domestic migration loss in the country over the past year.
B) So you're going to combine unsheltered people and basic homeless? They are different according to the homeless community. https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-un...
"Unsheltered is a more general term that is only sometimes meant as a synonym for homeless. In everyday use, it could just mean “exposed to the elements” like an unsheltered bus stop. When it comes to homelessness, it usually refers to someone who is living in an area that is not meant for human habitation, like a car, sidewalk, or park. In that sense, it would exclude homeless people who are living in shelters or other temporary housing."So when you add up the 'homeless' and the 'unsheltered' you actually do get 51%....
Look, we can split hairs all day long and argue "well by this metric it looks...." blah blah blah.....
Here's the deal:
One Hundred and eight seven THOUSAND!!!!!!! Spin spin SPIN away, that's still a TON of people. That literally a major city of homeless.
To put this into context:
CA has more than 20X the homeless MN has.
And CA has only 6.8X the population of MN.......
Facts.......
So yes, to me, CA has a SIGNIFICANT amount more of homeless than what I am used to seeing, because IT DOES.
And before we cry "weather, but MN is cold weather in winter":
California has 6.24X the homeless of Florida.
Yet CA only has 1.7X the population of FL.
Fruit for thought.
Oh I agree it's way too big a number, no doubt about that. You have the usual causes like drugs/alcohol problems, mental illness and then you have the working poor who remain homeless. LA in 2024 had a minimum wage of $19.33 an hour. 52 weeks at 40 hours a week grosses you $3,350 a month. Take a look at the rents in LA currently in one of the attached links. The cost of housing in CA contributes to some of the homeless population, many working people are only a few missed paychecks away from losing their current residence.
Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians : NPR
Average Rent in Los Angeles, CA - 2025 Rent Prices
Hard truths about deinstitutionalization, then and now - CalMatters - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Chris Wilson:
Not trolling but just trying to provide some context about why states and other countries like CA have such stringent earth quake codes that keep getting updated.
I will never really understand the power of a Cat4 or Cat5 hurricane until I experience one. I have been in a 6.8 and 6.9 earthquake in WA and CA respectively. The 6.8 was some 65 miles south of me, I was on the 2nd floor of an office building that shook so hard for a minute that people were having problems staying standing up. A 7.0 releases some 32 times the amount of energy as the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima.
I am fully aware and well versed.
I have been a Building Contractor for over 30yrs. Master Journey Carpenter, Journey Mason, Journey HVAC. My last remodeling co. was a specialty Design Build firm. I had been scouted more times than I can recount to come to CA to apply my skills because the standards I came up in exceed that of CA and most places.
Building for seismic zones is actually not all that difficult. Wind and water, those are tricky ones, especially wind. Wind is an exerted force in many more ways than just the direct most think of. And hydraulic is a force that's very extreme.
Point is, the predominant production method of housing in the US is rather lack luster. The framing lumber popularly used is pathetic. And there is a lot of superior options out there in both product and methodology.
If you want a good CA home, do timber balloon frame, mortise and tenon joinery with masonry facade. Slate roof or even Spanish tile. Now you have seismic resilient with fire preventative.
Rockwool insulation...... I mean, your doing $1m+ for a property, why not get one built like it's a $1m+ home????
No, I'm hearing reports of shake roofs being predominant in a FIRE ZONE.... I'm sorry but anyone doing that is literally begging for it.
You tempt the Devil, bad things happen.
James shake roofs were the go to product back in the thats why there are so many in CA the material came from the Cedar industry in Oregon and Washington.. My bizz partner when I was doing timber in the 90s prior to us doing our thing.. he had a Cedar shake mill.. things changed in San Jose area tile roofs are very prevalent. Its all about the heavy brush with Manzanita and other dense brush full of oils that burn so hot and fast.. thats why in many areas in CA they have control burns.. And keep in mind the Indians used to burn this stuff hundreds of years ago as wellThat helps to make a lot more sense. The fire prevention policies were different, more aggressive, so far less imperative reasons to sway away from a then amply supplied and I imagine price adjusted material of shake vs fire resilient material.
I saw news other day of those winds and just clouds of embers and that, holly-cow with shake roof's, wow, that's literally an impossible fire to fight as it could jump homes and blocks in a blink, with every ember filled gust.
It drives me nuts seeing the lions share of blame being placed on weather in main stream media (talking as an aggregate whole not going to cherry pick individual ones of differing messaging) when I see a laundry list of obvious human caused contributing factors.
Because next thing, without a doubt, will be all about taking Federal funds to pay for all this. And that means YOU, me, WE paying the bill for what was in fair-share a CA person-made catastrophe via there idiotic actions.
FL can't do a dang thing to stop a hurricane, but they at least try to put in place mitigation items to lesson impact.
CA, stopping doing fire breaks because it messes with a mouse..... How's that mouse doing now? Crispy fried right....
Or not topping off reservoirs in advance of a known annual heightened fire risk season.
I am not saying it would have been 100% prevented if hadn't done these dumb actions, but with 100% certainty the scale of it all would have been different, lessor.
People died because of this, and thus there needs to be a criminal inquiry. Criminal negligence, that's a thing. And this, what I am hearing, wreaks of criminal negligence. Accountability must be demanded by Californians, and the nation as a whole.
But let me guess, Biden will issue pardons for entire CA political class...... Retroactive for any crimes known or unknown for the last however many years......
well typically middle of January is winter and not fire season so you have that .. Fire breaks work for sure I remember a big fire in Lake co. cA when I lived there and there were 4 to 5 dozer in a line doing fire breaks along ridge lines.. keep in mind though this is steep country so moving dozer through there is not that easy.. That fire in 1980 burnt 35,000 acres between ukiah CA and Lakeport Ca and only stopped when it got to the pear orchards in lake co.. there was not stopping it.. moved at about 10 to 20 miles per hour.. all over 8 hours.. until you see it in person you simply cant understand it..
Also keep in mind in LA most of those lots were created from 1900 to 1950s and well they are lots of record.. and were developed with the standards of the day.. Todays standards are far different as you know.. I deal with it in all the subdivisions I have built.. Fire department is the toughest one to deal with.. U need 1500 GPH at the hydrants.. no street can be longer than 600feet with out dual access.. If you cant meet GPH you need to sprinkler the houses so add 8 to 12k per track house to the build cost and oh by the way we need starter houses.. Etc etc.I always heard the fire risk season was tied to Santa Ana winds, Sept. - May..
I am sure your right on the winds.. I spent a winter in Palm Springs and brought my plane down there and you talk about some wicked winds .. I got caught in a mtn wave on one trip from Napa to Thermal Ca and we had 2k ft ups and downs un commanded you just ride the wave like a surfer and on the back side of the wave U pick up some pretty impressive ground speed.No thanks, I'm way too Norwegian for that noise. Put me on a boat with 10' swells and I'm happy as a pig in slop but in air getting thrown.... I'm the guy turning 3 shades of green with the verps. Lol.
my wife if Norwegian Wika :) raised on a little island in the Columbia River and family were all fishermen and loggers.Without doubt a brilliant and fierce women she is, SKOAL!
.
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance? - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Chris Wilson:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Steve K.:
A) I had to fact check this after your last statement about the CA population declining ended up being false due to only accounting for our-migration and not including immigration,
B) The actual estimate is that less than 25% of the nations homeless people live in California, not 51%.A) Immigration by foreign individuals is not counted (generally) because it is not a definitive marker. As you probably know, California includes all foreign immigration - both legal and illegal to boost the numbers. What does counting hordes of illegals tell us? Other than that we're all F'ed. Even legal immigrants are not reliable numbers because they will/may be short-term residents and also do not have the same benefits or detriments of US citizens. Using state-to-state numbers is much more accurate as far as telling us what is going on with our country and states.We need to know where US CITIZENS want to live and why. It's just common sense. (BTW - The NET loss was about 700 people per day.)
Newsweek - More Americans left California between 2023 and 2024 than any other state across the country, according to new data released by the Census Bureau.
The Golden State lost a total of 239,575 residents to other states, the largest net domestic migration loss in the country over the past year.
B) So you're going to combine unsheltered people and basic homeless? They are different according to the homeless community. https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-un...
"Unsheltered is a more general term that is only sometimes meant as a synonym for homeless. In everyday use, it could just mean “exposed to the elements” like an unsheltered bus stop. When it comes to homelessness, it usually refers to someone who is living in an area that is not meant for human habitation, like a car, sidewalk, or park. In that sense, it would exclude homeless people who are living in shelters or other temporary housing."So when you add up the 'homeless' and the 'unsheltered' you actually do get 51%....
Look, we can split hairs all day long and argue "well by this metric it looks...." blah blah blah.....
Here's the deal:
One Hundred and eight seven THOUSAND!!!!!!! Spin spin SPIN away, that's still a TON of people. That literally a major city of homeless.
To put this into context:
CA has more than 20X the homeless MN has.
And CA has only 6.8X the population of MN.......
Facts.......
So yes, to me, CA has a SIGNIFICANT amount more of homeless than what I am used to seeing, because IT DOES.
And before we cry "weather, but MN is cold weather in winter":
California has 6.24X the homeless of Florida.
Yet CA only has 1.7X the population of FL.
Fruit for thought.
Oh I agree it's way too big a number, no doubt about that. You have the usual causes like drugs/alcohol problems, mental illness and then you have the working poor who remain homeless. LA in 2024 had a minimum wage of $19.33 an hour. 52 weeks at 40 hours a week grosses you $3,350 a month. Take a look at the rents in LA currently in one of the attached links. The cost of housing in CA contributes to some of the homeless population, many working people are only a few missed paychecks away from losing their current residence.
Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians : NPR
Average Rent in Los Angeles, CA - 2025 Rent Prices
Hard truths about deinstitutionalization, then and now - CalMattersI see this literally all the time, tenant applicants being just a few missed paychecks away from bankruptcy.
Nothing new there, it's is not a uniquely CA thing, it's the US nation as a whole.
And I feel the most limited sympathy for it. Because in vast majority of cases these same tenant applicants a few missed paychecks away from bankruptcy; are working only 1 job. Not doing anything to get better education or employment opportunities. Own every nice toy, item, apparel, everything imaginable. Gucci handbags, have big screen tv's, they are NOT living on a budget at all. Shoe collection and wardrobe that's way beyond what my budget affords.
A universal truth I see is: they live way beyond there means and have no intentions, interest or desire in increase there means UNLESS it dropped into there lap and they didn't have to exert any additional effort for it what so ever.
That's the reality I and my "troops" see from the "front-line" every day.
So much so that when we do come across that all-to-rare exception of a person who's grinding at improving there life, to elevate, it's notice, it's a shocker, and we go the extra mile to really help them if and where we can.
The vast majority are now just "takers". Passengers in their own life.
It is a mindset cancer in our society that's not only ignored but all but penalized for even mentioning.
I had one who explained it to me once, broke down all the #'s. That welfare was an occupation for her, that it paid about $80k yr. So why work, why stress herself out, take on student debt, hours away from family doing that 9-5 all to achieve about $80kyr. Vs her current super-chill life, get's special discounts all over the place for being "too poor" and all the while can work cash jobs when wants extra, keeps her bank account low, plays the game to get here "free ride".
It was hard to argue. Hard to fault her very methodical informed decision. It was the system that afforded this. The ridiculous lunacy we have done to "combat poverty" over the years of inventing a choice-of-work system.
As long as there is freedom, there will be freedom to be a junkie and yes some choose that. With the plethora of options, are we seriously saying a person can't not be homeless?
How? What is the can't?
No treatment for drug abuse available? There literally everywhere.
Can't get housing? There is more housing programs than can count.
What is the can't?
We provide free medical coverage, free food, free housing, free cell phones, free internet, free clothing, free transportation, guaranteed employment for any/all who ask (salvation army), free furnishing of a home, free temporary housing, free shelters, free free free...... And yet the "problem" persists and grows........
Maybe the solution isnt found in yet another "free".......
Maybe self-accountability does matter.
Quote from @Ken M.:
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance?So do you understand, read, speak, and write Greek? Have you ever worked on Greece? Dealt with Greek institutions, business practices, and customs? What do you know about homelessness as an institution in Greece? When the bus stops in traffic and the driver announces, <<Tη βάψαμε>>, can you plug that right into Google Translate and get a good answer to what that means?
Sure, Greece has its moments, but spend a few years there and you might feel it's not quite the Valley of Shangri-La.- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jim K.:
Quote from @Ken M.:
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance?So do you understand, read, speak, and write Greek? Have you ever worked on Greece? Dealt with Greek institutions, business practices, and customs? What do you know about homelessness as an institution in Greece? When the bus stops in traffic and the driver announces, <>, can you plug that right into Google Translate and get a good answer to what that means?
Sure, Greece has its moments, but spend a few years there and you might feel it's not quite the Valley of Shangri-La..
Nah was just talking about visiting, not living. Long live Baklava.
Ο Ιησούς Χριστός είναι ο αληθινός και ζωντανός Θεός. Η αγάπη Του σε σώζει από τον χωρισμό από Αυτόν, αν θα επιστρέψεις την αγάπη. - 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Chris Wilson:
Not trolling but just trying to provide some context about why states and other countries like CA have such stringent earth quake codes that keep getting updated.
I will never really understand the power of a Cat4 or Cat5 hurricane until I experience one. I have been in a 6.8 and 6.9 earthquake in WA and CA respectively. The 6.8 was some 65 miles south of me, I was on the 2nd floor of an office building that shook so hard for a minute that people were having problems staying standing up. A 7.0 releases some 32 times the amount of energy as the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima.
I am fully aware and well versed.
I have been a Building Contractor for over 30yrs. Master Journey Carpenter, Journey Mason, Journey HVAC. My last remodeling co. was a specialty Design Build firm. I had been scouted more times than I can recount to come to CA to apply my skills because the standards I came up in exceed that of CA and most places.
Building for seismic zones is actually not all that difficult. Wind and water, those are tricky ones, especially wind. Wind is an exerted force in many more ways than just the direct most think of. And hydraulic is a force that's very extreme.
Point is, the predominant production method of housing in the US is rather lack luster. The framing lumber popularly used is pathetic. And there is a lot of superior options out there in both product and methodology.
If you want a good CA home, do timber balloon frame, mortise and tenon joinery with masonry facade. Slate roof or even Spanish tile. Now you have seismic resilient with fire preventative.
Rockwool insulation...... I mean, your doing $1m+ for a property, why not get one built like it's a $1m+ home????
No, I'm hearing reports of shake roofs being predominant in a FIRE ZONE.... I'm sorry but anyone doing that is literally begging for it.
You tempt the Devil, bad things happen.
James shake roofs were the go to product back in the thats why there are so many in CA the material came from the Cedar industry in Oregon and Washington.. My bizz partner when I was doing timber in the 90s prior to us doing our thing.. he had a Cedar shake mill.. things changed in San Jose area tile roofs are very prevalent. Its all about the heavy brush with Manzanita and other dense brush full of oils that burn so hot and fast.. thats why in many areas in CA they have control burns.. And keep in mind the Indians used to burn this stuff hundreds of years ago as wellThat helps to make a lot more sense. The fire prevention policies were different, more aggressive, so far less imperative reasons to sway away from a then amply supplied and I imagine price adjusted material of shake vs fire resilient material.
I saw news other day of those winds and just clouds of embers and that, holly-cow with shake roof's, wow, that's literally an impossible fire to fight as it could jump homes and blocks in a blink, with every ember filled gust.
It drives me nuts seeing the lions share of blame being placed on weather in main stream media (talking as an aggregate whole not going to cherry pick individual ones of differing messaging) when I see a laundry list of obvious human caused contributing factors.
Because next thing, without a doubt, will be all about taking Federal funds to pay for all this. And that means YOU, me, WE paying the bill for what was in fair-share a CA person-made catastrophe via there idiotic actions.
FL can't do a dang thing to stop a hurricane, but they at least try to put in place mitigation items to lesson impact.
CA, stopping doing fire breaks because it messes with a mouse..... How's that mouse doing now? Crispy fried right....
Or not topping off reservoirs in advance of a known annual heightened fire risk season.
I am not saying it would have been 100% prevented if hadn't done these dumb actions, but with 100% certainty the scale of it all would have been different, lessor.
People died because of this, and thus there needs to be a criminal inquiry. Criminal negligence, that's a thing. And this, what I am hearing, wreaks of criminal negligence. Accountability must be demanded by Californians, and the nation as a whole.
But let me guess, Biden will issue pardons for entire CA political class...... Retroactive for any crimes known or unknown for the last however many years......
well typically middle of January is winter and not fire season so you have that .. Fire breaks work for sure I remember a big fire in Lake co. cA when I lived there and there were 4 to 5 dozer in a line doing fire breaks along ridge lines.. keep in mind though this is steep country so moving dozer through there is not that easy.. That fire in 1980 burnt 35,000 acres between ukiah CA and Lakeport Ca and only stopped when it got to the pear orchards in lake co.. there was not stopping it.. moved at about 10 to 20 miles per hour.. all over 8 hours.. until you see it in person you simply cant understand it..
Also keep in mind in LA most of those lots were created from 1900 to 1950s and well they are lots of record.. and were developed with the standards of the day.. Todays standards are far different as you know.. I deal with it in all the subdivisions I have built.. Fire department is the toughest one to deal with.. U need 1500 GPH at the hydrants.. no street can be longer than 600feet with out dual access.. If you cant meet GPH you need to sprinkler the houses so add 8 to 12k per track house to the build cost and oh by the way we need starter houses.. Etc etc.I always heard the fire risk season was tied to Santa Ana winds, Sept. - May..
I am sure your right on the winds.. I spent a winter in Palm Springs and brought my plane down there and you talk about some wicked winds .. I got caught in a mtn wave on one trip from Napa to Thermal Ca and we had 2k ft ups and downs un commanded you just ride the wave like a surfer and on the back side of the wave U pick up some pretty impressive ground speed.No thanks, I'm way too Norwegian for that noise. Put me on a boat with 10' swells and I'm happy as a pig in slop but in air getting thrown.... I'm the guy turning 3 shades of green with the verps. Lol.
my wife if Norwegian Wika :) raised on a little island in the Columbia River and family were all fishermen and loggers.Without doubt a brilliant and fierce women she is, SKOAL!
.
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance?
People are not buying 4 mil personal residence as investments they buy them to live there.
No different then people buying high priced homes in Texas and paying massive prop taxs on those its because they choose to live there and have a certain lifestyle they want to achieve.
U dont need to be smart to understand the desires of owner occupants. Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Jim K.:
Quote from @Ken M.:
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance?So do you understand, read, speak, and write Greek? Have you ever worked on Greece? Dealt with Greek institutions, business practices, and customs? What do you know about homelessness as an institution in Greece? When the bus stops in traffic and the driver announces, <>, can you plug that right into Google Translate and get a good answer to what that means?
Sure, Greece has its moments, but spend a few years there and you might feel it's not quite the Valley of Shangri-La..
Nah was just talking about visiting, not living. Long live Baklava.
Ο Ιησούς Χριστός είναι ο αληθινός και ζωντανός Θεός. Η αγάπη Του σε σώζει από τον χωρισμό από Αυτόν, αν θα επιστρέψεις την αγάπη.Wow. I feel so saved by the Precious Blood.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yNah, you gotta want it. It's never forced. When appreciation goes up, don't credit the escrow company. Give credit where credit is due and ignore the "noise". ;-)
Quote from @Jim K.:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Jim K.:
Quote from @Ken M.:
I took the average $4,000,000 house in Pacific Palisades CA and it shows a monthly tax payment of $4,167 for a total of $50,004 a year. (That would buy two houses in Ohio). :-)
Now, the average length of ownership is 7 years (for normal people) a longer time if you have no where else to go "UP". After 10, years they have paid $500,040 in just property taxes.
And the city "forgets" to turn on the water to the hydrants?, during fire season?
Can somebody please explain how investing in the area makes sense?
I am not smart enough to figure this one out.
Somebody mentioned they have access to the ocean. Well at 6 trips a year, that's $8,334 a trip. I can fly to Greece and enjoy the ocean there for less. And eat great food.
The Homeless are at the beach all day long - everyday, and don't have to pay property taxes. In fact, lunch is delivered to them.
"Oh, but we have easy access from Pacific Palisades", and the accompanying statement "yes, now we also have to hurdle over our neighbor's smoldering ruins to get there, but we still get to go to the beach."
Does nobody else see the irony, malfeasance?So do you understand, read, speak, and write Greek? Have you ever worked on Greece? Dealt with Greek institutions, business practices, and customs? What do you know about homelessness as an institution in Greece? When the bus stops in traffic and the driver announces, <>, can you plug that right into Google Translate and get a good answer to what that means?
Sure, Greece has its moments, but spend a few years there and you might feel it's not quite the Valley of Shangri-La..
Nah was just talking about visiting, not living. Long live Baklava.
Ο Ιησούς Χριστός είναι ο αληθινός και ζωντανός Θεός. Η αγάπη Του σε σώζει από τον χωρισμό από Αυτόν, αν θα επιστρέψεις την αγάπη.Wow. I feel so saved by the Precious Blood.
- 1yHenry ClarkPro MemberDeveloper · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
OP to your original question.
Take LA and SF out of California. California is great. I have only lived there for 4 months. I have visited SF, SD, LA. Driven the coastal highway from SD to SF.
LA I didn't like because it's just a huge metro area. The only thing I didn't really like is the traffic in LA. But you learn to live near your work or work around the traffic.
But then again, I liked along Calabasas parkway, Venice beach. It's been a while; I didn't like the smog. You have to get within a mile of the beach before you saw all of the sunshine people talked about. That might be gone by now.
SF I loved. Yep, the street people aren't inviting. But the whole town was a lot of fun.
Since BP is a Real Estate forum, yes, the rental laws/issues are terrible.
As a REI strategy, you will always have a combination of either Appreciation or Cash flow. California is more of an Appreciation market. Along with that comes the taxes and people issues. We do Self Storage. We will always make more money where the taxes are higher. Would love to do Self Storage in California. I have analyzed the market before and found sites or business models both in LA and SF for other people.
As far as the political or social environment. People deserve what they get when they vote. So, for them, they like the situation there. The rest of us can choose to live and invest elsewhere.
We live in Iowa. I grew up in Louisiana. Worked in Texas, Missouri and Michigan. I doubt many people would love to live in Iowa or Louisiana, but I do. REI we have been doing great in Iowa/Nebraska. Helped my brother in Texas. It's a better market down there, but we will always do better in our 40 mile radius we stick to.
You're in the Ohio area. I wouldn't want to invest there. Main reason is those towns aren't in our 40-mile radius. Our Team (bankers, contractors, excavators, attorneys, surveyors, electricians) aren't there. We will always make more money and with less risk in our home territory, whether it is good or bad per other people's views.
Sidenote on the LA fires. Talked with my brother this morning. He was in charge one year for the military NAcom joint command fire efforts for San Diego up to the bottom of LA. Asked him about the current situation. His primary focus was to protect all military bases in that region. But by federal or Presidential directive his resources were used to manage fires all the way up to Oregon/Washington.
He said the 2007 fires in San Diego were far larger than the current LA fires. Just less Movie Stars. At the time Governor Schwarzenegger contacted President Bush to make the San Diego fires a national Disaster area. There were 5 fires at that time. Just for one of the fires they immediately mobilized 20,000 troops for door to door fire and rescue efforts. Had over 20 pump trucks, over xx Helicopters and over 40 C17 style water aircraft in play.
They also helped the Oregon and Washington forest fires. They had the 40 Aircraft getting water from lakes and Oceans. They couldn't put a dent into it. That is without the Santa Ana winds.
They did make a recommendation to LA to install large dams or holding tanks for sea water high in the hills and pump from the ocean. The gravity pressure would have operated the system. But LA did not want to do that. Also using water tank trucks to get water from the ocean and driving back and forth would not be a viable solution.
As far as running out of water. The normal water tower and hydrant system would never work for this type of fire. Think of all of the water sprinkler systems in commercial buildings. They would have been activated also, plus kept using water even as the buildings were burnt down. Along with the fire trucks, the water system was not capable of handling such a situation.
With the above said. So, what. These events can be seen ahead. Example: California has been in a drought forever. But they just had floods.
A. Floods lead to heavy vegetation growth.
B. Heavy vegetation growth leads to large fires.
C. Large fires lead to large mud slides. Next news for LA will be massive mud slides.
As far as not having enough water. California actually has the largest lake in the country except for the Great Lakes. Tulare lake comes and goes as it is used for agriculture ground and is pumped out or diverted. It reappeared just last year. They had tons of water to store. It's a matter of choice and actions.
We have two properties. Since owning them, we have installed features to store over 5,000,000 gallons of water in the soil that did not exist before. That is just one family. California's topography allows for far more water storage than where we live.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Henry Clark:
OP to your original question.
Take LA and SF out of California. California is great. I have only lived there for 4 months. I have visited SF, SD, LA. Driven the coastal highway from SD to SF.
LA I didn't like because it's just a huge metro area. The only thing I didn't really like is the traffic in LA. But you learn to live near your work or work around the traffic.
But then again, I liked along Calabasas parkway, Venice beach. It's been a while; I didn't like the smog. You have to get within a mile of the beach before you saw all of the sunshine people talked about. That might be gone by now.
SF I loved. Yep, the street people aren't inviting. But the whole town was a lot of fun.
Since BP is a Real Estate forum, yes, the rental laws/issues are terrible.
As a REI strategy, you will always have a combination of either Appreciation or Cash flow. California is more of an Appreciation market. Along with that comes the taxes and people issues. We do Self Storage. We will always make more money where the taxes are higher. Would love to do Self Storage in California. I have analyzed the market before and found sites or business models both in LA and SF for other people.
As far as the political or social environment. People deserve what they get when they vote. So, for them, they like the situation there. The rest of us can choose to live and invest elsewhere.
We live in Iowa. I grew up in Louisiana. Worked in Texas, Missouri and Michigan. I doubt many people would love to live in Iowa or Louisiana, but I do. REI we have been doing great in Iowa/Nebraska. Helped my brother in Texas. It's a better market down there, but we will always do better in our 40 mile radius we stick to.
You're in the Ohio area. I wouldn't want to invest there. Main reason is those towns aren't in our 40-mile radius. Our Team (bankers, contractors, excavators, attorneys, surveyors, electricians) aren't there. We will always make more money and with less risk in our home territory, whether it is good or bad per other people's views.
Sidenote on the LA fires. Talked with my brother this morning. He was in charge one year for the military NAcom joint command fire efforts for San Diego up to the bottom of LA. Asked him about the current situation. His primary focus was to protect all military bases in that region. But by federal or Presidential directive his resources were used to manage fires all the way up to Oregon/Washington.
He said the 2007 fires in San Diego were far larger than the current LA fires. Just less Movie Stars. At the time Governor Schwarzenegger contacted President Bush to make the San Diego fires a national Disaster area. There were 5 fires at that time. Just for one of the fires they immediately mobilized 20,000 troops for door to door fire and rescue efforts. Had over 20 pump trucks, over xx Helicopters and over 40 C17 style water aircraft in play.
They also helped the Oregon and Washington forest fires. They had the 40 Aircraft getting water from lakes and Oceans. They couldn't put a dent into it. That is without the Santa Ana winds.
They did make a recommendation to LA to install large dams or holding tanks for sea water high in the hills and pump from the ocean. The gravity pressure would have operated the system. But LA did not want to do that. Also using water tank trucks to get water from the ocean and driving back and forth would not be a viable solution.
As far as running out of water. The normal water tower and hydrant system would never work for this type of fire. Think of all of the water sprinkler systems in commercial buildings. They would have been activated also, plus kept using water even as the buildings were burnt down. Along with the fire trucks, the water system was not capable of handling such a situation.
With the above said. So, what. These events can be seen ahead. Example: California has been in a drought forever. But they just had floods.
A. Floods lead to heavy vegetation growth.
B. Heavy vegetation growth leads to large fires.
C. Large fires lead to large mud slides. Next news for LA will be massive mud slides.
As far as not having enough water. California actually has the largest lake in the country except for the Great Lakes. Tulare lake comes and goes as it is used for agriculture ground and is pumped out or diverted. It reappeared just last year. They had tons of water to store. It's a matter of choice and actions.
We have two properties. Since owning them, we have installed features to store over 5,000,000 gallons of water in the soil that did not exist before. That is just one family. California's topography allows for far more water storage than where we live.
In my mind, the serious problems aren't really L.A., San Francisco and Oakland. The problems lie in Sacramento.
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Allen Maris:
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
Of course someone who doesn't live in California would be one to say this. If we wanted to live in California we could. We choose not to.
Many people cannot afford to live in the coastal Ca cities. I have a friend that moved from San Diego CA to Michigan in the late 1990s. He has indicated he wants to move back to San Diego but the cost would affect his quality of life. He bought in Michigan when he moved there, but the property value is far lower than a similar purchase in San Diego would have achieved. He probably could not buy a starter home for the value of his Michigan property that is fairly nice (on a pond and far nicer than a starter home in San Diego).
There is a reason more people choose to live in CA than any other state and it is not even that close. However, informing others of all the reasons would be contrary to my desire to not encourage people to move to CA.
so CA $ucks. There is no reason anyone should move to CA.
Best wishes
- Coupeville, WA · Member since 2016 · 93 posts · 73 votes1y
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Allen Maris:
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
Of course someone who doesn't live in California would be one to say this. If we wanted to live in California we could. We choose not to.
Many people cannot afford to live in the coastal Ca cities. I have a friend that moved from San Diego CA to Michigan in the late 1990s. He has indicated he wants to move back to San Diego but the cost would affect his quality of life. He bought in Michigan when he moved there, but the property value is far lower than a similar purchase in San Diego would have achieved. He probably could not buy a starter home for the value of his Michigan property that is fairly nice (on a pond and far nicer than a starter home in San Diego).
There is a reason more people choose to live in CA than any other state and it is not even that close. However, informing others of all the reasons would be contrary to my desire to not encourage people to move to CA.
so CA $ucks. There is no reason anyone should move to CA.
Best wishes
I actually heard a podcast recently where they were talking about a syndicator they knew who invests in CA and was thrilled that nobody else wanted to because it limited his competition.
- Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 31k+ posts · 20k+ votes1y
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Allen Maris:
It always seems the people that don't live in CA or have ever lived in CA are always the one leading the bandwagon of "why would anyone live in CA?". I say that about many many parts of our country as well. It goes both ways.
Of course someone who doesn't live in California would be one to say this. If we wanted to live in California we could. We choose not to.
Many people cannot afford to live in the coastal Ca cities. I have a friend that moved from San Diego CA to Michigan in the late 1990s. He has indicated he wants to move back to San Diego but the cost would affect his quality of life. He bought in Michigan when he moved there, but the property value is far lower than a similar purchase in San Diego would have achieved. He probably could not buy a starter home for the value of his Michigan property that is fairly nice (on a pond and far nicer than a starter home in San Diego).
There is a reason more people choose to live in CA than any other state and it is not even that close. However, informing others of all the reasons would be contrary to my desire to not encourage people to move to CA.
so CA $ucks. There is no reason anyone should move to CA.
Best wishes
I'm guessing that at this very moment in time you don't have to worry about a ton of people trying to move there.
- 1yNicholas L.Pro MemberFlipper/Rehabber · Pittsburgh · Member since 2018 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes
one thing that has been interesting to me is that even as CA's overall growth has slowed / stopped, RE prices have remained high. so there is still a tremendous, tremendous demand component even without the same population growth.
thoughts on this?
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.