Do blue states appreciate more than red states?

Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2024 · 101 posts · 134 votes

I was curious, so I looked at 20 years of Zillow data.

Growing up in Los Angeles, I always believed a saying that investors here seem to repeat: blue states appreciate more than red thanks to things like zoning restrictions and certain democratic policies (which is an entirely different topic I won't be delving on here).

For anyone that didn't know, here is a map of each state's electoral voting history (for the previous 5 elections):

Here is a heat map of 10-year price growth by state:

At first glance, it appears the majority of states with the most growth were the "pandemic boom states" like Idaho, Nevada, Tennessee, Georgia, Utah, and Florida. All of these states voted red in the 2024 election. (Surprisingly, the blue states of Maine and New Hampshire did see solid growth, along with the not-so-surprising Washington.)

But what about their growth over a longer time horizon?

(Zillow didn't have 2005 data for Montana or North Dakota.)

I can maybe see a case being made for Washington and Oregon. But Idaho, Utah and Tennessee also saw big price growth over the same time period.

To settle this debate, I simply calculated the correlation between each state's growth and the categorical "red' or "blue" variable. The correlation coefficient came in at 0.03. Basically, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between a state's voting history and its price growth.

Just because a state is blue doesn't mean it will automatically benefit from price growth. Things like job growth and supply constraints affect price much more than its residents' voting patterns.

12 Reply

109 views

Most Popular Reply

Bradley BuxtonBusiness Member

Real Estate Agent · NV · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 713 votes

@Austin Wolff

Are you looking at the percentage growth or actual dollar growth? If you're talking about a 50k house to 100k that's 100% growth. In California, you can go from 500k to 800k over the same period and the difference is 37.5% or 300k. So which is better?

I think it's more of a coincidence that states along the coast vote blue and there is more appreciation. More people have always lived there because of the history of economic development near the oceans coupled with tight supply and limited high-density
building. People buy where there is opportunity, better weather, and near family and friends.

Economic factors like taxes, new investments in manufacturing, and politics is apparently driving people to states like TX and FL. Up here in the Reno, NV area we are seeing strong population growth from CA because of tax advantages and a different political climate than CA while still close to friends and family from CA.

7 Reply

See this reply in the discussion

24 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Bradley BuxtonBusiness Member
Real Estate Agent · NV · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 713 votes
1y
@Austin Wolff
Are you looking at the percentage growth or actual dollar growth? If you're talking about a 50k house to 100k that's 100% growth. In California, you can go from 500k to 800k over the same period and the difference is 37.5% or 300k. So which is better?
I think it's more of a coincidence that states along the coast vote blue and there is more appreciation. More people have always lived there because of the history of economic development near the oceans coupled with tight supply and limited high-density
building. People buy where there is opportunity, better weather, and near family and friends.
Economic factors like taxes, new investments in manufacturing, and politics is apparently driving people to states like TX and FL. Up here in the Reno, NV area we are seeing strong population growth from CA because of tax advantages and a different political climate than CA while still close to friends and family from CA.
7 Reply
- Austin WolffPro Member
  OP
  Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2024 · 101 posts · 134 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Bradley Buxton:
  
  @Austin Wolff
  Are you looking at the percentage growth or actual dollar growth? If you're talking about a 50k house to 100k that's 100% growth. In California, you can go from 500k to 800k over the same period and the difference is 37.5% or 300k. So which is better?
  I think it's more of a coincidence that states along the coast vote blue and there is more appreciation. More people have always lived there because of the history of economic development near the oceans coupled with tight supply and limited high-density
  building. People buy where there is opportunity, better weather, and near family and friends.
  Economic factors like taxes, new investments in manufacturing, and politics is apparently driving people to states like TX and FL. Up here in the Reno, NV area we are seeing strong population growth from CA because of tax advantages and a different political climate than CA while still close to friends and family from CA.
  
  Great question, I'm just looking at percentages. I think that matters more than absolute dollar amount and here's a theoretical example to show why:
  
  Let's say I have $200k to invest. And my options are:
  
  -One $800k property in CA (25% down), or
  
  -Two $400k properties in ID (both at 25% down).
  
  If we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation (so as not to include the roller coaster and unlikely 5-year market we experienced from 2020-2025) for each state, the CA property would see an average appreciation of 37%. Your property would appreciate from $800k to $1.096M. That's a $296,000 gain for investing in CA.
  
  Meanwhile, if we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation that Idaho experienced before the pandemic (62%) and apply that to the 2 properties you were able to buy with the same $200k, both properties would appreciate from $400k to $668k. That's a $268,000 gain per property, or, a total equity gain of $536,000 (which is higher than the CA property's equity gain of $296,000).
  
  This is a theoretical example using gross approximations, but hopefully it displays the point that percent-growth is still more important than total value growth.
  
  And you're also right about it being a coincidence that certain states are blue and experience high appreciation. Technically, all major cities still vote blue (even if they're in a red state), yet it appears that only cities with supply constraints (like geography) see the most appreciation.
  
  My (unrealistic) goal is for this post to put this debate to rest. Blue or red, it really has no effect on the appreciation. Things like job growth and supply constraints do.
  2 Reply
- Bradley BuxtonBusiness Member
  Real Estate Agent · NV · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 713 votes
  1y
  Make sense. There is definitely an inflection point for purchase price to appreciation. Does the assumption of the past performance of 5-10 years ago continues today? Is the appreciation still the same after the building boom that happened during the 2020-25 years because supply has significantly increased in red states and still constrained in blue states?
  
  Quote from @Austin Wolff:
  
  Quote from @Bradley Buxton:
  
  @Austin Wolff
  Are you looking at the percentage growth or actual dollar growth? If you're talking about a 50k house to 100k that's 100% growth. In California, you can go from 500k to 800k over the same period and the difference is 37.5% or 300k. So which is better?
  I think it's more of a coincidence that states along the coast vote blue and there is more appreciation. More people have always lived there because of the history of economic development near the oceans coupled with tight supply and limited high-density
  building. People buy where there is opportunity, better weather, and near family and friends.
  Economic factors like taxes, new investments in manufacturing, and politics is apparently driving people to states like TX and FL. Up here in the Reno, NV area we are seeing strong population growth from CA because of tax advantages and a different political climate than CA while still close to friends and family from CA.
  
  Great question, I'm just looking at percentages. I think that matters more than absolute dollar amount and here's a theoretical example to show why:
  
  Let's say I have $200k to invest. And my options are:
  
  -One $800k property in CA (25% down), or
  
  -Two $400k properties in ID (both at 25% down).
  
  If we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation (so as not to include the roller coaster and unlikely 5-year market we experienced from 2020-2025) for each state, the CA property would see an average appreciation of 37%. Your property would appreciate from $800k to $1.096M. That's a $296,000 gain for investing in CA.
  
  Meanwhile, if we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation that Idaho experienced before the pandemic (62%) and apply that to the 2 properties you were able to buy with the same $200k, both properties would appreciate from $400k to $668k. That's a $268,000 gain per property, or, a total equity gain of $536,000 (which is higher than the CA property's equity gain of $296,000).
  
  This is a theoretical example using gross approximations, but hopefully it displays the point that percent-growth is still more important than total value growth.
  
  And you're also right about it being a coincidence that certain states are blue and experience high appreciation. Technically, all major cities still vote blue (even if they're in a red state), yet it appears that only cities with supply constraints (like geography) see the most appreciation.
  
  My (unrealistic) goal is for this post to put this debate to rest. Blue or red, it really has no effect on the appreciation. Things like job growth and supply constraints do.
  
  0 Reply
- Austin WolffPro Member
  OP
  Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2024 · 101 posts · 134 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Bradley Buxton:
  
  Make sense. There is definitely an inflection point for purchase price to appreciation. Does the assumption of the past performance of 5-10 years ago continues today? Is the appreciation still the same after the building boom that happened during the 2020-25 years because supply has significantly increased in red states and still constrained in blue states?
  
  Quote from @Austin Wolff:
  
  Quote from @Bradley Buxton:
  
  @Austin Wolff
  Are you looking at the percentage growth or actual dollar growth? If you're talking about a 50k house to 100k that's 100% growth. In California, you can go from 500k to 800k over the same period and the difference is 37.5% or 300k. So which is better?
  I think it's more of a coincidence that states along the coast vote blue and there is more appreciation. More people have always lived there because of the history of economic development near the oceans coupled with tight supply and limited high-density
  building. People buy where there is opportunity, better weather, and near family and friends.
  Economic factors like taxes, new investments in manufacturing, and politics is apparently driving people to states like TX and FL. Up here in the Reno, NV area we are seeing strong population growth from CA because of tax advantages and a different political climate than CA while still close to friends and family from CA.
  
  Great question, I'm just looking at percentages. I think that matters more than absolute dollar amount and here's a theoretical example to show why:
  
  Let's say I have $200k to invest. And my options are:
  
  -One $800k property in CA (25% down), or
  
  -Two $400k properties in ID (both at 25% down).
  
  If we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation (so as not to include the roller coaster and unlikely 5-year market we experienced from 2020-2025) for each state, the CA property would see an average appreciation of 37%. Your property would appreciate from $800k to $1.096M. That's a $296,000 gain for investing in CA.
  
  Meanwhile, if we take the 2015-2020 5-year appreciation that Idaho experienced before the pandemic (62%) and apply that to the 2 properties you were able to buy with the same $200k, both properties would appreciate from $400k to $668k. That's a $268,000 gain per property, or, a total equity gain of $536,000 (which is higher than the CA property's equity gain of $296,000).
  
  This is a theoretical example using gross approximations, but hopefully it displays the point that percent-growth is still more important than total value growth.
  
  And you're also right about it being a coincidence that certain states are blue and experience high appreciation. Technically, all major cities still vote blue (even if they're in a red state), yet it appears that only cities with supply constraints (like geography) see the most appreciation.
  
  My (unrealistic) goal is for this post to put this debate to rest. Blue or red, it really has no effect on the appreciation. Things like job growth and supply constraints do.
  
  Great question! I don't think we'll see appreciation like we saw from 2012-2022 in the near future. For various reasons, I think most areas will see appreciation only keep up with inflation (that is, their real appreciation will likely stagnate). This will vary market-to-market. Places in the South and Sunbelt, where adding supply isn't an issue, will likely continue to see price stagnation. Other places with supply constraints will likely continue to see positive real price growth.
  2 Reply
Becca F.
Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
1y
Great post! I think with coastal California and land constraints and regulations the appreciation will be higher even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in.

With the Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Mateo have surpassed home sales and prices in San Francisco because they're near Silicon Valley. As far as tech layoffs, I'm uncertain how much this will affect home sales/values - people who can't find a job with $400k+ salaries and overextended themselves with large mortgages will probably need to sell and move. San Francisco is experiencing a come back after people left for OOS and the suburbs during COVID.

With Bay Area they aren't going to allow 30 story high density affordable housing especially in a suburb. And I think a lot of people would rather continue to rent if they can't buy a single family home.

Real example: SFH in S.F. listed in 2014 for $1.25m (not renovated, paint and removed old carpet to show hardwood floors), bidding war, sold for $1.75m. Owner did some renovations. Listed in 2021 for $2.5m, sold $3.078m. That's more than double in 7 years. Probably similar appreciation in Silicon Valley area

Contrast that with my Indianapolis metro area rental, nice suburb, highly rated schools. Bought for $140k in 2013, Market value in 2023 to present around $300k. Doubled in 10 years. Midwest is stable and doesn't have wild fluctuations like California, probably didn't go down 50% in 2008.

Looking back further to 1990s, there were deals in 2008 which I know some people jumped on that in the Bay Area. There are probably people regretting selling in the early 2000s or in 2010-2020 now.

I missed the Austin, Texas and Florida buying era and appreciation but prices are declining in those areas now.

I'd rather have the appreciation on a California home than it went up $100k to $150k on a home in the Midwest. I would never sell my Bay Area properties to get more doors OOS.

It'll be interesting to see how other states who become more tech oriented in terms of industries and how much they'll go up with home values. I agree on the supply constraints and job growth.
3 Reply
- Bruce WoodruffPro Member
  Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Great post! I think with coastal California and land constraints and regulations the appreciation will be higher even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in.
  
  With the Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Mateo have surpassed home sales and prices in San Francisco because they're near Silicon Valley. As far as tech layoffs, I'm uncertain how much this will affect home sales/values - people who can't find a job with $400k+ salaries and overextended themselves with large mortgages will probably need to sell and move. San Francisco is experiencing a come back after people left for OOS and the suburbs during COVID.
  
  With Bay Area they aren't going to allow 30 story high density affordable housing especially in a suburb. And I think a lot of people would rather continue to rent if they can't buy a single family home.
  
  Real example: SFH in S.F. listed in 2014 for $1.25m (not renovated, paint and removed old carpet to show hardwood floors), bidding war, sold for $1.75m. Owner did some renovations. Listed in 2021 for $2.5m, sold $3.078m. That's more than double in 7 years. Probably similar appreciation in Silicon Valley area
  
  Contrast that with my Indianapolis metro area rental, nice suburb, highly rated schools. Bought for $140k in 2013, Market value in 2023 to present around $300k. Doubled in 10 years. Midwest is stable and doesn't have wild fluctuations like California, probably didn't go down 50% in 2008.
  
  Looking back further to 1990s, there were deals in 2008 which I know some people jumped on that in the Bay Area. There are probably people regretting selling in the early 2000s or in 2010-2020 now.
  
  I missed the Austin, Texas and Florida buying era and appreciation but prices are declining in those areas now.
  
  I'd rather have the appreciation on a California home than it went up $100k to $150k on a home in the Midwest. I would never sell my Bay Area properties to get more doors OOS.
  
  It'll be interesting to see how other states who become more tech oriented in terms of industries and how much they'll go up with home values. I agree on the supply constraints and job growth.
  
  "even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in"
  
  This is not a real number. Unless you're cherry-picking some particular City to make your point. It's a fact that about 1,000 people per day were leaving up until recently. And Cali counts illegals, homeless and even births to keep this number from looking even worse.
  0 Reply
- Becca F.
  Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
  
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Great post! I think with coastal California and land constraints and regulations the appreciation will be higher even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in.
  
  With the Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Mateo have surpassed home sales and prices in San Francisco because they're near Silicon Valley. As far as tech layoffs, I'm uncertain how much this will affect home sales/values - people who can't find a job with $400k+ salaries and overextended themselves with large mortgages will probably need to sell and move. San Francisco is experiencing a come back after people left for OOS and the suburbs during COVID.
  
  With Bay Area they aren't going to allow 30 story high density affordable housing especially in a suburb. And I think a lot of people would rather continue to rent if they can't buy a single family home.
  
  Real example: SFH in S.F. listed in 2014 for $1.25m (not renovated, paint and removed old carpet to show hardwood floors), bidding war, sold for $1.75m. Owner did some renovations. Listed in 2021 for $2.5m, sold $3.078m. That's more than double in 7 years. Probably similar appreciation in Silicon Valley area
  
  Contrast that with my Indianapolis metro area rental, nice suburb, highly rated schools. Bought for $140k in 2013, Market value in 2023 to present around $300k. Doubled in 10 years. Midwest is stable and doesn't have wild fluctuations like California, probably didn't go down 50% in 2008.
  
  Looking back further to 1990s, there were deals in 2008 which I know some people jumped on that in the Bay Area. There are probably people regretting selling in the early 2000s or in 2010-2020 now.
  
  I missed the Austin, Texas and Florida buying era and appreciation but prices are declining in those areas now.
  
  I'd rather have the appreciation on a California home than it went up $100k to $150k on a home in the Midwest. I would never sell my Bay Area properties to get more doors OOS.
  
  It'll be interesting to see how other states who become more tech oriented in terms of industries and how much they'll go up with home values. I agree on the supply constraints and job growth.
  
  "even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in"
  
  This is not a real number. Unless you're cherry-picking some particular City to make your point. It's a fact that about 1,000 people per day were leaving up until recently. And Cali counts illegals, homeless and even births to keep this number from looking even worse.
  Ok I take back that number. I don't remember where I saw it. It's still crowded here. Homeless people and undocumented (illegal) immigrants and babies are people - you can't count them as half a person or something. I'm not a Census or population expert.
  
  Recent stats: There is a small increase of 0.6% from 2023 to 2024.
  
  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045224
  
  In San Francisco, in 2021 over 55,000 people moved out (the pandemic exodus). In 2023, net migration of 276.
  
  https://www.sf.gov/data--san-francisco-population-and-migrat...
  
  San Jose: 1500 fewer residents than in 2023
  
  https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/06/02/san-jose-drops-anot...
  
  Areas people are moving from out of state and in state to San Jose
  
  https://sjtoday.6amcity.com/culture/uhaul-moving-trends-san-...
  6 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
  
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Great post! I think with coastal California and land constraints and regulations the appreciation will be higher even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in.
  
  With the Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Mateo have surpassed home sales and prices in San Francisco because they're near Silicon Valley. As far as tech layoffs, I'm uncertain how much this will affect home sales/values - people who can't find a job with $400k+ salaries and overextended themselves with large mortgages will probably need to sell and move. San Francisco is experiencing a come back after people left for OOS and the suburbs during COVID.
  
  With Bay Area they aren't going to allow 30 story high density affordable housing especially in a suburb. And I think a lot of people would rather continue to rent if they can't buy a single family home.
  
  Real example: SFH in S.F. listed in 2014 for $1.25m (not renovated, paint and removed old carpet to show hardwood floors), bidding war, sold for $1.75m. Owner did some renovations. Listed in 2021 for $2.5m, sold $3.078m. That's more than double in 7 years. Probably similar appreciation in Silicon Valley area
  
  Contrast that with my Indianapolis metro area rental, nice suburb, highly rated schools. Bought for $140k in 2013, Market value in 2023 to present around $300k. Doubled in 10 years. Midwest is stable and doesn't have wild fluctuations like California, probably didn't go down 50% in 2008.
  
  Looking back further to 1990s, there were deals in 2008 which I know some people jumped on that in the Bay Area. There are probably people regretting selling in the early 2000s or in 2010-2020 now.
  
  I missed the Austin, Texas and Florida buying era and appreciation but prices are declining in those areas now.
  
  I'd rather have the appreciation on a California home than it went up $100k to $150k on a home in the Midwest. I would never sell my Bay Area properties to get more doors OOS.
  
  It'll be interesting to see how other states who become more tech oriented in terms of industries and how much they'll go up with home values. I agree on the supply constraints and job growth.
  
  "even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in"
  
  This is not a real number. Unless you're cherry-picking some particular City to make your point. It's a fact that about 1,000 people per day were leaving up until recently. And Cali counts illegals, homeless and even births to keep this number from looking even worse.
  Ok I take back that number. I don't remember where I saw it. It's still crowded here. Homeless people and undocumented (illegal) immigrants and babies are people - you can't count them as half a person or something. I'm not a Census or population expert.
  
  Recent stats: There is a small increase of 0.6% from 2023 to 2024.
  
  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045224
  
  In San Francisco, in 2021 over 55,000 people moved out (the pandemic exodus). In 2023, net migration of 276.
  
  https://www.sf.gov/data--san-francisco-population-and-migrat...
  
  San Jose: 1500 fewer residents than in 2023
  
  https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/06/02/san-jose-drops-anot...
  
  Areas people are moving from out of state and in state to San Jose
  
  https://sjtoday.6amcity.com/culture/uhaul-moving-trends-san-...
  
  I just look at the freeways.. I moved from the Napa Valley in 2001.. prior to that lived in CA since 1956. I go back today ( last trip was Oct) and Traffic is NUTS way worse . I used to be if you were going to Tahoe on 80 once you got across the bridge in Vallejo it was smooth sailing maybe a little slow through Sac at the wrong time of day.. Now it can be bumper to bumper 40 miles before you even get to Vallejo on the return.. So someone is coming from somewhere.
  
  Same thing here in Portland when I worked here in the 90s nary a traffic jam. now 30 to 1 plus commutes to cross town are daily.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  2 Reply
- Becca F.
  Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
  
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
  
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Great post! I think with coastal California and land constraints and regulations the appreciation will be higher even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in.
  
  With the Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Mateo have surpassed home sales and prices in San Francisco because they're near Silicon Valley. As far as tech layoffs, I'm uncertain how much this will affect home sales/values - people who can't find a job with $400k+ salaries and overextended themselves with large mortgages will probably need to sell and move. San Francisco is experiencing a come back after people left for OOS and the suburbs during COVID.
  
  With Bay Area they aren't going to allow 30 story high density affordable housing especially in a suburb. And I think a lot of people would rather continue to rent if they can't buy a single family home.
  
  Real example: SFH in S.F. listed in 2014 for $1.25m (not renovated, paint and removed old carpet to show hardwood floors), bidding war, sold for $1.75m. Owner did some renovations. Listed in 2021 for $2.5m, sold $3.078m. That's more than double in 7 years. Probably similar appreciation in Silicon Valley area
  
  Contrast that with my Indianapolis metro area rental, nice suburb, highly rated schools. Bought for $140k in 2013, Market value in 2023 to present around $300k. Doubled in 10 years. Midwest is stable and doesn't have wild fluctuations like California, probably didn't go down 50% in 2008.
  
  Looking back further to 1990s, there were deals in 2008 which I know some people jumped on that in the Bay Area. There are probably people regretting selling in the early 2000s or in 2010-2020 now.
  
  I missed the Austin, Texas and Florida buying era and appreciation but prices are declining in those areas now.
  
  I'd rather have the appreciation on a California home than it went up $100k to $150k on a home in the Midwest. I would never sell my Bay Area properties to get more doors OOS.
  
  It'll be interesting to see how other states who become more tech oriented in terms of industries and how much they'll go up with home values. I agree on the supply constraints and job growth.
  
  "even with 500,000 people that move out, there are still 400,000+ people moving in"
  
  This is not a real number. Unless you're cherry-picking some particular City to make your point. It's a fact that about 1,000 people per day were leaving up until recently. And Cali counts illegals, homeless and even births to keep this number from looking even worse.
  Ok I take back that number. I don't remember where I saw it. It's still crowded here. Homeless people and undocumented (illegal) immigrants and babies are people - you can't count them as half a person or something. I'm not a Census or population expert.
  
  Recent stats: There is a small increase of 0.6% from 2023 to 2024.
  
  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045224
  
  In San Francisco, in 2021 over 55,000 people moved out (the pandemic exodus). In 2023, net migration of 276.
  
  https://www.sf.gov/data--san-francisco-population-and-migrat...
  
  San Jose: 1500 fewer residents than in 2023
  
  https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/06/02/san-jose-drops-anot...
  
  Areas people are moving from out of state and in state to San Jose
  
  https://sjtoday.6amcity.com/culture/uhaul-moving-trends-san-...
  
  I just look at the freeways.. I moved from the Napa Valley in 2001.. prior to that lived in CA since 1956. I go back today ( last trip was Oct) and Traffic is NUTS way worse . I used to be if you were going to Tahoe on 80 once you got across the bridge in Vallejo it was smooth sailing maybe a little slow through Sac at the wrong time of day.. Now it can be bumper to bumper 40 miles before you even get to Vallejo on the return.. So someone is coming from somewhere.
  
  Same thing here in Portland when I worked here in the 90s nary a traffic jam. now 30 to 1 plus commutes to cross town are daily.
  
  Hwy 80 is terrible. There's no alternative highway or back roads to get to San Francisco if you live on that corridor. I haven't been up to Tahoe or Napa Valley in a couple of years but if I'm driving to Berkeley on the weekend mid-morning it's like rush hour traffic.
  A lot of people moved up to Sacramento because they were priced out of the Bay Area. And there are some brave people do that commute, which I guess if they only need to show up to the office once a week isn't bad.
  1 Reply
Daniel TanasaBusiness Member
Realtor · Houston, TX · Member since 2019 · 351 posts · 174 votes
1y
Quote from @Austin Wolff:

I was curious, so I looked at 20 years of Zillow data.
Growing up in Los Angeles, I always believed a saying that investors here seem to repeat: blue states appreciate more than red thanks to things like zoning restrictions and certain democratic policies (which is an entirely different topic I won't be delving on here).
For anyone that didn't know, here is a map of each state's electoral voting history (for the previous 5 elections):
Here is a heat map of 10-year price growth by state:
At first glance, it appears the majority of states with the most growth were the "pandemic boom states" like Idaho, Nevada, Tennessee, Georgia, Utah, and Florida. All of these states voted red in the 2024 election. (Surprisingly, the blue states of Maine and New Hampshire did see solid growth, along with the not-so-surprising Washington.)
But what about their growth over a longer time horizon?
(Zillow didn't have 2005 data for Montana or North Dakota.)
I can maybe see a case being made for Washington and Oregon. But Idaho, Utah and Tennessee also saw big price growth over the same time period.
To settle this debate, I simply calculated the correlation between each state's growth and the categorical "red' or "blue" variable. The correlation coefficient came in at 0.03. Basically, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between a state's voting history and its price growth.
Just because a state is blue doesn't mean it will automatically benefit from price growth. Things like job growth and supply constraints affect price much more than its residents' voting patterns.

It's great to finally see the data on this and getting it debunked.
Thank you for sharing this information Austin!
1 Reply
Geoff Regan
90039 · Member since 2022 · 22 posts · 5 votes
1y
I'm would love to see the stats on how much of the growth is because of outside money moving there. I'm in Los Angeles and know quite a few people who have moved to most a lot of the highlighted places. Most have moved to Idaho, Vegas, Reno, Scottsdale, etc. Many to retire or made enough money to be able to do a lot less and pay the bills. Any age statistics to blend with this? Lot of boomer money moving around.
1 Reply
Allan C.
Rental Property Investor · Member since 2018 · 826 posts · 810 votes
1y
I know you didn't intend for this to be click-baity, but this is a click-bait thread. Your original statement premise is a very broad generalization that has basis flaws.

I suspect this thread will get traction with blue vs red debates, but many opinions will miss fundamental drivers of asset growth and appreciation.
1 Reply
Joel OwensBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
1y
Talk to developers if they like more pro-business states or more red tape. They can build 3 to 4 commercial properties in Texas versus the same time doing 1 in CA.

By factor of belief systems they can generate almost 4 times the return in the same span. It's easier to sell properties in pro-business states as investor buyer pool is larger.

I have talked to thousands of millionaires over the decades and not that many like CA or want to invest there. Heck even clients I get that live there sell everything off but their house so if it gets too bad they can easily leave.

Lots of people there are mild to middle socialists but not extreme socialists so when a state starts trending that way it becomes too much for many of them. Of course there are some nice parts of CA. We visited there speaking at a conference many years ago about NNN properties.

The weather is nice and food is good but cost of living very high along with the taxes. Also get the strong winds and the fires which can be a major concern.

Right now at this very moment if I worked 70hrs a week I could make 20 million a year income but once you have so much money and get a certain age the TIME becomes more important and how you want to MAKE YOUR MONEY. It's not just about the most returns it's the life of the investor behind those returns and how active or passive they want to be to make that money.

In my world people are making millions to tens of millions a year income and they want no headache returns. You could present a hard 10% annual return or an easy 6% and they would take the 6%.

20% return on 100k dump house and area is 20,000 a year. Not living well on that. 2 million invested at 6% a year is 120,000 a year. In most places can live well on that. So as people's net worth grows they no longer want to deal with headaches and want to go passive. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

If an investor hasn't been in real estate for many decades they are often just making investment decisions with spreadsheets and data. Later on when they get extensive knowledge it's more about their vision for daily life that gives them the most joy and building an investment plan around that.

Podcast Guest on Show #47
NNN Invest53 Reviews
Website View Page
2 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Joel Owens:
  
  Talk to developers if they like more pro-business states or more red tape. They can build 3 to 4 commercial properties in Texas versus the same time doing 1 in CA.
  
  By factor of belief systems they can generate almost 4 times the return in the same span. It's easier to sell properties in pro-business states as investor buyer pool is larger.
  
  I have talked to thousands of millionaires over the decades and not that many like CA or want to invest there. Heck even clients I get that live there sell everything off but their house so if it gets too bad they can easily leave.
  
  Lots of people there are mild to middle socialists but not extreme socialists so when a state starts trending that way it becomes too much for many of them. Of course there are some nice parts of CA. We visited there speaking at a conference many years ago about NNN properties.
  
  The weather is nice and food is good but cost of living very high along with the taxes. Also get the strong winds and the fires which can be a major concern.
  
  Right now at this very moment if I worked 70hrs a week I could make 20 million a year income but once you have so much money and get a certain age the TIME becomes more important and how you want to MAKE YOUR MONEY. It's not just about the most returns it's the life of the investor behind those returns and how active or passive they want to be to make that money.
  
  In my world people are making millions to tens of millions a year income and they want no headache returns. You could present a hard 10% annual return or an easy 6% and they would take the 6%.
  
  20% return on 100k dump house and area is 20,000 a year. Not living well on that. 2 million invested at 6% a year is 120,000 a year. In most places can live well on that. So as people's net worth grows they no longer want to deal with headaches and want to go passive. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  
  If an investor hasn't been in real estate for many decades they are often just making investment decisions with spreadsheets and data. Later on when they get extensive knowledge it's more about their vision for daily life that gives them the most joy and building an investment plan around that.
  
  JOel what folks dont realize is that CA has a huge influence from Asia Pacific HUGE and also HUGE amount of High paid Engineers from India etc etc.. These folks by and large do not go out of CA to invest..
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  4 Reply
- Becca F.
  Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
  
  Quote from @Joel Owens:
  
  Talk to developers if they like more pro-business states or more red tape. They can build 3 to 4 commercial properties in Texas versus the same time doing 1 in CA.
  
  By factor of belief systems they can generate almost 4 times the return in the same span. It's easier to sell properties in pro-business states as investor buyer pool is larger.
  
  I have talked to thousands of millionaires over the decades and not that many like CA or want to invest there. Heck even clients I get that live there sell everything off but their house so if it gets too bad they can easily leave.
  
  Lots of people there are mild to middle socialists but not extreme socialists so when a state starts trending that way it becomes too much for many of them. Of course there are some nice parts of CA. We visited there speaking at a conference many years ago about NNN properties.
  
  The weather is nice and food is good but cost of living very high along with the taxes. Also get the strong winds and the fires which can be a major concern.
  
  Right now at this very moment if I worked 70hrs a week I could make 20 million a year income but once you have so much money and get a certain age the TIME becomes more important and how you want to MAKE YOUR MONEY. It's not just about the most returns it's the life of the investor behind those returns and how active or passive they want to be to make that money.
  
  In my world people are making millions to tens of millions a year income and they want no headache returns. You could present a hard 10% annual return or an easy 6% and they would take the 6%.
  
  20% return on 100k dump house and area is 20,000 a year. Not living well on that. 2 million invested at 6% a year is 120,000 a year. In most places can live well on that. So as people's net worth grows they no longer want to deal with headaches and want to go passive. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  
  If an investor hasn't been in real estate for many decades they are often just making investment decisions with spreadsheets and data. Later on when they get extensive knowledge it's more about their vision for daily life that gives them the most joy and building an investment plan around that.
  
  JOel what folks dont realize is that CA has a huge influence from Asia Pacific HUGE and also HUGE amount of High paid Engineers from India etc etc.. These folks by and large do not go out of CA to invest..
  
  I've talked to some of them. They have a lot of capital. I thought I heard it all with $400k to $500k salaries but recently $850k tech salary.
  San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland have passed measures with vacancy taxes to prevent investors from buying properties (or current owners) and just letting it sit empty to help alleviate the housing shortage. Why someone would let a property sit empty which makes it at risk for squatters, vandalism, risk of leaking pipes, mold, etc makes no sense but I guess it's a place to for them to park their money.
  1 Reply
Jeremy Brown
Real Estate Agent · Sandpoint, ID · Member since 2023 · 8 posts · 3 votes
1y
Interesting! Great info, Thanks you 👍
0 Reply
Eric James
Investor · Malakoff, TX · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
1y
There are many other covariates that may explain more of the variation in price appreciation. Such as population density (urban vs rural) and population growth that may be more relevant than political affiliation.
2 Reply
Ben FernandezBusiness Member
Realtor · Lancaster, PA · Member since 2025 · 169 posts · 97 votes
1y
Overall Texas has the highest growth over the last 20 years.

Mainly attributed to job growth and that respective growth throughout the south. Which includes; Arizona, Nevada, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

Texas and its high volume of major metros and central location (for the south), has made it an ideal central headquarter location for many employers. North Carolina and Georgia have seen similar characteristics.

However, they are catering moreso the east coast where about a third of the USA's GDP based commerce occurs. East coast also ranks the highest contributor to commerce.

To summarize, perhaps the drivers for major corporations could be cost of land, consumer based logistical lead times, current population to support talent fulfillment and forward growth projection potential.

These factors contribute to the drivers that make up emerging markets and then appreciation.
[email protected]717-945-7040
0 Reply
Steve K.
Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
1y
Who buys a whole state though? Most people just buy individual properties.

I jest of course, but it's a silly thought to imagine states appreciating. If you want useful data in real estate you have to zoom in a lot more. It is also a silly (and divisive) exercise to imagine states appreciating differently than others based on their voting results, or even states being red or blue because no state votes 100% one way or the other obviously. Most states are solidly purple. It's necessary to reduce states to red or blue for the electoral college results, but that's about the extent of the usefulness of being so crude with the data.

Real estate data needs to be much more local than the state level to tell us anything useful, that goes without saying. For example most investors buy in cities, and just about every major city in the US is blue. So even if you're buying exclusively in "red states", you're probably still buying in a "blue city". A comparison of major red cities vs. major blue cities would basically be Oklahoma City and Fort Worth vs. every other city in the country, so how useful is that? If you really want to compare red and blue areas to see which appreciate better, you'd have to compare rural vs. urban areas because rural areas are mostly red and urban areas are mostly blue. Or you can compare the very most red or blue states to each other, like CA, VT, MA and DE vs. OK, WY, ID, and WV. It would still be pretty asinine though. Landlord/ tenant laws are also typically made on the municipal level more-so than the state level with some exceptions like the statewide rent control ban that we have in Colorado...

Sorry I just don't see how it can be useful to look at real estate from a state level and pretend that electoral college votes have much if anything to do with appreciation. There are so many other factors in play that are so much more important for appreciation than votes. Especially because the voting margins are actually super narrow in a lot of states, and really most are a shade of purple. 10 states swung from red to blue by less than ~5% of the votes in the past two elections, and a handful by less than 1%. If several thousand people had voted differently would those states appreciate any more or less?

I'll take the purplest state please.
1 Reply
- Becca F.
  Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Steve K.:
  
  Who buys a whole state though? Most people just buy individual properties.
  
  I jest of course, but it's a silly thought to imagine states appreciating. If you want useful data in real estate you have to zoom in a lot more. It is also a silly (and divisive) exercise to imagine states appreciating differently than others based on their voting results, or even states being red or blue because no state votes 100% one way or the other obviously. Most states are solidly purple. It's necessary to reduce states to red or blue for the electoral college results, but that's about the extent of the usefulness of being so crude with the data.
  
  Real estate data needs to be much more local than the state level to tell us anything useful, that goes without saying. For example most investors buy in cities, and just about every major city in the US is blue. So even if you're buying exclusively in "red states", you're probably still buying in a "blue city". A comparison of major red cities vs. major blue cities would basically be Oklahoma City and Fort Worth vs. every other city in the country, so how useful is that? If you really want to compare red and blue areas to see which appreciate better, you'd have to compare rural vs. urban areas because rural areas are mostly red and urban areas are mostly blue. Or you can compare the very most red or blue states to each other, like CA, VT, MA and DE vs. OK, WY, ID, and WV. It would still be pretty asinine though. Landlord/ tenant laws are also typically made on the municipal level more-so than the state level with some exceptions like the statewide rent control ban that we have in Colorado...
  
  Sorry I just don't see how it can be useful to look at real estate from a state level and pretend that electoral college votes have much if anything to do with appreciation. There are so many other factors in play that are so much more important for appreciation than votes. Especially because the voting margins are actually super narrow in a lot of states, and really most are a shade of purple. 10 states swung from red to blue by less than ~5% of the votes in the past two elections, and a handful by less than 1%. If several thousand people had voted differently would those states appreciate any more or less?
  
  I'll take the purplest state please.
  
  Appreciate the breakdown. I've been on BP long enough to read the "California is a terrible place to invest" posts. California is a huge state - San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, NorCal (Sonoma, Napa, Eureka, etc), LA area, San Diego, and many parts of SoCal that I don't know about.
  
  I don't dispute that it leans towards tenant friendly and has a lot of regulations. Rent control is much more localized. For example, San Francisco considers a multi-unit to be 2 unit or more, which includes having an ADU on a SFH property - that would be under rent control. If buying now, I personally wouldn't buy in S.F., Oakland, or Berkeley which are very pro-tenant. I think the other parts of the Bay Area are much better for investing. I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control. Sacramento leans towards a little more landlord friendly from talking to agents there.
  
  We have Proposition 13 which limits property tax increases to 2% a year (unless doing a significant renovation causing it to be re-assessed). Many long time investors are paying $2000 a year property tax on property valued at $1 million. It's unfair to new homeowners and investors, where the value is re-assessed upon purchase. How many other states have this type of property tax increase cap?
  
  CA recently passed a proposition in Nov. 2024 banning rent control between tenants. Ex: Tenant A who's lived in a unit for 30 years paying $1400 a month rent moves out. New Tenant B who moves in can charged market rate rent at $4000 a month. There were efforts to prevent the huge increase between Tenant A and B. Luckily this didn't work - rise in insurance costs and other costs and expecting landlords to keep rents at year 2000 level isn't common sense.
  
  On the flip side I've heard "Texas has high property taxes and you shouldn't buy there". I have CA investor friends recently buying multi-units and commercial property (for businesses) in Texas.
  
  Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
  
  4 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Quote from @Steve K.:
  
  Who buys a whole state though? Most people just buy individual properties.
  
  I jest of course, but it's a silly thought to imagine states appreciating. If you want useful data in real estate you have to zoom in a lot more. It is also a silly (and divisive) exercise to imagine states appreciating differently than others based on their voting results, or even states being red or blue because no state votes 100% one way or the other obviously. Most states are solidly purple. It's necessary to reduce states to red or blue for the electoral college results, but that's about the extent of the usefulness of being so crude with the data.
  
  Real estate data needs to be much more local than the state level to tell us anything useful, that goes without saying. For example most investors buy in cities, and just about every major city in the US is blue. So even if you're buying exclusively in "red states", you're probably still buying in a "blue city". A comparison of major red cities vs. major blue cities would basically be Oklahoma City and Fort Worth vs. every other city in the country, so how useful is that? If you really want to compare red and blue areas to see which appreciate better, you'd have to compare rural vs. urban areas because rural areas are mostly red and urban areas are mostly blue. Or you can compare the very most red or blue states to each other, like CA, VT, MA and DE vs. OK, WY, ID, and WV. It would still be pretty asinine though. Landlord/ tenant laws are also typically made on the municipal level more-so than the state level with some exceptions like the statewide rent control ban that we have in Colorado...
  
  Sorry I just don't see how it can be useful to look at real estate from a state level and pretend that electoral college votes have much if anything to do with appreciation. There are so many other factors in play that are so much more important for appreciation than votes. Especially because the voting margins are actually super narrow in a lot of states, and really most are a shade of purple. 10 states swung from red to blue by less than ~5% of the votes in the past two elections, and a handful by less than 1%. If several thousand people had voted differently would those states appreciate any more or less?
  
  I'll take the purplest state please.
  
  Appreciate the breakdown. I've been on BP long enough to read the "California is a terrible place to invest" posts. California is a huge state - San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, NorCal (Sonoma, Napa, Eureka, etc), LA area, San Diego, and many parts of SoCal that I don't know about.
  
  I don't dispute that it leans towards tenant friendly and has a lot of regulations. Rent control is much more localized. For example, San Francisco considers a multi-unit to be 2 unit or more, which includes having an ADU on a SFH property - that would be under rent control. If buying now, I personally wouldn't buy in S.F., Oakland, or Berkeley which are very pro-tenant. I think the other parts of the Bay Area are much better for investing. I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control. Sacramento leans towards a little more landlord friendly from talking to agents there.
  
  We have Proposition 13 which limits property tax increases to 2% a year (unless doing a significant renovation causing it to be re-assessed). Many long time investors are paying $2000 a year property tax on property valued at $1 million. It's unfair to new homeowners and investors, where the value is re-assessed upon purchase. How many other states have this type of property tax increase cap?
  
  CA recently passed a proposition in Nov. 2024 banning rent control between tenants. Ex: Tenant A who's lived in a unit for 30 years paying $1400 a month rent moves out. New Tenant B who moves in can charged market rate rent at $4000 a month. There were efforts to prevent the huge increase between Tenant A and B. Luckily this didn't work - rise in insurance costs and other costs and expecting landlords to keep rents at year 2000 level isn't common sense.
  
  On the flip side I've heard "Texas has high property taxes and you shouldn't buy there". I have CA investor friends recently buying multi-units and commercial property (for businesses) in Texas.
  
  Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
  
  I think Berkley has had rent control since the 70s or so.. I remember them having it when I was first starting out in RE. And Bay Area MHP had rent control for decades as well. Its not a new thing.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  1 Reply
- Dan H.Pro Member
  Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Quote from @Steve K.:
  
  Who buys a whole state though? Most people just buy individual properties.
  
  I jest of course, but it's a silly thought to imagine states appreciating. If you want useful data in real estate you have to zoom in a lot more. It is also a silly (and divisive) exercise to imagine states appreciating differently than others based on their voting results, or even states being red or blue because no state votes 100% one way or the other obviously. Most states are solidly purple. It's necessary to reduce states to red or blue for the electoral college results, but that's about the extent of the usefulness of being so crude with the data.
  
  Real estate data needs to be much more local than the state level to tell us anything useful, that goes without saying. For example most investors buy in cities, and just about every major city in the US is blue. So even if you're buying exclusively in "red states", you're probably still buying in a "blue city". A comparison of major red cities vs. major blue cities would basically be Oklahoma City and Fort Worth vs. every other city in the country, so how useful is that? If you really want to compare red and blue areas to see which appreciate better, you'd have to compare rural vs. urban areas because rural areas are mostly red and urban areas are mostly blue. Or you can compare the very most red or blue states to each other, like CA, VT, MA and DE vs. OK, WY, ID, and WV. It would still be pretty asinine though. Landlord/ tenant laws are also typically made on the municipal level more-so than the state level with some exceptions like the statewide rent control ban that we have in Colorado...
  
  Sorry I just don't see how it can be useful to look at real estate from a state level and pretend that electoral college votes have much if anything to do with appreciation. There are so many other factors in play that are so much more important for appreciation than votes. Especially because the voting margins are actually super narrow in a lot of states, and really most are a shade of purple. 10 states swung from red to blue by less than ~5% of the votes in the past two elections, and a handful by less than 1%. If several thousand people had voted differently would those states appreciate any more or less?
  
  I'll take the purplest state please.
  
  Appreciate the breakdown. I've been on BP long enough to read the "California is a terrible place to invest" posts. California is a huge state - San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, NorCal (Sonoma, Napa, Eureka, etc), LA area, San Diego, and many parts of SoCal that I don't know about.
  
  I don't dispute that it leans towards tenant friendly and has a lot of regulations. Rent control is much more localized. For example, San Francisco considers a multi-unit to be 2 unit or more, which includes having an ADU on a SFH property - that would be under rent control. If buying now, I personally wouldn't buy in S.F., Oakland, or Berkeley which are very pro-tenant. I think the other parts of the Bay Area are much better for investing. I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control. Sacramento leans towards a little more landlord friendly from talking to agents there.
  
  We have Proposition 13 which limits property tax increases to 2% a year (unless doing a significant renovation causing it to be re-assessed). Many long time investors are paying $2000 a year property tax on property valued at $1 million. It's unfair to new homeowners and investors, where the value is re-assessed upon purchase. How many other states have this type of property tax increase cap?
  
  CA recently passed a proposition in Nov. 2024 banning rent control between tenants. Ex: Tenant A who's lived in a unit for 30 years paying $1400 a month rent moves out. New Tenant B who moves in can charged market rate rent at $4000 a month. There were efforts to prevent the huge increase between Tenant A and B. Luckily this didn't work - rise in insurance costs and other costs and expecting landlords to keep rents at year 2000 level isn't common sense.
  
  On the flip side I've heard "Texas has high property taxes and you shouldn't buy there". I have CA investor friends recently buying multi-units and commercial property (for businesses) in Texas.
  
  Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
  
  >I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control.
  4 units in CA are rent controlled under the state rent control law (AB1482). This law allows significant rent increases (CPI + 5%, capped at 10%). I recognize it is not the extreme rent control that applies in some jurisdictions in CA. However, It has all the other issues associated with rent control such as difficulty getting marginal tenants out of the unit.
  Prior to rent control, if I had a tenant that was rough on the unit I would increase their rent to above market rent to solicit the tenant giving notice. Keeping the rent near market rate can still allow this to work in years where the market rents have increased modesty, but is useless to get rid of a tenant in years where the market rent has increased above or near the maximum rent increase.
  Screen well if you have CA MF as it is difficult to get rid of poor tenants that pay their rent.
  Good luck
  1 Reply
- Becca F.
  Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Dan H.:
  
  Quote from @Becca F.:
  
  Quote from @Steve K.:
  
  Who buys a whole state though? Most people just buy individual properties.
  
  I jest of course, but it's a silly thought to imagine states appreciating. If you want useful data in real estate you have to zoom in a lot more. It is also a silly (and divisive) exercise to imagine states appreciating differently than others based on their voting results, or even states being red or blue because no state votes 100% one way or the other obviously. Most states are solidly purple. It's necessary to reduce states to red or blue for the electoral college results, but that's about the extent of the usefulness of being so crude with the data.
  
  Real estate data needs to be much more local than the state level to tell us anything useful, that goes without saying. For example most investors buy in cities, and just about every major city in the US is blue. So even if you're buying exclusively in "red states", you're probably still buying in a "blue city". A comparison of major red cities vs. major blue cities would basically be Oklahoma City and Fort Worth vs. every other city in the country, so how useful is that? If you really want to compare red and blue areas to see which appreciate better, you'd have to compare rural vs. urban areas because rural areas are mostly red and urban areas are mostly blue. Or you can compare the very most red or blue states to each other, like CA, VT, MA and DE vs. OK, WY, ID, and WV. It would still be pretty asinine though. Landlord/ tenant laws are also typically made on the municipal level more-so than the state level with some exceptions like the statewide rent control ban that we have in Colorado...
  
  Sorry I just don't see how it can be useful to look at real estate from a state level and pretend that electoral college votes have much if anything to do with appreciation. There are so many other factors in play that are so much more important for appreciation than votes. Especially because the voting margins are actually super narrow in a lot of states, and really most are a shade of purple. 10 states swung from red to blue by less than ~5% of the votes in the past two elections, and a handful by less than 1%. If several thousand people had voted differently would those states appreciate any more or less?
  
  I'll take the purplest state please.
  
  Appreciate the breakdown. I've been on BP long enough to read the "California is a terrible place to invest" posts. California is a huge state - San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, NorCal (Sonoma, Napa, Eureka, etc), LA area, San Diego, and many parts of SoCal that I don't know about.
  
  I don't dispute that it leans towards tenant friendly and has a lot of regulations. Rent control is much more localized. For example, San Francisco considers a multi-unit to be 2 unit or more, which includes having an ADU on a SFH property - that would be under rent control. If buying now, I personally wouldn't buy in S.F., Oakland, or Berkeley which are very pro-tenant. I think the other parts of the Bay Area are much better for investing. I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control. Sacramento leans towards a little more landlord friendly from talking to agents there.
  
  We have Proposition 13 which limits property tax increases to 2% a year (unless doing a significant renovation causing it to be re-assessed). Many long time investors are paying $2000 a year property tax on property valued at $1 million. It's unfair to new homeowners and investors, where the value is re-assessed upon purchase. How many other states have this type of property tax increase cap?
  
  CA recently passed a proposition in Nov. 2024 banning rent control between tenants. Ex: Tenant A who's lived in a unit for 30 years paying $1400 a month rent moves out. New Tenant B who moves in can charged market rate rent at $4000 a month. There were efforts to prevent the huge increase between Tenant A and B. Luckily this didn't work - rise in insurance costs and other costs and expecting landlords to keep rents at year 2000 level isn't common sense.
  
  On the flip side I've heard "Texas has high property taxes and you shouldn't buy there". I have CA investor friends recently buying multi-units and commercial property (for businesses) in Texas.
  
  Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
  
  >I just walked a 4 unit in a suburb of S.F. - that's not under rent control.
  4 units in CA are rent controlled under the state rent control law (AB1482). This law allows significant rent increases (CPI + 5%, capped at 10%). I recognize it is not the extreme rent control that applies in some jurisdictions in CA. However, It has all the other issues associated with rent control such as difficulty getting marginal tenants out of the unit.
  Prior to rent control, if I had a tenant that was rough on the unit I would increase their rent to above market rent to solicit the tenant giving notice. Keeping the rent near market rate can still allow this to work in years where the market rents have increased modesty, but is useless to get rid of a tenant in years where the market rent has increased above or near the maximum rent increase.
  Screen well if you have CA MF as it is difficult to get rid of poor tenants that pay their rent.
  Good luck
  
  Got it. I feel like there should they should change the terminology for rent control - "extreme rent control" and "not extreme rent control"...LOL... I was told different things regarding single family home rent increase - I raised the rent the 10% (CPI + 5%) one year. I had to look on the local rental laws site - it also depends on the year the tenant moved in, year the property was built, etc. I do have a multi-family and rent increase is 1.6% for 2025-2026 (in 2023 they allowed 3.6%)
  https://tenantlawgroupsf.com/blog/2018/november/which-cities...
  The agent who listed the 4 unit said there's no rent control. It was in the city of San Leandro. They have a Rent Review Program.
  https://www.sanleandro.org/317/Rent-Review-Program
  I'm not making an offer on the 4 unit property but someone did.
  0 Reply
Tenzapa Wakombe
Real Estate Agent · Nashville, TN · Member since 2025 · 125 posts · 62 votes
1y
Real estate prices don’t care about politics; they care about jobs, supply, and demand.
The past decade (especially the pandemic years) saw massive growth in places like Idaho, Tennessee, and Utah—not because they’re red states, but because people and businesses moved there for affordability, space, and opportunity. Meanwhile, some traditionally high-growth blue states like California and New York saw people leaving due to high costs and remote work shifts.

At the end of the day, smart investors follow the numbers, not the politics. Great post!
1 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.