# More Walgreens in San Francisco Closing due to Retail Theft



## Superchief (Oct 13, 2021)

Walgreens closing 5 more San Francisco stores due to organized shoplifting
					

Last year, Walgreens closed one store in the city where the chain said it was losing $1,000 a day to thefts.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 13, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Walgreens closing 5 more San Francisco stores due to organized shoplifting
> 
> 
> Last year, Walgreens closed one store in the city where the chain said it was losing $1,000 a day to thefts.
> ...


About a year ago, while staying at the Donatello, I went to nearby Walgreens and was surprised that the item I wanted was under lock and key. They told me about problem with theft.


----------



## troy12n (Oct 13, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> About a year ago, while staying at the Donatello, I went to nearby Walgreens and was surprised that the item I wanted was under lock and key. They told me about problem with theft.



I stayed at the Donatello before, and went to that Walgreens... *ONCE*. After that one time, I walked a little farther to the closest CVS which is in a much better part of town. Less human feces and urine to step on.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 13, 2021)

From the story, San Francisco city leaders at least pay lip service to the issue.  In Seattle people such as the current City Attorney are more likely to say that theft from stores is the store's problem, not the city's problem.  And that by getting the police involved in deterring shoplifting, the retailers are attempting to outsource their security costs to the city.   And right now, one of the two candidates for new City Attorney, the one who got the most votes in the primary, has stated that she intends to stop prosecution of almost all misdemeanors.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 13, 2021)

Media hype. I was in SF last weekend for the first time since Covid. I had similar impressions from the last time I was there.  I stayed in SOMA and passed through the Mission where you would expect to see feces. I saw no feces, or urine on the street.  Although there are homeless, what city doesn't? Number of homeless was about the same as NYC or any large city like Cinncinatti. It looked a lot cleaner since the last time I was there.

I saw a lively vibrant city with many young people working in tech. Many people walking around, on bikes and in parks. I saw neighborhood restaurants and nice outdoor eating pods. If it were unsafe or there were feces on the sidewalk, or homeless overrun why would they have eating pods on the street?   My DD just moved there to work at a startup.  I would have advised her against moving there if I had concerns - I have none that are different than any large city. The entire SOMA area which was formerly urban wasteland is now populated by tech HQs - Uber, Slack, Twitter, Salesforce...


----------



## Superchief (Oct 13, 2021)

If the chains like Walgreens can't afford to stay open, I really feel sorry for the small business owners. They pay their high taxes and don't get protection from the shoplifters or other crimes. I've recently read several posts in Flyertok and other TUG threads that you can't park on the street near Fisherman's Wharf due to car break-ins.

Cincinnati has its share of homeless and drug/gang shootings, but there only a few areas where you don't feel safe. Police arrest shoplifters and burglars.


----------



## troy12n (Oct 13, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I've recently read several posts in Flyertok and other TUG threads that you can't park on the street near Fisherman's Wharf due to car break-ins.



That's not just fisherman's wharf, its city-wide and been that way for a long time. Even if you don't have anything valuable in site, they will break into your car just to sleep in it


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 13, 2021)

troy12n said:


> That's not just fisherman's wharf, its city-wide and been that way for a long time. Even if you don't have anything valuable in site, they will break into your car just to sleep in it


Have you ever been to San Francisco?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 13, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Cincinnati has its share of homeless and drug/gang shootings, but there only a few areas where you don't feel safe.



SF is no different. There are only a few areas where you don't feel safe at night. There are also just as many nutty politicians and quirky laws in flyover country as well.  Just look at the hot mess in Texas. Besides:

Other than Colorado, I don't hear young people saying they want to live in midwestern and southern states.  Where else can a college graduate with zero experience get a job for low 6 figures?
I don't see young entrepreneurs around the world flocking to these states to build their tech businesses.
I don't see businesses from around the world like Walmart.com. Volvo and Ricoh building innovation centers there.
If it is so bad as you say, then why do they come here?

Lastly, how do we know that the Walgreens story is true or just corporate spin to cover the real reasons they are leaving? Competition is intense here, we have CVS, Rite Aid, Target, Walmart, Kaiser, local pharmacies and grocery stores. Maybe that's the real reason they cannot make money. Their stock would take a hit if it were known they were reducing stores because lower per store profitability is a mark of market saturation and a death spiral. This story is more convenient and won't affect the stock price negatively.


----------



## Brett (Oct 13, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> SF is no different. There are only a few areas where you don't feel safe at night. There are also just as many nutty politicians and quirky laws in flyover country as well.  Just look at the hot mess in Texas. Besides:
> 
> Other than Colorado, I don't hear young people saying they want to live in flyover states.  Where else can a college graduate with zero experience get a job for low 6 figures?
> I don't see young entrepreneurs around the world flocking to flyover to build their tech businesses.
> ...



_"There are only a few areas where you don't feel safe at night"_

meaning that in *most *places you* do* feel safe -  like in Virginia.  plenty of Walgreens  and CVS and Rite Aid ....


----------



## Superchief (Oct 13, 2021)

Actually, a lot of young people are moving to the Cincinnati area because there are a lot of job opportunities, housing is affordable, and it is a safe environment to raise their family. The only problem now is that Hamilton County politicians continue to raise property taxes to fund their pet projects so our taxes are higher than many other areas. This has driven home owners to outlying counties.


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 13, 2021)

Didn’t another thread just like this dumping on or praising some other states/cities where somebody does or doesn’t live get shut down?

Live where you like and who cares what you think about someplace else. 

Time for a sub forum bashing other places where they can be ignored en masse like I do with the COVID Sub Forum. Then anybody can point out how horrible/great someplace is to their heart’s content.

Cheers


----------



## klpca (Oct 13, 2021)

x3 skier said:


> Didn’t another thread just like this dumping on or praising some other states/cities where somebody does or doesn’t live get shut down?
> 
> Live where you like and who cares what you think about someplace else.
> 
> ...


I could not agree with you more. Man, live where you want to live! Respect other's choices. What is the point of tearing down others choices? I really don't understand that at all.

Some of us were born and raised here - it is our home. We have family here. We have raised children here. It's not perfect and we are definitely aware of that fact because we actually live here. But we have good memories and would appreciate folks not bashing our home  simply because they don't like it. It's ok to like where you live and not like California. There are places where I could not live (honestly weather related for me) - ever. But some folks live in those states and I will never express my personal opinion about those places because there are people who live there and love it. It is their home and I respect that.

If everyone liked the exact same thing we wouldn't be able to find our car in the parking lot. So thank goodness that there is something for everyone in the US


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 13, 2021)

What is a fly over?


----------



## DrQ (Oct 13, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> What is a fly over?


Any place between New York City and Los Angeles.


----------



## zentraveler (Oct 13, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> What is a fly over?



Generally refers to the "flat" midwestern plains states; east of the Rockies to about Ohio. But for anyone who has never lived anywhere but the coasts, anything between NYC and LA is the prevailing thought  .

Signed, 
formerly of Illinois, Missouri and Ohio


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

I don't blame Walgreens closing to protect their assets.  They are in business to make money and not give it away.

I was last in S.F. in 2005 and don't plan on returning.   Been there, done that.

Never been to Portland, OR or Seattle, WA and really doubt if I'll ever make it there.  Portland, ME is a great city to visit.


.


----------



## DrQ (Oct 14, 2021)

zentraveler said:


> Generally refers to the "flat" midwestern plains states; east of the Rockies to about Ohio. But for anyone who has never lived anywhere but the coasts, anything between NYC and LA is the prevailing thought  .
> 
> Signed,
> formerly of Illinois, Missouri and Ohio


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> What is a fly over?


"Fly over" is a term often associated with east and west coast elites to refer to the heartland states.  Because those are areas you have to fly over when you are traveling between the places that really matter. 

Those who use the term "fly over" generally find the phrase a bit cute.  People I know who live in the "fly over" areas find it snobbish and offensive.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 14, 2021)

One of our 


T_R_Oglodyte said:


> From the story, San Francisco city leaders at least pay lip service to the issue.  In Seattle people such as the current City Attorney are more likely to say that theft from stores is the store's problem, not the city's problem.  And that by getting the police involved in deterring shoplifting, the retailers are attempting to outsource their security costs to the city.   And right now, one of the two candidates for new City Attorney, the one who got the most votes in the primary, has stated that she intends to stop prosecution of almost all misdemeanors.



Downtown Seattle was such a cool place to hang out. Same with Portland. I have so many good memories of good times working in each of these areas. Our last trips to Seattle or Portland were to visit people in the hospitals. Times have changed. It use to be we saw each other mostly at parties. 

Bill


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Downtown Seattle was such a cool place to hang out. Same with Portland. I have so many good memories of good times working in each of these areas. Our last trips to Seattle or Portland were to visit people in the hospitals. Times have changed. It use to be we saw each other mostly at parties.
> 
> Bill


I worked from an office in Pioneer Square on the south side of downtown from 1998 - 2002.  It was an interesting and enjoyable area.  Now much of the area is a nightmare.  Many retail businesses in the area keep locked doors; you have to buzz to go inside and browse.  Others have closed because they literally cannot find people who are willing to work in the area due to safety concerns.

The King County Courthouse is in the area.  Jurors have bailed out of jury duty because of being assaulted and harassed on the way to the courthouse. Citizens called for jury duty who know the situation usually make sure to disqualify themselves in voir dire if they are called to the Seattle courthouse.  (Though in the last several months the city finally cleared the homeless encampment in front of the courthouse - but only after a woman was sexually assaulted inside a women's bathroom inside the courthouse building.)


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

Well certainly wasn't using the term to offend anyone. Was simply using it as a shorthand description. The people I know who use the term never viewed the term as offensive. Including those who I know (and family members) who live there.

re: Cincinnati. It likely is more affordable than SF. I am shocked by how much my DD pays in rent, however higher salaries reflect those differences.  My father and niece moved to Cincinnati just out of college. They left a few years later because they could not tolerate the weather. I can say the same for my college years in Boston. In the midwest you get those cold crisp sunny days  - although cold those days are very pretty and you can cross-country ski etc. In Boston, I didn't see the sun for months - it was depressing. As the song goes, "The snow turned into (sideways) rain"


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Well certainly wasn't using the term "flyover" to offend anyone.


All of us unintentionally and without any negative connotation use terms or phrases that other people find offensive.  Nothing wrong with that.  But I think it's good to know when others might interpret the word or phrase differently, because then I can use it more intelligently.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

@T_R_Oglodyte Okay makes sense. While we are on the topic of using terms more intelligently, I find the term "Coastal Elite" offensive. It sounds like something a politician has spun because every politician needs a villain (usually imaginary) for them to slay. It sparks emotion to get votes. We are all getting played.

Of course if one believes the news (not directing this at you T_R_Oglodyte), California is either overrun with rich "elites" or homeless and illegal immigrants who steal and make everywhere unsafe - a wasteland - as one prior poster mentioned. Which is it?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> "Coastal Elite" offensive


Touché!


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Well certainly wasn't using the term to offend anyone. Was simply using it as a shorthand description. The people I know who use the term never viewed the term as offensive. Including those who I know (and family members) who live there.


Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?

Kurt


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> California is either overrun with rich "elites" or homeless and illegal immigrants



I love California and go there regularly. I might move some day. But my experience is that there appear to be lots of rich people and lots of homeless people. I suspect statistics would bear that out. 

I have no way of evaluating someone's visa status by looking at them, so can't determine the number of illegal immigrants even anecdotally.


----------



## Luanne (Oct 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?
> 
> Kurt


I'm offended.  Well maybe not offended, just know those people have never lived in San Francisco or California.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 14, 2021)

bizaro86 said:


> I love California and go there regularly. I might move some day. But my experience is that there appear to be lots of rich people and lots of homeless people. I suspect statistics would bear that out.
> 
> I have no way of evaluating someone's visa status by looking at them, so can't determine the number of illegal immigrants even anecdotally.



There's a huge middle class in California that gets lost in the cloud of stereotypes of uber-rich and homeless.  LA basin is bursting with bedroom communities that aren't named Beverly Hills, Bel Aire, West Hollywood, or Brentwood.  There are middle class communities around the Bay Area, though lots of workers take long commutes from Sacramento or Stockton, where living is more affordable.  Outside specific geographic elite bubbles, California is mostly middle class.  Of course, when you go there as a tourist, you see the bubbles.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?
> 
> Kurt


Is it okay to say "SoCal"?


----------



## klpca (Oct 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?
> 
> Kurt


I'm not even a bit offended by those words but the level of cringe is high. May as well wear a t-shirt that says "I am a tourist". No one here calls it that. Well at least no one who has lived here for awhile. But tourists definitely use those words.


dioxide45 said:


> Is it okay to say "SoCal"?


Yes. We say SoCal and NorCal. So if you say that you may be mistaken for a Californian. Say "Cali" or "Frisco" (lol it is hard to type those!) and we know that you are from somewhere else.


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 14, 2021)

klpca said:


> Say "Cali" or "Frisco" (lol it is hard to type those!) and we know that you are from somewhere else.


Yep, just like if we hear people use the term "Fly-over States", we know they are not from here, have very little knowledge of these states, and tend to make huge generalizations about the people from these states.

Kurt


----------



## MdRef (Oct 14, 2021)

Why are businesses moving on? Rising crime rates?

Some thoughts on defunding the police:

By a 3-to-1 margin, city residents want more cops and expanded community policing, according to a new Citybeat poll by the SF Chamber of Commerce.

SFPD needs about 400 more officers, and the shortage has gotten worse from 12% in 2020, to now 18% shy of where it should be according to the department and based on an independent study commissioned by the city and Board of Supervisors in 2020.


"Right now we have a large homeless population in San Francisco. We’ve had it for a while," Cibotti noted. "When you mix that with most of them being mentally ill or having some kind of narcotics issue and an understaffed police department you’re going to have attacks on solo officers."

San Francisco police academy sergeant Rich Cibotti


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

MdRef said:


> Why are businesses moving on? Rising crime rates?
> 
> Some thoughts on defunding the police:
> 
> ...



And where are you from?  If not SF, then why do you care?

For every large business that makes headlines there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech. They just don't rise to the level of click bait.

BTW...Cops are not the answer to managing mentally ill people (the vast majority are not violent).  Perhaps they have redirected funds to staff psychiatric professionals who can work with the mentally ill homeless to get them resources and assistance to get them off the street.


----------



## Quiet Pine (Oct 14, 2021)

DrQ said:


>


One of my favorite New Yorker covers! Saul Steinberg, March 29, 1976, 6 years after I had left New York for Los Angeles. 
During high school, I used to rush home to Long Island and sit on the sofa with my mom and watch Dodger games. When they left Brooklyn's Ebbets Field in 1958, I felt deserted, jilted, cast aside. 12 years later I followed and again became a fan.


----------



## MdRef (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> And where are you from?  If not SF, then why do you care?
> 
> For every large business that makes headlines there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech. They just don't rise to the level of click bait.
> 
> BTW...Cops are not the answer to managing mentally ill people (the vast majority are not violent).  Perhaps they have redirected funds to staff psychiatric professionals who can work with the mentally ill homeless to get them resources and assistance to get them off the street.


As retired law enforcement I care because we are a brotherhood and given the current situation, what affects them, affects us all. Their starting salary is just under $90,000 a year and yet they have problems finding men and woman that want to do the job there. Should you live there, I wish you good luck. Your streets and communities are becoming less and less safe.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> And where are you from? If not SF, then why do you care?


People can't have an opinion about somewhere unless they have been there or live there. They can't care about the situation, however it is perceived? This seems like an often used tactic to try to shut down debate.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

I am not certain it's about pay. Perhaps starting pay isn't much but Lieutenants make $180 - $200k according to Glass Door.  And let's not forget about the lucrative overtime and retirement benefits in California. First responders can retire in their early 50s for more than full pay for life, whereas most private sector get measly 401ks and must wait until Medicare kicks in at 65 for health benefits. Its a dangerous job for sure, but that's why our taxes are so high.









						California first responders cashing in with record level retirement payments - Firefighting News
					

Pension disbursements for retired San Diego city workers are reaching record levels, with one firefighter being paid $885,000 from the retirement fund in 2016. The Deferred Retirement Option Plan or DROP allows employees to receive a paycheck at the same time as they receive pension checks...




					firefightingnews.com


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I am not certain it's about pay. Perhaps starting pay isn't much but Lieutenants make $180 - $200k according to Glass Door.  And let's not forget about the lucrative overtime and retirement benefits in California. First responders can retire in their early 50s for more than full pay for life, whereas most private sector get measly 401ks and must wait until Medicare kicks in at 65 for health benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the issue is more the constant scrutiny. As a police officer especially, you are being watched pretty much 100% of the time. Cameras are everywhere and any slight perceived wrong move is caught on camera splashed on social media and your job in jeopardy. I am not certainly saying that with power also comes accountability but I wouldn't work under those conditions for any amount of money. It seems that many others don't either, otherwise they wouldn't have the issues they have filling positions.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

Perhaps this is the case however, cops with cameras is not a SF only requirement. It's everywhere.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Perhaps this is the case however, cops with cameras is not a SF only requirement. It's everywhere.


I know, and I don't think the staffing issues are unique to SF either.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

Below is a comparison of Crimes in SF and Cincinnati based on FBI stats:

Yes, property crimes are 4.6 percentage points higher. But look at *Violent Crime* - *Cincinnati is 7.2 percentage points higher than SF!*

If you had limited police force, which would you rather have them focus on: reducing violent crime or property crime?


----------



## amycurl (Oct 14, 2021)

You're right--it's not the violence that is new, it's the cameras that are. 
I think one of the issues is that, like teachers, police officers are being called upon do things that they are not trained nor qualified to do. I would think that officers would *welcome* the ability to share the load with qualified mental health professionals, those trained in de-escalation of conflict, domestic violence interventions (which every cop will tell you is their least favorite call,) etc. I would think that sharing of police resources with other community resources would make life better all around. I'm not sure why there is so much push-back about this idea.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Below is a comparison of Crimes in SF and Cincinnati based on FBI stats:
> 
> Yes, property crimes are 5 points higher. But look at Violent Crime - Cincinnati is 6 points higher than SF!
> If you had limited police force, which would you rather have them focus on: reducing violent crime or property crime?
> ...


The problem with those data is that they are *reported* crime. The data are meaningless unless you can also get a reasonable measure of how much crime occurs that is not reported and how, for example, Cincinnatti compares with San Francisco and the US overall in that regard.

I'm willing to bet that few, if any of the shoplifting incidents that are the start of this thread are reported to police by the store owners.  What's the point when  you have people walking in all day helping themselves, and if you call it in there's no response?? Which means that none of that theft is included in the San Francisco crime statistics.

In Seattle, for at least the last five years, more and more people are not bothering to report many types of property crime, because there is no followup by the police.  They will take a report, but there is no attempt to track down perpetrators or recover property.  The only benefit to reporting property crime is to get a police report that you can use for insurance if you want to make a claim.

I don't know about San Francisco, but based on trends when we lived in the Bay Area and parallel situations involving policing, I suspect the same situation is occurring there.  And in most large cities on the west coast of the US.

*********

I have sarcastically commented on occasion that there's one very simple thing we can do to decrease crime rates in the US.  And that is to remove phones from the police.  If they don't take call, crime isn't reported, and crime rates will plunge accordingly.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 14, 2021)

amycurl said:


> I would think that sharing of police resources with other community resources would make life better all around. I'm not sure why there is so much push-back about this idea.


I don't know that there is push back against the idea.  Where there is push back is the idea of not having the police respond to those calls, without the backup or replacement service in place.  So now, in some locales, you call in 911 for someone having an emergency, but if there isn't an actual crime being committed, the police are reluctant to respond.  And in Washington, under new policing laws, they have no ability to detain the person anyway unless a crime is being committed.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The problem with those data is that they are *reported* crime. The data are meaningless unless you can also get a reasonable measure of how much crime occurs that is not reported and how, for example, Cincinnatti compares with San Francisco and the US overall in that regard.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that few, if any of the shoplifting incidents that are the start of this thread are reported to police by the store owners.  What's the point when  you have people walking in all day helping themselves, and if you call it in there's no response?? Which means that none of that theft is included in the San Francisco crime statistics.
> 
> ...



Who knows? If it is material it will be reported. It's not hard to get over $1000 of car damage. Usually insurance will require a police report to be filed.

I doubt the reported violent crimes between the two cities are any different.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 14, 2021)

troy12n said:


> I stayed at the Donatello before, and went to that Walgreens... *ONCE*. After that one time, I walked a little farther to the closest CVS which is in a much better part of town. Less human feces and urine to step on.


They have poop maps to help you navigate your travels outside the resorts.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Media hype. I was in SF last weekend for the first time since Covid. I had similar impressions from the last time I was there.  I stayed in SOMA and passed through the Mission where you would expect to see feces. I saw no feces, or urine on the street.  Although there are homeless, what city doesn't? Number of homeless was about the same as NYC or any large city like Cinncinatti. It looked a lot cleaner since the last time I was there.
> 
> I saw a lively vibrant city with many young people working in tech. Many people walking around, on bikes and in parks. I saw neighborhood restaurants and nice outdoor eating pods. If it were unsafe or there were feces on the sidewalk, or homeless overrun why would they have eating pods on the street?   My DD just moved there to work at a startup.  I would have advised her against moving there if I had concerns - I have none that are different than any large city. The entire SOMA area which was formerly urban wasteland is now populated by tech HQs - Uber, Slack, Twitter, Salesforce...


I have been to NYC many times and I have never seen homeless camps set up on the side of the freeway like in Portland. To be honest I seen very few homeless people in the NYC area. Now Washington DC is a different story. I only go back to places where I feel safe and welcome. Who wants to have a poop map to navigate your way around any city?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 14, 2021)

Climate plays a role. Many homeless freeze and die in colder climates. This makes the warmer states including Hawaii a destination. Hawaii is providing one way tickets home. It's an additional burden and cost for these cities. Perhaps the cost should be shared across the country vs. expecting a city to pick up the entire tab. Perhaps this is why they cannot afford to hire more cops.


----------



## Brett (Oct 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Climate plays a role. Many homeless freeze and die in colder climates. This makes the warmer states including Hawaii a destination. Hawaii is providing one way tickets home. It's an additional burden and cost for these cities. Perhaps the cost should be shared across the country vs. expecting a city to pick up the entire tab. Perhaps this is why they cannot afford to hire more cops.




I agree climate is a factor for the homeless  (and RV campers).
East coast --  Florida in the winter, northern states during the summer.


----------



## klpca (Oct 14, 2021)

Anyone can have an opinion. But you probably have a more nuanced opinion when you see a place every day. We have a lot of people who visit our cities for a long weekend or maybe a week then feel qualified to offer an assessment of what we are doing wrong. How they would do it differently. How it works where they are from. It gets old. I had to deal with a woman from Phoenix, staying at an airbnb who was almost livid about Californians moving to AZ, paying cash for houses, and driving up the cost of housing there. Yet she did not see herself as part of the problem...staying in a home that used to be part of our housing inventory but is now a vacation home. I just shook my head and moved on (this was at the dog beach fwiw). She didn't recognize the relationship of the two issues, just the one in her own city. I was just trying to enjoy a morning at the beach with my dog but was instead on the receiving end of a rant from someone who doesn't even live here. Not all visitors have good manmers.

As far as police are concerned I just don't know enough to opine but one thing is for sure 90k in the Bay area isn't enough to live on comfortably. Who would do that job for that amount of money?


----------



## klpca (Oct 14, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> They have poop maps to help you navigate your travels outside the resorts.


Where did you get a poop map?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 15, 2021)

klpca said:


> Where did you get a poop map?


Google it. Apparently there is a poop map where people self report locations where they see human poop on the streets.

If you zoom in, it looks bad. THough I suspect this map contains years of data. So I doubt poop that was there last year is still there.


----------



## klpca (Oct 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> Google it. Apparently there is a poop map where people self report locations where they see human poop on the streets.
> 
> If you zoom in, it looks bad. THough I suspect this map contains years of data. So I doubt poop that was there last year is still there.


I thought that hotels were handing them out which seemed like such an odd thing to do. Not going to Google search that though.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

Here's another midwestern city:

Indianapolis has 60% more violent crime than San Francisco (39.6%). That's a 23.8 point difference!

*Bottom line: You have less likelihood of being assaulted in SF than these midwestern cities. *(And we haven't even compared yet to Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis!)

(What SF did wrong was publicizing their priorities. They correctly prioritized violent crime but should not have said anything about property crimes. so the petty crooks wouldn't know.)


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

Minneapolis, MN: 33% higher risk of assault






Birmingham AL: Almost double the risk of violent crime, and greater property crime





Houston, TX: Higher risk of assault


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 15, 2021)

It seems however that you have a much higher likelihood of being involved in property crime than violent crime. So to cite that certain cities have higher violent crime isn't necessarily an indicator a place is doing better than another. I suspect that San Francisco's property crime rates will drop as they stop charging and reporting shoplifters as crime as that accounts for over 50% of all crime while other states/cities continue to report it.


----------



## geekette (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @T_R_Oglodyte Okay makes sense. While we are on the topic of using terms more intelligently, I find the term "Coastal Elite" offensive. It sounds like something a politician has spun because every politician needs a villain (usually imaginary) for them to slay. It sparks emotion to get votes. We are all getting played.
> 
> Of course if one believes the news (not directing this at you T_R_Oglodyte), California is either overrun with rich "elites" or homeless and illegal immigrants who steal and make everywhere unsafe - a wasteland - as one prior poster mentioned. Which is it?


Drop the word coastal.  Who the hell are “The Elites”?   Did the US adopt an official caste system when I wasn’t looking?    I only started hearing this “elites” label in the past 5-10 years.   Still don’t know who they are, why they are “elite” and how does anyone else get to join the club?   Is it wealth, family name, what?   Can one be un-elited/kicked out?

are there coastal elites and midcountry elites?  

whackyass world we live in.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

As a visitor, no one can cope with feeling unsafe and at risk of aggravated assault. I feel safer walking the streets in SF than I would in these other so-called safe cities with high police presence. The numbers I shared prove this.  Reducing violent crime should be the highest priority.

Property crimes are not good but they are only of interest to the residents of SF who own property there. Walgreens is a big corporation. No need to feel sorry for them. The closure of these stores is a rounding error and there are plenty of drug stores to take their place. SF will eventually work it out.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> As a visitor, no one can deal with feeling unsafe and at risk of aggravated assault. I feel safer walking the streets in SF than I would in these other so-called safe cities with high police presence. The numbers I shared prove this.
> 
> Property crimes are not good but they are only of interest to the people of SF. They will work it out.


Then we would probably want to specifically look at robberies and aggravated assault in each city. Perhaps SF is safer. We don't really know without that direct comparison. Many assaults are targeted. Meaning me as a tourist or even resident might not be involved in one and my chance of being involved may be no different in SF or Indy. Many assaults happen at bars or in the wee hours of the morning. They may also have skewed percentages concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Walking around downtown Indianapolis or Cincinnati wouldn't be an issue, but getting out into certain neighborhoods may be more sketchy. Neither side of the argument here should really be using broad interpretations of any city.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

Pearl District residents to PPB: ‘Are we a lawless city?’
					

Portland police say new legislation passed in Oregon dramatically limits their options when it comes to responding to destructive protests and riots.




					www.koin.com


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

@dioxide45 Let's avoid trying to square a circle. If you want to go down that path of logic one then could place similar limitations and excuses on property crimes. I've shared the figures based on FBI reports for 2021.  Do you honestly think the news media has analyzed and reported property crimes at the detailed level you are suggesting?


----------



## nerodog (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> And where are you from?  If not SF, then why do you care?
> 
> For every large business that makes headlines there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech. They just don't rise to the level of click bait.
> 
> BTW...Cops are not the answer to managing mentally ill people (the vast majority are not violent).  Perhaps they have redirected funds to staff psychiatric professionals who can work with the mentally ill homeless to get them resources and assistance to get them off the street.


Perhaps reopen facilities  to treat the mentally  ill in a safe environment.  I worked in a state hospital  which ended up closing.  Many clients failed to thrive in a community  setting. Some did, others needed a more restricted  and structured  setting with qualified staff.


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Property crimes are not good but they are only of interest to the residents of SF who own property there. Walgreens is a big corporation. No need to feel sorry for them. The closure of these stores is a rounding error and there are plenty of drug stores to take their place. SF will eventually work it out.




Are you suggesting that the cost of losses or prevention costs or less competition that will likely result in higher prices for purchases is ok to subsidize those who steal and pay nothing? 

I may not “feel sorry” for Walgreens but I do feel sorry that some feel it’s ok to help themselves with zero consequences while other pay money for goods that the others just take off the shelf and walk out the door without fear of arrest.

I don’t care what city it is, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Indianapolis or Podunk Iowa, thieves should be prosecuted. If someone thinks it’s it’s ok to steal from a store because there’s no consequence, why wouldn’t they think it’s ok to steal a car or commit burglary in a house or eventually mug a  person? Laws are laws. If nobody’s prosecuted for shoplifting, why shouldn’t we all head to the store and help ourselves? 

Cheers


----------



## mark201235 (Oct 15, 2021)

x3 skier said:


> Are you suggesting that the cost of losses or prevention costs or less competition that will likely result in higher prices for purchases is ok to subsidize those who steal and pay nothing?
> 
> I may not “feel sorry” for Walgreens but I do feel sorry that some feel it’s ok to help themselves with zero consequences while other pay money for goods that the others just take off the shelf and walk out the door without fear of arrest.
> 
> ...




Well said.


----------



## heathpack (Oct 15, 2021)

geekette said:


> Drop the word coastal.  Who the hell are “The Elites”?   Did the US adopt an official caste system when I wasn’t looking?    I only started hearing this “elites” label in the past 5-10 years.   Still don’t know who they are, why they are “elite” and how does anyone else get to join the club?   Is it wealth, family name, what?   Can one be un-elited/kicked out?
> 
> are there coastal elites and midcountry elites?
> 
> whackyass world we live in.



Theres an intellectually lazy world in which the easiest thing to do is: put the other guy in a box, slap a label on it, and be done thinking about them.  You already know everything they are, because: label!


----------



## heathpack (Oct 15, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?
> 
> Kurt



How about using the phrase “Jackson Hole” when you’re going to Jackson, WY?  Would that “offend” someone?  Or might it be a matter of pointing out the better term to use so as to appear informec about the destination you’re visiting?

Also- I always find it funny when people advise as to how to avoid looking like a tourist. Now, avoiding looking like a target for crime, that I get.  Avoiding doing something inadvertently rude, thar makes sense.  But otherwise, if I’m a tourist I don’t go to any great lengths to hide that fact.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Below is a comparison of Crimes in SF and Cincinnati based on FBI stats:
> 
> Yes, property crimes are 4.6 percentage points higher. But look at *Violent Crime* - *Cincinnati is 7.2 percentage points higher than SF!*
> 
> ...


I'm not sure exactly what these indices are based on, but I assume it is a measure relative to population. The city of Cincinnati represents only about 1/3 of people living in the total metropolitan area. Most of the family communities are not in the city and a lot of people are moving to Warren and Butler counties to avoid high property taxes in Hamilton County. Most of the violent crimes are concentrated in specific areas and are related to drugs and gangs, like most other cities. These areas also have higher property crime. Car break-ins, shoplifting and burglaries aren't wide spread, and people here feel safe parking their cars and walking in most of the downtown and suburban areas. 

We lived in Concord, CA in the 80's and really enjoyed our time there. We moved away due to the high cost of living, but I agree the weather is almost perfect and much better than Cincinnati. We traveled to the Bay area every few years, stay in Walnut Creek and used BART to visit SF. We noticed a big change on our last visit, with a lot more trash, needles, and homeless around the BART stations (even in Pleasant Hill) and especially in the city. Our friends still live in Walnut Creek and work in the city, but they are becoming more concerned about safety and high cost of living. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and we hope they start cracking down again on crime so people feel safe to visit.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 15, 2021)

geekette said:


> Drop the word coastal.  Who the hell are “The Elites”?   Did the US adopt an official caste system when I wasn’t looking?    I only started hearing this “elites” label in the past 5-10 years.   Still don’t know who they are, why they are “elite” and how does anyone else get to join the club?   Is it wealth, family name, what?   Can one be un-elited/kicked out?
> 
> are there coastal elites and midcountry elites?
> 
> whackyass world we live in.



"The Elites"
_ [def]_
1. term used by the group of uber-rich people who don't want to use their money for good, to refer to the other group of uber-rich people who do (locations irrelevant)
2. term used by not-rich people who don't live in the coastal areas to refer to rich people who do live in the coastal areas (with not-rich and rich being variables that don't make sense in terms of numbers)

You're welcome.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

x3 skier said:


> Are you suggesting that the cost of losses or prevention costs or less competition that will likely result in higher prices for purchases is ok to subsidize those who steal and pay nothing?
> 
> I may not “feel sorry” for Walgreens but I do feel sorry that some feel it’s ok to help themselves with zero consequences while other pay money for goods that the others just take off the shelf and walk out the door without fear of arrest.
> 
> ...



Nope. Sorry, never said it was okay. In fact I acknowledged earlier in this thread that I had concerns that SF needed to clean up its act. I also expressed that it was stupid for SF to announce their policing priorities for petty crooks.

After visiting last weekend, it was not perfect but cleaner than my last visit pre-Covid. Our car was parked under a freeway in SOMA in an unlocked unguarded street lot overnight and it was not broken into. We walked around. I did not see any poop - although it probably exists in certain blocks.

I said that we should not look at this so narrowly to support a media narrative that "SF is out of control and unsafe" because violent crimes are worse offenses and affect resident and tourist safety. What I shared is from FBI crime data for each city. What the data reveals:

You are less likely to get assaulted when walking the streets of SF vs. these midwestern cities when it comes to violent crime. It also confirms that SF has a property crime problem that they need to fix.

If California is out of control and unsafe as certain media would like to hype, let's take a look at LA figures from the FBI - it's even lower!:





*Bottom line: Let's stop the California bashing, Every city has its issues but overall California is no worse. *Property values are sky high in SF. Voters will insist that they fix this policy. This will correct itself in time.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @T_R_Oglodyte Okay makes sense. While we are on the topic of using terms more intelligently, I find the term "Coastal Elite" offensive. It sounds like something a politician has spun because every politician needs a villain (usually imaginary) for them to slay. It sparks emotion to get votes. We are all getting played.
> 
> Of course if one believes the news (not directing this at you T_R_Oglodyte), California is either overrun with rich "elites" or homeless and illegal immigrants who steal and make everywhere unsafe - a wasteland - as one prior poster mentioned. Which is it?



Actually, I think "flyover country" and "coastal elite" are a matched pair. merely which side of the fence one is sitting on. . .


----------



## Superchief (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Nope. Sorry, never said it was okay. In fact I acknowledged earlier in this thread that I had concerns that SF needed to clean up its act. I also expressed that it was stupid for SF to announce their policing priorities for petty crooks.
> 
> After visiting last weekend, it was not perfect but cleaner than my last visit pre-Covid. Our car was parked under a freeway in SOMA in an unlocked unguarded street lot overnight and it was not broken into. We walked around. I did not see any poop - although it probably exists in certain blocks.
> 
> ...


Maybe getting negative media attention will help keep people away from CA, which will make life for the locals better. I think CA's biggest problem is that it has attracted too many people for the resources it has. It is like the old Eagle's song says: 'Call something paradise, kiss it goodbye"!


----------



## Brett (Oct 15, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Maybe getting negative media attention will help keep people away from CA, which will make life for the locals better. I think CA's biggest problem is that it has attracted too many people for the resources it has. It is like the old Eagle's song says: 'Call something paradise, kiss it goodbye"!



Maybe - but Foxnews loves to bash California cities, especially San Francisco ...  like today .. and yesterday


----------



## MdRef (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> For every large business that makes headlines there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech. They just don't rise to the level of click bait.



Perhaps you're right. Just "click bait". Why would having a business such as Walgreens closing have such an impact, when "there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech"? Just perhaps, there may be many who depend on the convenience of having those stores close by for the medications that they require for their daily health needs.


Walgreens has closed at least 10 stores in the city since the beginning of 2019.

"This is a sad day for San Francisco."

"We can't continue to let these anchor institutions close that so many people rely on."

“I am completely devastated by this news - this Walgreens is less than a mile from seven schools and has been a staple for seniors, families and children for decades. 
*This closure will significantly impact this community*.”

San Francisco Board of Supervisor Ahsha Safai of District 11









						Walgreens closing 5 SF stores due to ‘organized retail crime’
					

These are the stores that are closing.




					www.sfgate.com
				





"What I want people who commit these crimes to understand: your mother, your grandmother, your relatives, they depend on places like Walgreens and CVS and Targets where 
they have pharmacies to get their medications."

"So, *when these locations close in a community, then the entire community loses*."

San Francisco Mayor London Breed


Walgreens already closed nearly a dozen stores in the city over the past two years.









						Walgreens to Close 5 San Francisco Locations Due to Continued Crime
					

Walgreens will close five stores in San Francisco next month due to ongoing retail crime, a company spokesperson said Tuesday.




					www.nbcbayarea.com


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Maybe getting negative media attention will help keep people away from CA, which will make life for the locals better. I think CA's biggest problem is that it has attracted too many people for the resources it has. It is like the old Eagle's song says: 'Call something paradise, kiss it goodbye"!



Good point. Hawaii also suffers from overrun. SF could survive without tourists. It has a broad tech and industry base. Not sure HI could.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

MdRef said:


> Perhaps you're right. Just "click bait". Why would having a business such as Walgreens closing have such an impact, when "there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech"? Just perhaps, there may be many who depend on the convenience of having those stores close by for the medications that they require for their daily health needs.
> 
> 
> Walgreens has closed at least 10 stores in the city since the beginning of 2019.
> ...



Have you ever been to SF? There are drug stores on every corner CVS. Rite Aid, Kaiser, UCSF, Target, Walmart, Safeway, Luckys, Costco not to mention mail-order pharmacies. Perhaps this will help local drug stores to thrive. This is no drug store desert.

The comments by these city officials is pathetic because they are the ones who can fix this problem. This is just politicians talking out of two sides of their mouth. Hollow statements.


----------



## klpca (Oct 15, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Maybe getting negative media attention will help keep people away from CA, which will make life for the locals better. I think CA's biggest problem is that it has attracted too many people for the resources it has. It is like the old Eagle's song says: 'Call something paradise, kiss it goodbye"!


I am absolutely sick about our real estate prices and anything that would ease housing demand would be ok with me. Our kids simply cannot afford a house here. They will have to look other places to afford to live the way they grew up - normal single family house on a street with other normal single family houses. Our house is currently worth 8 times what we paid for it. It is simply crazy. I'd be happy if our home wasn't worth this much and my kids could live closer, but with the supply shortage (looking at you Airbnb and corporate "investors") it will be years before that is corrected. So when I hear about people moving away I am not always so sad, unless they are my friends.

And not going to lie, a year without tourism was amazing. I know that the residents of Hawaii agree - at least in the quality of recreational life (not so sure about the economics). Easy parking at the beach, no crowds, no traffic congestion around the airport. It was amazing. It's over now - we seem to be sharing everything with half of America again but that is how it goes in a tourist area. It's definitely a love/hate relationship. At our old office location I had to drive on the 163 through Balboa Park every day. OMG. the funniest/scariest example that I saw of tourist driving was a minivan without a license plate frame + 6 or 7 people inside (automatic rental car). They missed their exit around Washington St for those who know the area. So they came to a full stop (on the freeway!!) and tried to cut to the right to exit the freeway. Thought I would get killed for sure that day. Eventually they realized that they would not be able to cross the lanes where everyone was moving at freeway speed and finally started moving again. (Clearly I digress, but living in a tourist city isn't all it's cracked up to be and it's contribution to the cost of our real estate is something I could do without).


----------



## Superchief (Oct 15, 2021)

Brett said:


> Maybe - but Foxnews loves to bash California cities, especially San Francisco ...  like today .. and yesterday


That should keep those damn conservatives out.


----------



## MdRef (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Have you ever been to SF? There are drug stores on every corner CVS. Rite Aid, Kaiser, UCSF, Target, Walmart, Safeway, Luckys, Costco not to mention mail-order pharmacies. Perhaps this will help local drug stores to thrive. This is no drug store desert.
> 
> The comments by these city officials is pathetic because they are the ones who can fix this problem. This is just politicians talking out of two sides of their mouth. Hollow statements.


Sorry you feel that way. 

Anyway, I think our time discussing this issue has come to a conclusion. Not that it's hasn't been enlightening however, to say the least. I am amazed that you've been to every town, city, state, etc., that you've mentioned in a comment. That is quite an accomplishment.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

MdRef said:


> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> Anyway, I think our time discussing this issue has come to a conclusion. Not that it's hasn't been enlightening however, to say the least. I am amazed that you've been to every town, city, state, etc., that you've mentioned in a comment. That is quite an accomplishment.



Nope never claimed that even though I have visited all except Birmingham, AL and lived in Minneapolis for a while. FWIW...We have extensive family in the midwest and we have property in Idaho and Iowa, so not as ignorant as you would like to believe.

BTW...you never told us where you were from. Have you visited all these cities including SF?

All I shared were FBI stats which are an objective measure. Sorry the data doesn't jive with your confirmation bias. The truth hurts.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

FYI...It appears that SF is already cracking down on the problem and are devoting resources to it:









						S.F. unveils new push to combat retail theft after viral shoplifting videos
					

The initiative comes after a summer when videos showing brazen retail theft went viral,...




					www.sfchronicle.com
				






			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2021-09-22/san-francisco-pledges-to-crack-down-on-retail-shoplifting


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> Google it. Apparently there is a poop map where people self report locations where they see human poop on the streets.
> 
> If you zoom in, it looks bad. THough I suspect this map contains years of data. So I doubt poop that was there last year is still there.





Either that or the piles have grown a lot larger






.


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 15, 2021)

heathpack said:


> How about using the phrase “Jackson Hole” when you’re going to Jackson, WY?  Would that “offend” someone?  Or might it be a matter of pointing out the better term to use so as to appear informec about the destination you’re visiting?


Ha!  The Jackson / Jackson Hole is a great example of people just not knowing the correct name.  "Frisco" and "Cali" are examples of people just being lazy in their language, and I think it is more annoying than offensive to locals, but I could be wrong.  "Fly-over States" is, IMO, something completely different -- that term infers that people in those states don't really matter; they are inconsequential; just an annoyance to those traveling to/from the "important" parts of the country.  Can be quite offensive to many who live here.

Kurt


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> FYI...It appears that SF is already cracking down on the problem and are devoting resources to it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I noted upthread, San Francisco city leaders are taking this seriously.  Totally different from Seattle, where the attitude seems to be that shoplifting is a basic human right.


----------



## Brett (Oct 15, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> As I noted upthread, San Francisco city leaders are taking this seriously.  Totally different from Seattle, where the attitude seems to be that shoplifting is a basic human right.



Do the shoplifters shoplift from Amazon's no cashier stores ?

https://www.q13fox.com/news/seattle...-a-single-day-during-citywide-theft-operation


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> As I noted upthread, San Francisco city leaders are taking this seriously.  Totally different from Seattle, where the attitude seems to be that shoplifting is a basic human right.



Sorry to hear this. Don't you think Seattle will also wake up once businesses start leaving the city and voters complain? Similar to SF, there are many high value properties in Seattle so I would imagine that those owners would exert pressure on the city.

The cities that are in trouble are where there has been significant flight from the city e.g. Detroit in the late 20th century. SF/Seattle are far from a tipping point. Of course Detroit is now rebounding but I don't know by how much compared to it's heyday.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

FWIW Seattle and SF share similar crime profiles. High property crime but lower violent crime than other cities.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

Brett said:


> Do the shoplifters shoplift from Amazon's no cashier stores ?
> 
> https://www.q13fox.com/news/seattle...-a-single-day-during-citywide-theft-operation


I don't know.  Amazon recently opened their largest no-cashier store in my neighborhood.  I think it's notable that they didn't open it in Seattle.  

By the way, I'm not sure that the stores are no-cashier; more that going through a checkout line is an option.  I can only guess, because I'm not interested in patronizing a store that uses cameras to watch my every move, that tracks where I slow down, what Item's I pull of the shelf and peruse and then put back without buying.  And in doing all of that they know who you are and connect all of that with a trove of personal information they've collected and scraped.  Just more of the case of people  being the product, not the customer.  

I'll put up with a store club membership that tracks what  I've purchased, particularly because they can use that to give out coupons and discounts that are valuable to me.  But the step to cashierless is not something I am ready to do.


----------



## nerodog (Oct 15, 2021)

x3 skier said:


> Are you suggesting that the cost of losses or prevention costs or less competition that will likely result in higher prices for purchases is ok to subsidize those who steal and pay nothing?
> 
> I may not “feel sorry” for Walgreens but I do feel sorry that some feel it’s ok to help themselves with zero consequences while other pay money for goods that the others just take off the shelf and walk out the door without fear of arrest.
> 
> ...


I agree... its not ok to steal and its everyone's problem. Well said above.  This is setting a poor precedent and example  to our kids as well. I was appalled when i heard shop lifting was considered  a right for the  disadvantaged  segment  of our population.   Stealing from an individual  , stealing from a business. It's still stealing.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 15, 2021)

nerodog said:


> I agree... its not ok to steal and its everyone's problem. Well said above.  This is setting a poor precedent and example  to our kids as well. I was appalled when i heard shop lifting was considered  a right for the  disadvantaged  segment  of our population.   Stealing from an individual  , stealing from a business. It's still stealing.


Where I grew up stealing got you a good ass whopping as daddy said it tarnished the family name.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 15, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I don't know.  Amazon recently opened their largest no-cashier store in my neighborhood.  I think it's notable that they didn't open it in Seattle.
> 
> By the way, I'm not sure that the stores are no-cashier; more that going through a checkout line is an option.  I can only guess, because I'm not interested in patronizing a store that uses cameras to watch my every move, that tracks where I slow down, what Item's I pull of the shelf and peruse and then put back without buying.  And in doing all of that they know who you are and connect all of that with a trove of personal information they've collected and scraped.  Just more of the case of people  being the product, not the customer.
> 
> I'll put up with a store club membership that tracks what  I've purchased, particularly because they can use that to give out coupons and discounts that are valuable to me.  But the step to cashierless is not something I am ready to do.


You have to be a member to get in. Walmart takes your picture when your checking out. Limiting theft saves most consumers.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Sorry to hear this. Don't you think Seattle will also wake up once businesses start leaving the city and voters complain? Similar to SF, there are many high value properties in Seattle so I would imagine that those owners would exert pressure on the city.
> 
> The cities that are in trouble are where there has been significant flight from the city e.g. Detroit in the late 20th century. SF/Seattle are far from a tipping point. Of course Detroit is now rebounding but I don't know by how much compared to it's heyday.


Cities at most risk are letting homeless set up camps on city streets and public property. This ussualy helps to drive property values down. Detroit never had to have poop maps for visiting guests to navigate the city.


----------



## Brett (Oct 15, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> Cities at most risk are letting homeless set up camps on city streets and public property. This ussualy helps to drive property values down. Detroit never had to have poop maps for visiting guests to navigate the city.



But which cities like homeless people and which cities don't like homeless people ?

Is the homeless population related to property values ?
taxes ?
income? 
total population in a city?
is it climate related?

whatever .... maybe Detroit doesn't like homeless people (in winter !)


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Don't you think Seattle will also wake up once businesses start leaving the city and voters complain?


Businesses are leaving Seattle.  Almost all chain stores have closed in downtown Seattle, so now the shoplifters are venturing further away.  The focus for opening new offices, particularly in tech, is in Bellevue and Redmond, not Seattle.









						Downtown Seattle’s troubles go beyond the pandemic
					

The pandemic isn't the only thing keeping employees from returning to the office. Downtown has other all-too-visible problems, and ignoring its trouble will hurt all of Seattle, writes economy columnist Jon Talton.




					www.seattletimes.com
				




Re the voters - one of the candidates for City Attorney on the November ballot is a self-declared "abolitionist", who intends to stop prosecution of most misdemeanors, specifically those involving those whom she would deem the victims of capitalism.  This person has also tweeted that property destruction during protests is a moral imperative, in response to a Christmas greeting tweet from the Police Chief tweeted back that all Seattle police should eat a ###t-sandwich laced with COVID.  That's just a couple of examples.

She has also encouraged people to actively hide their opinions during jury selection, then once impaneled on a jury to refuse to convict.  In other words, an attorney admitted to the bar actively working to subvert the justice system.  Isn't that the kind of thing that gets at least some attorneys disbarred?

This is not a fringe candidate.  This was the person who was the leading vote-getter in the primary (37% of the vote) and has been endorsed for the office by every local Democratic party club in the city.  FWIW, the City Attorney post is supposed to be a non-partisan election.

++++++

Added note for background.  The City Attorney criminal division only handles misdemeanors.  Anything higher than that is handled by the County Prosecutor.


----------



## am1 (Oct 15, 2021)

Thieves now mock the rule of law in ‘progressive’ cities like San Francisco
					

The viral video was quasi-farcical: A thief in a San Fran Walgreens balanced on his bike as he skimmed it down the aisles, filling his black garbage bag with merchandise, looking like a larcenous S…




					nypost.com
				




has this been posted?  Incredible.  Where I live a customer would stooge them off as it costs everyone and the person would be reported.  Hopefully not always but that person does not deserve to live free in society.


----------



## Brett (Oct 15, 2021)

am1 said:


> Thieves now mock the rule of law in ‘progressive’ cities like San Francisco
> 
> 
> The viral video was quasi-farcical: A thief in a San Fran Walgreens balanced on his bike as he skimmed it down the aisles, filling his black garbage bag with merchandise, looking like a larcenous S…
> ...



indeed, it has been "posted"  ...  in the _*New York Post *_ !

*"Thieves now mock the rule of law in ‘progressive’ cities"*

But some of us (the lucky ones) live in* non-progressive* cities


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

am1 said:


> Thieves now mock the rule of law in ‘progressive’ cities like San Francisco
> 
> 
> The viral video was quasi-farcical: A thief in a San Fran Walgreens balanced on his bike as he skimmed it down the aisles, filling his black garbage bag with merchandise, looking like a larcenous S…
> ...



Have you missed this entire thread? This article was dated June 17 2021 - old news. 

SF is now now fixing and applying resources. See prior post #81.


----------



## KimmieM (Oct 15, 2021)

Brett said:


> But which cities like homeless people and which cities don't like homeless people ?
> 
> Is the homeless population related to property values ?
> taxes ?
> ...


Thankfully the cold winters limit the homeless camps that infringe on businesses and tourism. Most states prohibit these homeless camps and panhandling.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> Thankfully the cold winters limit the homeless camps that infringe on businesses and tourism. Most states prohibit these homeless camps and panhandling.


A century ago, in regions such as the upper Midwest, as a society we knew is was inhumane to leave people exposed and unprotected in the winter.  So when that was evident, those people got scooped up and put into protective custody.  Drunks on the street got put into a drunk tank.  Those who were mentally incapacitated and without resources were routed into some form of care system.  When my NoDakker great-grandfather lost everything he owned, including his home, during the Depression and the Dust Bowl, he lived out the rest of his days at the Poor Farm.

I fully recognize there were abuses, many horrifying, in that system. There were parts that needed to be torn down. But dismantling that system without having an alternative in place is like defunding the police without having an alternative in place.


**********

IMNSHO - I think it would be good have dialogue about what a 2020s urban  analogue might be for a 1920s agrarian poor farm.  Is it reasonable to think that the problems that we look at now are not  really new, and that perhaps looking to the past might give us insights for the current time?  Both for what worked and what didn't work?  We don't really need to start _de novo_.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> Thankfully the cold winters limit the homeless camps that infringe on businesses and tourism. Most states prohibit these homeless camps and panhandling.


Per US court decision, Cities can't simply prohibit sleeping in public spaces unless there are available shelter alternatives.


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 15, 2021)

klpca said:


> I am absolutely sick about our real estate prices and anything that would ease housing demand would be ok with me. Our kids simply cannot afford a house here. They will have to look other places to afford to live the way they grew up - normal single family house on a street with other normal single family houses. Our house is currently worth 8 times what we paid for it. It is simply crazy. I'd be happy if our home wasn't worth this much and my kids could live closer, but with the supply shortage (looking at you Airbnb and corporate "investors") it will be years before that is corrected. So when I hear about people moving away I am not always so sad, unless they are my friends.
> 
> And not going to lie, a year without tourism was amazing. I know that the residents of Hawaii agree - at least in the quality of recreational life (not so sure about the economics). Easy parking at the beach, no crowds, no traffic congestion around the airport. It was amazing. It's over now - we seem to be sharing everything with half of America again but that is how it goes in a tourist area. It's definitely a love/hate relationship. At our old office location I had to drive on the 163 through Balboa Park every day. OMG. the funniest/scariest example that I saw of tourist driving was a minivan without a license plate frame + 6 or 7 people inside (automatic rental car). They missed their exit around Washington St for those who know the area. So they came to a full stop (on the freeway!!) and tried to cut to the right to exit the freeway. Thought I would get killed for sure that day. Eventually they realized that they would not be able to cross the lanes where everyone was moving at freeway speed and finally started moving again. (Clearly I digress, but living in a tourist city isn't all it's cracked up to be and it's contribution to the cost of our real estate is something I could do without).


Regarding the younger generation not being able to buy a home. I feel sad for my newly married grand-daughter. Husband recently inherited $250,000 -- but still not enough for them to finance a home, when lowest price is $800,000.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> All I shared were FBI stats which are an objective measure.


Objective is not the same as accurate.  The FBI simply collates and distributes information reported by local agencies without doing any basic data qualification.  They are not adding any bias to the data (i.e., they are being "objective").  But when they leave out the "reported" caveat without doing requisite supporting data analysis, it can not be represented as accurate.

In data terms this is standard GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

@T_R_Oglodyte I would expect some standard deviation but your last remark about GIGO is hyperbole. You said yourself that the SF property numbers were consistently high. The scale only goes to 100 and SF is at 79 so there must be a level of validity to this database since we know SF has issues based on youtube firsthand videos. One could expect some standard deviation but not significant enough to drive different conclusions unless you are suggesting the SF numbers are significantly lower.

Similarly cities which are known for crime tend to be higher in the database while suburbs tend to be lower. This also suggests that it is not GIGO because GIGO would result in random outcomes.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

BTW...did anyone notice the reference in that article to "Frisco"? ROFL


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 15, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Ha!  The Jackson / Jackson Hole is a great example of people just not knowing the correct name.  "Frisco" and "Cali" are examples of people just being lazy in their language, and I think it is more annoying than offensive to locals, but I could be wrong.  "Fly-over States" is, IMO, something completely different -- that term infers that people in those states don't really matter; they are inconsequential; just an annoyance to those traveling to/from the "important" parts of the country.  Can be quite offensive to many who live here.
> 
> Kurt


I looked up Jackson/Jackson Hole. It seems that Jackson refers to the city/town of Jackson but Jackson Hole actually refers to the 48-mile long valley. So it doesn't seem that Jackson Hold is a derogatory term, it was used by early settlers to reference a hole in the ground (valley)

_Visitors often wonder about the difference between Jackson, Wyoming and Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Jackson Hole refers to a 48-mile long valley surrounded by jagged mountain peaks and includes the towns of Jackson, Kelly, Moose, Moran, Wilson, and Teton Village. Known to early settlers as Jackson’s Hole, the area has been renowned since its discovery in the early 1800’s for its incredible natural beauty and abundance of wildlife._









						About Jackson Hole - Jackson Hole History - Jackson Hole Central Reservations - Jackson Hole Central Reservations
					

Visitors often wonder about the difference between Jackson, Wyoming and Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Find information about Jackson Hole, FAQs, maps and more!



					www.jacksonholewy.com
				











						Jackson Hole - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> So it doesn't seem that Jackson Hole is a derogatory term, it was used by early settlers to reference a hole in the ground (valley)


Never said it was derogatory, just that some people are confused of the proper names between the town and the valley.  It doesn't help the confusion that the ski resort that helped make the town famous is named "Jackson Hole Mountain Resort".

Kurt


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 15, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> Cities at most risk are letting homeless set up camps on city streets and public property. This ussualy helps to drive property values down. Detroit never had to have poop maps for visiting guests to navigate the city.



I seem to recall that Detroit's troubles stemmed from an economic downturn of the auto industry. The homeless were a result not a cause. Have you considered that maybe no one bothers to build  a poop map for Detroit because it is not a tourist destination? Why would locals need this?



KimmieM said:


> Thankfully the cold winters limit the homeless camps that infringe on businesses and tourism. Most states prohibit these homeless camps and panhandling.



And where do you expect that they would go since they don't have a home?


----------



## TheHappyWanderer (Oct 15, 2021)

Saw someone walk out of Walgreen's with 2 cases of beer without paying last year in Portland, Oregon, and the clerk just shrugged.  And today I was in the Las Vegas Walgreen's on Flamingo by the Rio and the clerk there said the same thing happens at their store every day.


----------



## amycurl (Oct 15, 2021)

Everyone knows that stealing only pays in bulk….how many people were prosecuted in the 2008 financial collapse? One, you say? Hmmm….
But, yes, let’s go after street thieves. Because we know the likely demographics of one type of criminal vs the other.

And let’s definitely continue to criminalize poverty, because that seems to be going well.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## geist1223 (Oct 16, 2021)

How is it criminalizing poverty theft to prosecute those who break the law? Are you saying the poor have an unalienable right to steal?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 16, 2021)

amycurl said:


> Everyone knows that stealing only pays in bulk….how many people were prosecuted in the 2008 financial collapse? One, you say? Hmmm….
> But, yes, let’s go after street thieves. Because we know the likely demographics of one type of criminal vs the other.


In Seattle, along Third Avenue near Pine, a couple of blocks from Pike Place Market, there is an unofficial "street mart", where you can buy sundry items, of the types that are typically stocked in stores such as Rite-Aid and Walgreens. Toilet paper.  OTC medicines. Toothpaste and toothbrushes. Bottled drinks. Cosmetics Just name it. All the sundries that seem to be in short supply in convenience type stores.  As well as other stuff, such as handbags, various brand name apparel items and electronics goods.  And if there's something you want and they don't have it, they will see if they can procure it for you.

This isn't happening down alleyways or in whispered conversations.  These are folding tables set up on the sidewalk. No permits needed. No taxes. No credit cards. Cash only.  Between tents and tables, the sidewalk is entirely blocked so that if you want to pass by you need to walk in the traffic lanes in the street. And don't try to take something without paying or you will be accosted and assaulted.  And you get open drug dealing as a bonus.

It's not too difficult to conclude that these are not  people who are stealing to stay alive.  They are stealing because stealing and reselling is how they make money and it's an easier gig than holding down a job.

But hey, we can't do anything about that.  Because if we did we would be criminalizing poverty.


----------



## Brett (Oct 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I seem to recall that Detroit's troubles stemmed from an economic downturn of the auto industry. The homeless were a result not a cause. Have you considered that maybe no one bothers to build  a poop map for Detroit because it is not a tourist destination? Why would locals need this?
> 
> 
> 
> And where do you expect that they would go since they don't have a home?




The homeless go to Florida in the winter

seriously -  in some places the panhandlers are on every street corner


----------



## mark201235 (Oct 16, 2021)

amycurl said:


> Everyone knows that stealing only pays in bulk….how many people were prosecuted in the 2008 financial collapse? One, you say? Hmmm….
> But, yes, let’s go after street thieves. Because we know the likely demographics of one type of criminal vs the other.
> 
> And let’s definitely continue to criminalize poverty, because that seems to be going well.
> ...



Absurd


----------



## MdRef (Oct 16, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Per US court decision, Cities can't simply prohibit sleeping in public spaces unless there are available shelter alternatives.



Las Vegas for one, enacted a law which was designed to not run against that Boise, Idaho ruling but yet, address the issues. Businesses were facing a growing problem of camps, along with tents and sleeping bags being set up on the sidewalk, blocking the entrances.

Under the Las Vegas ordinance, if the shelters in Las Vegas run out of space, the ban on camping and sleeping would not be enforced.

However, and this is important to take note, homeless individuals who do not seek refuge in a shelter that has space, can be cited/arrested for a misdemeanor when publicly-funded shelters are not at capacity.

You may have a shelter a mile away that has space and the homeless individual(s) may not wish to travel that far on foot. The city is not required, as far as I'm aware, to transport those individual(s) to that or any other available shelter. This of course may lead to other criminal offenses they can be cited for, depending if they choose to relocate or not.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 16, 2021)

Brett said:


> The homeless go to Florida in the winter
> 
> seriously -  in some places the panhandlers are on every street corner



So Florida, Vegas, Calif. (warm climate) taxpayers must pay for the additional burden of sheltering and managing homeless that are not being cared for in their home states in colder climates. This drains local police, social net and judicial resources.

Perhaps this is the real problem and why some cities are forced to ration their police forces away from petty theft - they are overrun by homeless from other states. It's hard enough to shelter their own much less anyone else's homeless. Local government and state resources are not limitless.

Is it fair to warm climate states that other states don't help foot the bill for sheltering and providing resources for their homeless citizens?


----------



## am1 (Oct 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So Florida, Vegas, Calif. (warm climate) taxpayers must pay for the additional burden of sheltering and managing homeless that are not being cared for in their home states in colder climates. This drains local police, social net and judicial resources.
> 
> Perhaps this is the real problem and why some cities are forced to ration their police forces away from petty theft - they are overrun by homeless from other states. It's hard enough to shelter their own much less anyone else's homeless. Local government and state resources are not limitless.
> 
> Is it fair to warm climate states that other states don't help foot the bill for sheltering and providing resources for their homeless citizens?



Same could be said for countries/regions but it is what it is.  Maybe offer one way bus tickets?  

Regardless petty theft costs us all and can still turn violent.  It sets a poor example for kids when they see/hear people just walking out with stuff whenever they want.  I am always heavier punishment but even a little punishment should be the bear minimum.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> Same could be said for countries/regions but it is what it is.  Maybe offer one way bus tickets?
> 
> Regardless petty theft costs us all and can still turn violent.  It sets a poor example for kids when they see/hear people just walking out with stuff whenever they want.  I am always heavier punishment but even a little punishment should be the bear minimum.



IMO it sets a poor example for our children when they see us advocating punishment instead of a humane solution that takes into account the fact that the homeless are the least among us. If our children are hearing us say about the least among us, "throw the book at 'em" instead of, "throw resources at 'em," they're not learning a good lesson.


----------



## am1 (Oct 16, 2021)

SueDonJ said:


> IMO it sets a poor example for our children when they see us advocating punishment instead of a humane solution that takes into account the fact that the homeless are the least among us. If our children are hearing us say about the least among us, "throw the book at 'em" instead of, "throw resources at 'em," they're not learning a good lesson.



Your point does not make mine any less valuable.  We can both be right but what is not right is allowing people to steal.  What happens after they are caught is up for debate as well as how to prevent it.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 16, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> Regarding the younger generation not being able to buy a home. I feel sad for my newly married grand-daughter. Husband recently inherited $250,000 -- but still not enough for them to finance a home, when lowest price is $800,000.


Maybe they need to make a start in a less expensive area.  Sometimes that is the only factor for moving.  Our son is hiring salesperson and a technician in his store near Park Meadows Mall in Lone Tree, CO.


----------



## PcflEZFlng (Oct 16, 2021)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Maybe they need to make a start in a less expensive area.  Sometimes that is the only factor for moving.  Our son is hiring salesperson and a technician in his store near Park Meadows Mall in Lone Tree, CO.


Spot on. And honestly, this issue (CA/coastal states expensive compared to other areas, mentioned upthread and elsewhere) goes back for decades. Even in the 1960s, you could get a palace in the Midwest for less than a tiny house/yard in Los Angeles. Ask me about it, I know. I grew up in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. In my young days (late 70s/early 80s), I left southern California for ... (wait for it, Cindy !) ... Colorado, where housing costs then were much lower.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 16, 2021)

PcflEZFlng said:


> Spot on. And honestly, this issue (CA/coastal states expensive compared to other areas, mentioned upthread and elsewhere) goes back for decades. Even in the 1960s, you could get a palace in the Midwest for less than a tiny house/yard in Los Angeles. Ask me about it, I know. I grew up in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. In my young days (late 70s/early 80s), I left southern California for ... (wait for it, Cindy !) ... Colorado, where housing costs then were much lower.


Yep.

In 1973 I left St. Louis to go to grad school in the Bay Area.  In St. Louis I was sharing a two-bedroom apartment with a sun room, which we used as a third bedroom.  We were paying about $175/month.  I knew the Bay Area was more expensive, so I was expecting to pay about that amount for a studio apartment.  When I arrived I found that even a rundown studio apartment was about twice that amount. 

My budget was blown out of the water.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 16, 2021)

PcflEZFlng said:


> Spot on. And honestly, this issue (CA/coastal states expensive compared to other areas, mentioned upthread and elsewhere) goes back for decades. Even in the 1960s, you could get a palace in the Midwest for less than a tiny house/yard in Los Angeles. Ask me about it, I know. I grew up in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. In my young days (late 70s/early 80s), I left southern California for ... (wait for it, Cindy !) ... Colorado, where housing costs then were much lower.



Sounds like a good plan except many homeless are people who don't have the capability to figure it out or can't get a job. Hard to get a job when you have a disabling mental illness. Also hard if you are capable but have a misdemeanor for living on the street on your background check. It creates a vicious cycle.


----------



## PcflEZFlng (Oct 16, 2021)

I agree. My response to Cindy was in relation to the cost imbalance to those who are capable. There are a great many disadvantaged who can't avail themselves of that option.


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 16, 2021)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Maybe they need to make a start in a less expensive area.  Sometimes that is the only factor for moving.  Our son is hiring salesperson and a technician in his store near Park Meadows Mall in Lone Tree, CO.


Agree. In this situation they were both born and raised in Santa Cruz CA.
They lived briefly in a low  rent town in Central CA while hubs attended college. After graduation they gave it six months and moved back to their extremely high rent home town.

On the positive side, they have decided friends and family mean more to them than home ownership. I'm just sad for them. One time grand -daughter said to me "G-Ma it's your fault Santa Cruz is my home town." She's right on that --but my decision was made prior to the rise of Silicon Valley.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 16, 2021)

With businesses complaining about not finding workers, this article was one of the best I've read in a long time about a systemic problem:









						New study says ‘hidden workers’ are being excluded
					

Businesses could address labor shortages by tapping into 27 million workers who are “hidden” from corporate hiring processes.




					news.harvard.edu


----------



## geist1223 (Oct 16, 2021)

Homelessness/sleeping on sidewalks and in Parks is not just a warm weather area problem. Portland Oregon and numerous other areas in the Northwest have the same problem. Patti use to volunteer at a Church that opened its Basement in freezing weather. Many of the folks rejected the traditional shelters because they did not want to follow the rules - no booze or drugs.


----------



## am1 (Oct 16, 2021)

geist1223 said:


> Homelessness/sleeping on sidewalks and in Parks is not just a warm weather area problem. Portland Oregon and numerous other areas in the Northwest have the same problem. Patti use to volunteer at a Church that opened its Basement in freezing weather. Many of the folks rejected the traditional shelters because they did not want to follow the rules - no booze or drugs.


Makes sense that booze and drugs would be against the rules.


----------



## klpca (Oct 16, 2021)

PcflEZFlng said:


> Spot on. And honestly, this issue (CA/coastal states expensive compared to other areas, mentioned upthread and elsewhere) goes back for decades. Even in the 1960s, you could get a palace in the Midwest for less than a tiny house/yard in Los Angeles. Ask me about it, I know. I grew up in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. In my young days (late 70s/early 80s), I left southern California for ... (wait for it, Cindy !) ... Colorado, where housing costs then were much lower.


I hear you but it seems crazier than it used to be. One of our kids and her husband make more that we do and have substantial $$ saved but still can't afford a house. A condo, yes. A house, no. We bought our house in the 80's on two entry level salaries and a $10,000 loan from my grandparents. Not even an option now. That said I expect that our kids will be living multiple states away from us. It truly breaks my heart. There was a window a few years ago when we tried to talk them into buying something that they could afford. At that time they could have bought a 2 bedroom house nearby for about $400,000. Same house is selling for about $700k now. Maybe $750k. It is just nuts.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 16, 2021)

klpca said:


> I hear you but it seems crazier than it used to be. One of our kids and her husband make more that we do and have substantial $$ saved but still can't afford a house. A condo, yes. A house, no. We bought our house in the 80's on two entry level salaries and a $10,000 loan from my grandparents. Not even an option now. That said I expect that our kids will be living multiple states away from us. It truly breaks my heart. There was a window a few years ago when we tried to talk them into buying something that they could afford. At that time they could have bought a 2 bedroom house nearby for about $400,000. Same house is selling for about $700k now. Maybe $750k. It is just nuts.


Then on top of that, you have to add property taxes that keep increasing every year. Housing is more affordable in our area, but property taxes in our county have doubled in the past five years. Heads of the local governments are building legacies on our dollars and making housing unaffordable.


----------



## DrQ (Oct 16, 2021)

MdRef said:


> Las Vegas for one, enacted a law which was designed to not run against that Boise, Idaho ruling but yet, address the issues. Businesses were facing a growing problem of camps, along with tents and sleeping bags being set up on the sidewalk, blocking the entrances.
> 
> Under the Las Vegas ordinance, if the shelters in Las Vegas run out of space, the ban on camping and sleeping would not be enforced.
> 
> ...











						Sporadic heavy rains leave behind a trash heap in Las Vegas flood channels
					

The Tropicana Wash was flowing with floodwater from the previous night’s storm to create a mess — a mud-green mattress, plastic water bottles and mismatched sneakers ...




					lasvegassun.com
				



From the above article:
An issue concurrent to trash in the wash system is the presence of camps inhabited by homeless people in tunnels near Flamingo Wash.​​Louis Lacey, manager of the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team at HELP of Southern Nevada, said that should dense rainfall occur, homeless people in the camps have mere minutes to vacate the tunnels.​​On overcast days, Mobile Crisis Intervention Team members enter the tunnels to verbally inform those living there of the weather and direct them toward better shelter, like the Salvation Army. The team will also post signs warning of the incoming weather and potential of flooding.​​But the water itself isn’t the sole issue. Substantial debris that shoots along the wash is just as deadly, Lacey said, and if someone is caught in the tunnel in so pernicious a situation, drownings can transpire.​​“The tunnels present a unique challenge because they are almost like a pre-built shelter,” Lacey said. “You have four walls. You have regulation. It’s not as hot as it is outside, or it’s not as cold as it is outside. So it’s inviting for someone that’s seeking some type of shelter away from the elements.​​"But Las Vegas is a gambling town, so when you are underground, you are literally gambling with your life," he said. "And if the water comes quickly and you don’t get out, there’s a high probability that you will perish.”​


----------



## klpca (Oct 16, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Then on top of that, you have to add property taxes that keep increasing every year. Housing is more affordable in our area, but property taxes in our county have doubled in the past five years. Heads of the local governments are building legacies on our dollars and making housing unaffordable.


It feels really out of control. Although we can't complain because our property tax increases are capped at 2% per year. Since we have lived here since 1987 our property taxes are low. But if the kids bought the house next door (lol) their taxes would be very high - roughly 1.25% of value.


----------



## PcflEZFlng (Oct 16, 2021)

klpca said:


> I hear you but it seems crazier than it used to be. One of our kids and her husband make more that we do and have substantial $$ saved but still can't afford a house. A condo, yes. A house, no. We bought our house in the 80's on two entry level salaries and a $10,000 loan from my grandparents. Not even an option now. That said I expect that our kids will be living multiple states away from us. It truly breaks my heart. There was a window a few years ago when we tried to talk them into buying something that they could afford. At that time they could have bought a 2 bedroom house nearby for about $400,000. Same house is selling for about $700k now. Maybe $750k. It is just nuts.


You are right, on both counts. 1) It's much crazier now (2020-2021) than before, although prices have also gone up substantially outside of CA - just ask anyone in Colorado, for example. 2) There was a window, prior to 2020, where more houses were within reach.

Just out of curiosity, a couple of years ago I did a spreadsheet comparison of the house we bought in 1989 in San Diego (at peak prices, right before a brutal real estate crash) on two professional salaries, vs. what that same house would cost a married couple in the same professions at a similar point in their careers at the 'present time' (pre-2020) after accounting for inflation and contemporary interest rates. My takeaway was that the down payment required 'today' was about twice as much, but the monthly payment 'today' was about 25% lower. I should go back now and re-run the numbers for today (meaning the actual present, not 2 years ago). I suspect the picture would be overall much worse now.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 16, 2021)

PcflEZFlng said:


> You are right, on both counts. 1) It's much crazier now (2020-2021) than before, although prices have also gone up substantially outside of CA - just ask anyone in Colorado, for example. 2) There was a window, prior to 2020, where more houses were within reach.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, a couple of years ago I did a spreadsheet comparison of the house we bought in 1989 in San Diego (at peak prices, right before a brutal real estate crash) on two professional salaries, vs. what that same house would cost a married couple in the same professions at a similar point in their careers at the 'present time' (pre-2020) after accounting for inflation and contemporary interest rates. My takeaway was that the down payment required 'today' was about twice as much, but the monthly payment 'today' was about 25% lower. I should go back now and re-run the numbers for today (meaning the actual present, not 2 years ago). I suspect the picture would be overall much worse now.


We sold our first home in a middle class Cincinnati suburb in 1983 for $53k when we moved to Concord.  Our fixer upper in Concord, CA was $130k and mortgage rate was 13.5% adjustable with 3 cap. Salaries were only about 15% higher so we could barely afford our payments. Our daughter was born a year later and we had to move because child care was more expensive than my wife's income. The only people we knew that could afford the housing were people who had moved there years earlier. Things have gotten much worse since then, and taxes keep going up. We also didn't have the extra expenses then of cell phones, cable, and internet.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 16, 2021)

Hmm...perhaps the rise in the stock market and rise in housing are why boomers are leaving the workforce and retiring? Time to cash out?


----------



## Superchief (Oct 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Hmm...perhaps the rise in the stock market and rise in housing are why boomers are leaving the workforce and retiring? Time to cash out?


The only problem now is that a year ago nobody expected 10%+ inflation, with greater increases in food and gas.


----------



## nerodog (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Sounds like a good plan except many homeless are people who don't have the capability to figure it out or can't get a job. Hard to get a job when you have a disabling mental illness. Also hard if you are capable but have a misdemeanor for living on the street on your background check. It creates a vicious cycle.


That's why the mental health system needs to be back in place for those who need it rather than wandering around the streets.  Deinstitutionalization wasn't necessarily  for everyone.   Yes it does go hand in hand. Bottom line can't accept stealing.  First it's a stick of gum, next it's  a car...


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "Fly over" is a term often associated with east and west coast elites to refer to the heartland states.  Because those are areas you have to fly over when you are traveling between the places that really matter.
> 
> Those who use the term "fly over" generally find the phrase a bit cute.  People I know who live in the "fly over" areas find it snobbish and offensive.



I have only lived on the coasts. However, I had never heard of the term “fly over” until one of my Midwest friends told me. I have never heard anyone use that term. I do not think coastal people spend much time thinking about the Midwest, let alone criticizing them. I found my friend was extremely sensitive about this topic and was creating her own reality about it.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @T_R_Oglodyte Okay makes sense. While we are on the topic of using terms more intelligently, I find the term "Coastal Elite" offensive. It sounds like something a politician has spun because every politician needs a villain (usually imaginary) for them to slay. It sparks emotion to get votes. We are all getting played.
> 
> Of course if one believes the news (not directing this at you T_R_Oglodyte), California is either overrun with rich "elites" or homeless and illegal immigrants who steal and make everywhere unsafe - a wasteland - as one prior poster mentioned. Which is it?



I think it is all of these things. There are many rich elites, many homeless and many illegal immigrants in California. The tech sector is definitely at a higher status and wage level than the average Californian.

I do think San Francisco has been declining. I lived there in the late 90s and it was much nicer back then. SOMA was just starting to emerge. I worked on the border of SOMA. I did not think it was dangerous back then. I have not walked around there recently.

It shocks me how bad some parts of San Francisco are. Places like the Tenderloin have not changed much. I find San Francisco to be dirtier and less safe than the past and certainly many more homeless people than before. I went to a Gay Pride festival a few years back. It was very odd and did not feel clean. Outside the festival’s gates, there were many homeless and trash was everywhere. Inside, many people were naked. Some were naked and sitting on the dirty benches. I do not know how anyone could do that and I am not a germaphobe.

We recently stayed in Fisherman’s Wharf and visited one of the pharmacies. Not sure if it was Walgreens or CVS. We saw some really strange people in the area. I was a bit scared. Back in the 90s when I lived in SF, Fisherman’s Wharf was very safe and not as strange as now. I lived in the Telegraph Hill area and often walked down to Fisherman’s Wharf.

I do find the term “coastal elites” to be offensive. It is a judgment about wealthy people on the coasts who think they are better than others. Again, I do not think most people on the coasts spend much time worrying about these things. I have lived in New York City, New Jersey, Florida and California. I have been in California since 1990 with a brief stint back to Florida for 4 years. There are many misconceptions about California. People either admire it or criticize it. However, the same thing happens with every place. I guess some places just don’t get the same admiration that California gets. 

For some people, they still see California as a dream. I think, in reality, those days are over. My friend from “fly over” country who lives in Florida keeps telling me how great California is and how much she wished she had accepted a job offer to work in CA in the 1990s. I keep telling her California is nothing like it was in the 1990s. She does not believe me because the few times she visits CA, she just goes to the main touristy areas which really does not represent living here.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Sort of like how Californians get upset when others use shorthand names such as "Frisco" or "Cali".  I never viewed those terms as offensive, so they must not be offensive, right?
> 
> Kurt



It’s not offensive but it signals someone who does not live in California and who is out of touch with us. Locals do not use those terms but I do not know anyone who finds it offensive. I hate to say this and sound like a Coastal Elite but I have found those terms are used by ”fly over” types. (Just kidding)


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> Is it okay to say "SoCal"?



Locals do use the terms “SoCal” and “NorCal” but not Frisco or Cali. I do not get offended but I sometimes internally cringe when people say Frisco or Cali. It’s because the people who use these terms are trying to be cool and like they have some kind of insider connection but they do not know using these terms creates the exact opposite feeling that they want to create. It’s like an old person pretending to be cool with their teen daughter’s friends. I cringe like a “teen girl” when people start throwing around terms they think are “cool” but are making the exact opposite impression.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Yep, just like if we hear people use the term "Fly-over States", we know they are not from here, have very little knowledge of these states, and tend to make huge generalizations about the people from these states.
> 
> Kurt



I do not think of Colorado as a fly over state. Maybe I am wrong and it should be in that category. I have never been to Colorado (other than Denver airport) and looking forward to visiting for skiing or something. I like many of the things I have read about Colorado and I think the government may be a lot more efficient there than in California.

I guess I do not think of the Western states as being part of fly over country. Maybe I am wrong about that. BTW, I never use the term ”fly over.” I am a coastal person but I do think the term “fly over” is a bit elitist and offensive.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the issue is more the constant scrutiny. As a police officer especially, you are being watched pretty much 100% of the time. Cameras are everywhere and any slight perceived wrong move is caught on camera splashed on social media and your job in jeopardy. I am not certainly saying that with power also comes accountability but I wouldn't work under those conditions for any amount of money. It seems that many others don't either, otherwise they wouldn't have the issues they have filling positions.



My brother is a retired policeman in Miami. He told his kids NOT to go into law enforcement. The reason has nothing to do with danger or scrutiny. It has to do with the current lack of respect that policemen get. I have heard some extreme left people in California say things like “pigs in a blanket” referring to police and that they want to kill police officers. I find that to be really disgusting. Who would want to be a police officer these days when the people you are trying to help want to kill you?


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Below is a comparison of Crimes in SF and Cincinnati based on FBI stats:
> 
> Yes, property crimes are 4.6 percentage points higher. But look at *Violent Crime* - *Cincinnati is 7.2 percentage points higher than SF!*
> 
> ...



Wow, while I know crime in SF has risen a lot since I lived there in the 90s, I had no idea it was this bad.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

geekette said:


> Drop the word coastal.  Who the hell are “The Elites”?   Did the US adopt an official caste system when I wasn’t looking?    I only started hearing this “elites” label in the past 5-10 years.   Still don’t know who they are, why they are “elite” and how does anyone else get to join the club?   Is it wealth, family name, what?   Can one be un-elited/kicked out?
> 
> are there coastal elites and midcountry elites?
> 
> whackyass world we live in.



The “elites” seems like a political term to me to cause divisiveness. I think I started to hear it on the news.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Nope. Sorry, never said it was okay. In fact I acknowledged earlier in this thread that I had concerns that SF needed to clean up its act. I also expressed that it was stupid for SF to announce their policing priorities for petty crooks.
> 
> After visiting last weekend, it was not perfect but cleaner than my last visit pre-Covid. Our car was parked under a freeway in SOMA in an unlocked unguarded street lot overnight and it was not broken into. We walked around. I did not see any poop - although it probably exists in certain blocks.
> 
> ...



I am surprised LA is lower than SF. LA has some gang infested areas. SF does not. I am guessing the crime in SF is more widespread and not restricted to just certain neighborhoods like it is the Midwestern cities and LA. That, to me, is what makes me feel more unsafe in SF than in other cities.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Have you ever been to SF? There are drug stores on every corner CVS. Rite Aid, Kaiser, UCSF, Target, Walmart, Safeway, Luckys, Costco not to mention mail-order pharmacies. Perhaps this will help local drug stores to thrive. This is no drug store desert.
> 
> The comments by these city officials is pathetic because they are the ones who can fix this problem. This is just politicians talking out of two sides of their mouth. Hollow statements.



I was talking to my husband about this. We think closing Walgreens will just drive more crime to the other drug stores.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I looked up Jackson/Jackson Hole. It seems that Jackson refers to the city/town of Jackson but Jackson Hole actually refers to the 48-mile long valley. So it doesn't seem that Jackson Hold is a derogatory term, it was used by early settlers to reference a hole in the ground (valley)
> 
> _Visitors often wonder about the difference between Jackson, Wyoming and Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Jackson Hole refers to a 48-mile long valley surrounded by jagged mountain peaks and includes the towns of Jackson, Kelly, Moose, Moran, Wilson, and Teton Village. Known to early settlers as Jackson’s Hole, the area has been renowned since its discovery in the early 1800’s for its incredible natural beauty and abundance of wildlife._
> 
> ...



Isn’t Jackson Hole a ski resort? I know if I go to a ski resort, I say I am going to “Squaw Valley” (now Tahoe Palisades) or “Big Sky,” for example. The only reason I would ever go to Wyoming would be to ski in Jackson Hole. So if someone asked me where I was going, I would say Jackson Hole. Would locals look down on me for saying I am going to the ski resort?


----------



## Brett (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> The “elites” seems like a political term to me to cause divisiveness. I think I started to hear it on the news.



yes -    who the "elites" are depends on the politics


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I was talking to my husband about this. We think closing Walgreens will just drive more crime to the other drug stores.


IMHO..
Your spouse is correct.  It is liked removing low income project housings from the inner city with the crack drug problems. Government are now building low income housing in the suburbs.

Crime will follow and the crime rate in the suburbs will increase.

What is the answer or the solutions??? I do not know or have an answer to this problem or the solutions.


----------



## klpca (Oct 17, 2021)

Superchief said:


> The only problem now is that a year ago nobody expected 10%+ inflation, with greater increases in food and gas.


Not quite that high at the moment. Actually 5.4% https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/usa-inflation-rate/ I do remember when you could get that rate on a muni bond. Or 4% on a CD. I also remember a 12% interest rate on our first mortgage. Times feel crazy but we've been through crazy times before. So we are going to have to figure out a way. 

And in our metro area, home prices are up *25%* in 2021. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-27/san-diego-home-prices-now-up-25-in-a-year That is the crazy that I keep mentioning. It is just absolutely nuts.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 17, 2021)

klpca said:


> Not quite that high at the moment. Actually 5.4% https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/usa-inflation-rate/ I do remember when you could get that rate on a muni bond. Or 4% on a CD. I also remember a 12% interest rate on our first mortgage. Times feel crazy but we've been through crazy times before. So we are going to have to figure out a way.
> 
> And in our metro area, home prices are up *25%* in 2021. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-27/san-diego-home-prices-now-up-25-in-a-year That is the crazy that I keep mentioning. It is just absolutely nuts.


I don't trust the reported inflation numbers. I care about the actual costs that I observe in grocery stores and my other bills. Beef prices have more than doubled, even in Costco. Pork and chicken are up about 25%. Fresh vegetables are up 10+% if you can find them. Gas is up over 40%, natural gas is supposed to be up 50% this winter, building materials up 30+%, and my homeowner insurance just increased 10%. These are all expenses I have to cover with a fixed income. Energy prices are a major cause and the US now has to rely on OPEC oil again due to changes in energy policy and production restrictions.  I wish inflation was only 5.4%.


----------



## klpca (Oct 17, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I don't trust the reported inflation numbers. I care about the actual costs that I observe in grocery stores and my other bills. Beef prices have more than doubled, even in Costco. Pork and chicken are up about 25%. Fresh vegetables are up 10+% if you can find them. Gas is up over 40%, natural gas is supposed to be up 50% this winter, building materials up 30+%, and my homeowner insurance just increased 10%. These are all expenses I have to cover with a fixed income. Energy prices are a major cause and the US now has to rely on OPEC oil again due to changes in energy policy and production restrictions.  I wish inflation was only 5.4%.


I can see where your personal rate may vary. Mine hasn't changed much because we have different circumstances so I suppose that between the two of us it must average out. We get a CSA box of fruits and vegetables for $25 per week that is all we need - and honestly the quality is amazing. I still can't figure out how they do it for that price but it is the best thing that happened during covid and we'll never go back to grocery store produce again. We don't eat a lot of meat for health reasons - my husband has issues controlling his cholesterol and sadly beef is not really in the cards much if at all. We put in solar panels on the roof and fake grass in the back yard (lol) to keep our energy and water costs down in retirement. Because we started working from home our auto insurance actually dropped. But we won't talk about homeowners insurance...when you live on a canyon in California you can hardly find an insurer willing to underwrite the risk so it is what it is. I just close my eyes and pay the bill every year. I am not saying that inflation isn't an issue but it does vary from person to person. I can hardly wait to get social security and get a 5.9% increase. I haven't had any raise in 6 years. I am nearing the end of my career and was supposed to be having a reduced workload which hasn't panned out as planned and I haven't decided between asking for a raise or just retiring a year early. 

At this rate I am way more concerned about the maintenance fee increases that we are going to be seeing. Those will probably be eye openers for sure. And looking at our retirement budget, those will be the easiest things to cut loose and will be the first things to go if money gets tight.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 17, 2021)

nerodog said:


> That's why the mental health system needs to be back in place for those who need it rather than wandering around the streets.  Deinstitutionalization wasn't necessarily  for everyone.   Yes it does go hand in hand. Bottom line can't accept stealing.  First it's a stick of gum, next it's  a car...



The challenge with institutionalization and giving one-way bus/plane tickets back home is unless the homeless person is willing they cannot enforce unless they are clearly in danger of self or others. Even then it's only a few days and they are released. The anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers ("my body, my choice") have made enforcing such measures even worse for the courts.

They need to provide carrots, not sticks such as clean permanent housing and meals so they have a stable environment to clean up their act (for drug and alcohol), and psychiatric care for mentally ill. Some agencies now will allow housing if they agree to go through an intensive AA program as part of it. Before it was only after they had completed a program - it wasn't working because it is too difficult when you are surviving on the street.

The problem is that carrots are expensive and cities don't have the resources within their limited city budget (that also must pay for police and fire) to pay for the nation's homeless that find their way to their town. This is a national problem, not just a city problem. Just because some cities and locales sweep homeless out of their town, or because their town has a cold climate and don't provide sufficient programs to care for their own, it makes them part of the problem affecting cities like SF LA, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Honolulu, and San Diego.


----------



## MdRef (Oct 17, 2021)

People sometimes need things that you simply can't provide like, self-control and commitment.

Agree or not, you can't save everybody. While in our own way you may never stop trying, you must understand and accept that you save the world by saving one person at a time.

Anything else is only grandiose romanticism.


----------



## nerodog (Oct 17, 2021)

A





CalGalTraveler said:


> The challenge with institutionalization and giving one-way bus/plane tickets back home is unless the homeless person is willing they cannot enforce unless they are clearly in danger of self or others. Even then it's only a few days and they are released. The anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers ("my body, my choice") have made enforcing such measures even worse for the courts.
> 
> They need to provide carrots, not sticks such as clean permanent housing and meals so they have a stable environment to clean up their act (for drug and alcohol), and psychiatric care for mentally ill. Some agencies now will allow housing if they agree to go through an intensive AA program as part of it. Before it was only after they had completed a program - it wasn't working because it is too difficult when you are surviving on the street.
> 
> The problem is that carrots are expensive and cities don't have the resources within their limited city budget (that also must pay for police and fire) to pay for the nation's homeless that find their way to their town. This is a national problem, not just a city problem. Just because some cities and locales sweep homeless out of their town, or because their town has a cold climate and don't provide sufficient programs to care for their own, it makes them part of the problem affecting cities like SF LA, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Honolulu, and San Diego.


Agree... its a large problem with many facets.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I don't trust the reported inflation numbers. I care about the actual costs that I observe in grocery stores and my other bills. Beef prices have more than doubled, even in Costco. Pork and chicken are up about 25%. Fresh vegetables are up 10+% if you can find them. Gas is up over 40%, natural gas is supposed to be up 50% this winter, building materials up 30+%, and my homeowner insurance just increased 10%. These are all expenses I have to cover with a fixed income. Energy prices are a major cause and the US now has to rely on OPEC oil again due to changes in energy policy and production restrictions.  I wish inflation was only 5.4%.



I looked up the definition of fixed income and it does not seem like a bad thing. In fact, wouldn’t everyone be on a fixed income to some degree? Unless you are a rising star at your company or have a burgeoning business, income does not vary much from year to year. This year, SS is having a big increase. It may not totally cover the cost of living increase but it will beat private sector raises.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

I read that NYC has the biggest homeless population. Washington DC and Boston are in top 10. So how does that square with what people are saying here about the homeless migrating to warmer weather?

I read that New York has more homeless shelters than California so maybe that explains why. Many homeless people in California end up sleeping on the streets and homeless camps.

_Large California cities are heavily represented on the list of U.S. cities that have the most homeless people.

Unlike New York, homeless people in Los Angeles, and California in general, are more likely to live without shelter and on the street. HUD reports an estimated 72 percent of homeless people in California are unsheltered compared to just 4.4 percent in New York._

Interesting article about homeless crisis in CA:








						How California Homelessness Became A Crisis
					

Homelessness has gotten out of control in the Golden State. Will California be able to solve it?




					www.npr.org
				




_Booming cities in other states have arguably done a better job than San Francisco and Los Angeles by at least providing a bandage for the gushing wound. New York City, for example, has a "right to shelter" and a sprawling shelter system that helps people sleep indoors every night.

As of January 2020, 72% of homeless Californians were unsheltered. Compare that to New York state, where only 5% are unsheltered. The result is a city where homelessness, while still troubling, is also less in-your-face. Warmer weather on the West Coast, which may alter thinking about the cruelty of allowing people to sleep outdoors, could play a role in the difference, but New York has a "right to shelter" because of a 1979 court decision that interpreted the state constitution to give New Yorkers this right.

Instead of building a big system of shelters, California's cities have taken a more lackadaisical approach that the UC San Diego sociologist Neil Gong calls "tolerant containment" — basically shoeing the unhoused to certain neighborhoods of squalor such as San Francisco's Tenderloin or Los Angeles' Skid Row, and then selectively prosecuting them for living on the streets. Gong calls this approach "a Frankenstein's monster created by mating civil libertarianism with austerity."_


----------



## Brett (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I read that NYC has the biggest homeless population. Washington DC and Boston are in top 10. So how does that square with what people are saying here about the homeless migrating to warmer weather?
> 
> I read that New York has more homeless shelters than California so maybe that explains why. Many homeless people in California end up sleeping on the streets and homeless camps.
> 
> ...




There are homeless people everywhere - even in Alaska in the winter !
(they break into summer homes)


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I read that NYC has the biggest homeless population. Washington DC and Boston are in top 10. So how does that square with what people are saying here about the homeless migrating to warmer weather?
> 
> I read that New York has more homeless shelters than California so maybe that explains why. Many homeless people in California end up sleeping on the streets and homeless camps.
> 
> ...



Thanks. Interesting article. What is hopeful is the information in the last few paragraphs to expand the Covid HomeKey program to shelter people.  I hadn't heard about this expansion before. It's not getting much press. I hope they are also looking at NY's model.

_Gov. Newsom recently announced a $12 billion plan promising to "provide 65,000 people with housing placements, more than 300,000 people with housing stability and create 46,000 new housing units." The initiative builds on programs implemented during the pandemic that converted hotels and other buildings into housing for the unhoused. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, following up on a city ballot initiative that authorized taxing big companies and using the funds to help the homeless, wants the city to spend more than a billion dollars on the problem over the next two years. _


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks. Interesting article. What is hopeful is the information in the last few paragraphs to expand the Covid HomeKey program to shelter people.  I hadn't heard about this expansion before. It's not getting much press. I hope they are also looking at NY's model.
> 
> _Gov. Newsom recently announced a $12 billion plan promising to "provide 65,000 people with housing placements, more than 300,000 people with housing stability and create 46,000 new housing units." The initiative builds on programs implemented during the pandemic that converted hotels and other buildings into housing for the unhoused. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, following up on a city ballot initiative that authorized taxing big companies and using the funds to help the homeless, wants the city to spend more than a billion dollars on the problem over the next two years. _


Throwing money at the situation isn't going to solve the problem.  What it will do is facilitate buildout of an infrastructure that exists to serve the homeless, and that infrastructure will ensure that the problem is never solved, because if it were solved they would all lose their jobs.  The heads of some organizations in Seattle that serve the homeless draw salaries that are on the order of $150k per year.  And for all of the money that has been given to them, problems never go away.  

What happens to the money given to those organizations?  Not much of it goes to helping the homeless.  Most of it goes into paying the salaries of those who are supposed to be helping the homeless.  And the organizations utterly and avidly resist any inference that how much money they receive should be tied to the number of people they get into permanent housing.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks. Interesting article. What is hopeful is the information in the last few paragraphs to expand the Covid HomeKey program to shelter people.  I hadn't heard about this expansion before. It's not getting much press. I hope they are also looking at NY's model.
> 
> _Gov. Newsom recently announced a $12 billion plan promising to "provide 65,000 people with housing placements, more than 300,000 people with housing stability and create 46,000 new housing units." The initiative builds on programs implemented during the pandemic that converted hotels and other buildings into housing for the unhoused. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, following up on a city ballot initiative that authorized taxing big companies and using the funds to help the homeless, wants the city to spend more than a billion dollars on the problem over the next two years. _




This is a great initiative (NOT) as it just gives a little more incentive for those who want to be homeless to remain on the homeless roles;  sort of like a lifetime of welfare.  Is there a "Means Test" so these folks can not remain there forever or are the taxpayers on the hook for the life of the homeless persons?

Or, are these buildings being put up to indirectly deal with the "poop" issue and place the homeless behind the scenes?   Out of sight, out of mind?

I don't mind helping folks who need assistance, however I don't want to take away the incentive to work and force them to earn their own way.  At one time jobs used to be difficult to find, however that is no longer the case.  You can pick up a job just about anywhere at this point,  Companies are begging for help.




.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 17, 2021)

@T_R_Oglodyte @TheTimeTraveler  Unlike other programs, the Homekey program apparently was very cost effective and fast. Nothing else has worked; if living on the street is not enough incentive, what is? What do you suggest instead? At least the shelters in NY get them off the street. I don't know if this will work or not but I would rather see them trying than giving up and making things worse.







TheTimeTraveler said:


> At one time jobs used to be difficult to find, however that is no longer the case.  You can pick up a job just about anywhere at this point,  Companies are begging for help.



You cannot get a job if the background check AI screener throws you out for a prior conviction for living on the street. You cannot get a job if you cannot take a shower and wear clean clothes.  You cannot keep a job if you didn't have a good night's sleep on the street the night before. Read the prior article I posted about the Hidden Workforce. There are structural issues. IMO...I am tired of hearing large companies whining about not finding people. Companies need to think differently about the way they hire.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @T_R_Oglodyte @TheTimeTraveler  Unlike other programs, the Homekey program apparently was very cost effective and fast. Nothing else has worked; if living on the street is not enough incentive, what is? What do you suggest instead? At least the shelters in NY get them off the street. I don't know if this will work or not but I would rather see them trying than giving up and making things worse.


I haven't looked into the Homekey program so it might very well work.  But I wasn't commenting specifically on that. 

Regardless, in any program there has to be real accountability for results.  That doesn't mean tracking how the money is spent.  That means contracts terminated or extended based on actual performance.  

At least in the Northwest, that has been totally lacking.  Much of the resistance by businesses to added taxing is the utter lack of any program with any accountability measures for how the program is going to solve the problem.  It's open up a money tap and we'll back up the money truck and you fill it up.  

All of this is being pushed by the same politicians, and the same organizations that are spending money willy-nilly with almost nothing to show for it.  They just want more money so they can hire more staff to do whatever it is they do, with no accountability for what really works.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 17, 2021)

@T_R_Oglodyte I do agree that throwing money at a problem often results in overinflated administrative costs. I don't know much about this HomeKey program but they claim there is transparency and accountability - time will tell. At least it will get many people off the sidewalk, and adds to housing inventory. As they say in sports, _"If you are losing the game try something (anything) different because what you are doing is not working."_ Homelessness is the #1 issue cited by voters in Calif.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Throwing money at the situation isn't going to solve the problem.  What it will do is facilitate buildout of an infrastructure that exists to serve the homeless, and that infrastructure will ensure that the problem is never solved, because if it were solved they would all lose their jobs.  The heads of some organizations in Seattle that serve the homeless draw salaries that are on the order of $150k per year.  And for all of the money that has been given to them, problems never go away.
> 
> What happens to the money given to those organizations?  Not much of it goes to helping the homeless.  Most of it goes into paying the salaries of those who are supposed to be helping the homeless.  And the organizations utterly and avidly resist any inference that how much money they receive should be tied to the number of people they get into permanent housing.



I think there need to be programs to help homeless people get jobs and their own housing. More affordable housing needs to be built. Many of the articles I read said one root cause of homelessness is the housing chain. Upper income people have to move into housing that was previously for middle class people. Then middle class people move into housing that was previously for lower income people. Then lower income people get displaced. We see this with gentrification in many parts of the USA. In CA, 1950s tract homes that anyone used to be able to afford are now $1M to $2M+ homes in many parts of the SF Bay Area. 

In Los Gatos, where we used to live, we sold out home for $2.4M in 2019. I still get emails from Zillow and that same house is approaching $3M since Covid. It was a 1970s tract home of 2100 sf. We did remodel it but anywhere else in the USA, it would be a $300K to $500K house today.

More affordable housing needs to be built everywhere in the USA. In SF Bay Area, people fight development of affordable housing. It‘s the NIMBY thing. I have a friend who lives in Plantation FL and they are fighting breaking up 1 acre lots that are zoned for 1 home per acre. I calculated how large the lots would be based on what the developer wants to build and it would be 7500 sf lots not including easements, which adds extra sf around the homes. To me, those are big city lots and certainly bigger than many lots for new homes in South FL. I really do not why they are fighting development. In fact, I think they should build multi family housing with smaller lots on that land.

I was reading an article about Atherton, CA. Some say it is the most expensive town in the USA. The lots are regulated by the town and must be a minimum of 1 acre. The median price of the homes were about $8 million and probably more at this time. I just did a Zillow search and one home is listed for $100 Million. Homes that expensive are usually sold off market so there are probably more. There were 24 homes over $8 million and 5 under $8 million so the median must be well about $8 million by now.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @T_R_Oglodyte @TheTimeTraveler  Unlike other programs, the Homekey program apparently was very cost effective and fast. Nothing else has worked; if living on the street is not enough incentive, what is? What do you suggest instead? At least the shelters in NY get them off the street. I don't know if this will work or not but I would rather see them trying than giving up and making things worse.
> 
> View attachment 41172
> 
> ...



That is why I would propose jobs programs. There are many jobs that people can get with prior convictions. I agree that more companies could hire homeless people for certain jobs if the people got cleaned up through social assistance and trained for the jobs. Of course, many homeless people have severe mental illness and they should qualify for long term disability. I am not sure why they don’t get it. I see many people with not as serious disabilities on long term SSI. I guess homeless people with serious mental illness are not able to advocate for themselves due to their illness.


----------



## klpca (Oct 17, 2021)

I wasn't going to bother posting this story again but I have an extra 5 min in my day so here we go. I was hired to work in a public accounting firm back in the early 80's. The partner who interviewed me (and I discovered later, advocated for hiring me) was a tall, good looking, charming and smart guy. Let's call him Ken. Master of the universe, if you will. I left the firm four years later and went to work for another firm. I found out a few years later that the partner who had hired me (Ken) was living on the streets of downtown San Diego. He had previously worked in a nice office building in the same area, but now he was living on the streets as a homeless person. He was severely bipolar and off of his meds. Those of us who worked for him had never, ever suspected that anything was wrong with him. He left his wife and kids and no one could reach him. One of the principals in our new firm went out and found him on the street, cleaned him up and gave him a job in the new firm. That lasted for about 3 months, then Ken was back on the street. He did not drink or use drugs. But he did have an untreated, diagnosed mental illness. No one knows what happened to him. No one has seen him in years and we all assume that his is dead. It is a shocking story, and so sad.

Coincidentally another woman who worked at our firm was the daughter of a dentist who suffered the same fate. He was bipolar and eventually was living on the streets. It is so sad. 

I don't know what the answer is, but assuming that everyone on the streets is there by choice is a generalization that does not get to the root of the problem. Sure some people are just lazy SOB's and I have no problem with some tough love for them, but for the mentally ill I think that we as a society need to try a bit harder. I am certainly no bleeding heart liberal but I do have a heart. Some of us are so fortunate in life. Others have wound up with the proverbial short end of the stick. I will be honest, I don't have it in me to work directly with the homeless, so instead I am happy to donate to causes to help others, and if some of my taxes go in that direction, so be it.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I think there need to be programs to help homeless people get jobs and their own housing. More affordable housing needs to be built. Many of the articles I read said one root cause of homelessness is the housing chain. Upper income people have to move into housing that was previously for middle class people. Then middle class people move into housing that was previously for lower income people. Then lower income people get displaced. We see this with gentrification in many parts of the USA. In CA, 1950s tract homes that anyone used to be able to afford are now $1M to $2M+ homes in many parts of the SF Bay Area.
> 
> In Los Gatos, where we used to live, we sold out home for $2.4M in 2019. I still get emails from Zillow and that same house is approaching $3M since Covid. It was a 1970s tract home of 2100 sf. We did remodel it but anywhere else in the USA, it would be a $300K to $500K house today.
> 
> ...



So why live in California? This is not a snark, but a serious question. I like Hawaii, but I'd never live there, too expensive. So I own a few timeshares and winter some there.

I here "high wages", but what is their actual purchasing power? You might find that other places offer more "bang for the buck" at a lower wage. . .


----------



## klpca (Oct 17, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> So why live in California? This is not a snark, but a serious question. I like Hawaii, but I'd never live there, too expensive. So I own a few timeshares and winter some there.
> 
> I here "high wages", but what is their actual purchasing power? You might find that other places offer more "bang for the buck" at a lower wage. . .


I can only answer for me, but it is for family connections. Everyone is here. My children, my parents, my siblings, my in-laws. My family. There is more to life than dollars and cents.


----------



## RunCat (Oct 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So Florida, Vegas, Calif. (warm climate) taxpayers must pay for the additional burden of sheltering and managing homeless that are not being cared for in their home states in colder climates. This drains local police, social net and judicial resources.
> 
> Perhaps this is the real problem and why some cities are forced to ration their police forces away from petty theft - they are overrun by homeless from other states. It's hard enough to shelter their own much less anyone else's homeless. Local government and state resources are not limitless.
> 
> Is it fair to warm climate states that other states don't help foot the bill for sheltering and providing resources for their homeless citizens?



4th Generation Santa Monican, now living in CO (wife insisted on moving in‘04):  the homeless in CA have been a problem for at over 30 years.   It has just been exacerbated by the increase in wealth that does not want homeless near their home.  And the lack of space to build.  I think LA county ran of out of available single family zoned lots 20 years ago.  And the problem will not abate until other parts of the country can compete with the employment opportunities that CA offers.   However, not sure what you mean by other state’s  homeless? I’m sure a high percent of the CA population moved  their productivity to CA as well.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 17, 2021)

klpca said:


> I can only answer for me, but it is for family connections. Everyone is here. My children, my parents, my siblings, my in-laws. My family. There is more to life than dollars and cents.


That is probably why a lot of people live where they do, but the negatives are different. I live in the Cincinnati area for similar reasons despite the weather and high property taxes. People are nice here and traffic isn't too bad. Timeshares help because we can go to beach or desert in winter and mountains in summer.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Many of the articles I read said one root cause of homelessness is the housing chain. Upper income people have to move into housing that was previously for middle class people. Then middle class people move into housing that was previously for lower income people. Then lower income people get displaced. We see this with gentrification in many parts of the USA. In CA, 1950s tract homes that anyone used to be able to afford are now $1M to $2M+ homes in many parts of the SF Bay Area.


In my youth, the general pattern seemed to be that upper income people moved into new housing that had latest and best.  The houses they vacated filtered down the middle class.  The middle class houses that became lower class.  The housing vacated by the lower class became derelict. 

Or there was housing that was built for the middle class,  particularly in the post WWII boom.  As that housing was filled, the new owners vacated their old housing.

An example of that is from a project I did as an assignment in an urban planning and architecture class I took as an undergrad.  We had to select a property that was 100 years old in St. Louis, and then summarize the history and usage of the property using ownership records, property tax records, Sanford Maps, news clipping etc.  

I selected a property in the Soulard neighborhood.  Soulard was originally an elite neighborhood.  The house I selected had been built by one of the wealthiest families in St. Louis it was a three-story row house.  The main floor had the kitchen, entertaining areas, etc.  Second and third floors were the living areas.  Servants quarters were tucked into the attic area. There were several Presidents of the US who stayed in the house during visits to St. Lous.

As the gentry moved out the West End, they sold the house, the next owner was a professional.  Not the gentry, But still substantial.  In subsequent ownerships there was a steady downward march in the economic status of the owners.  Somewhere, along the way, the property was converted into a triplex, one unit on each floor. 

Later it was converted to a rooming house.  Rooms for rent by the week.  Mini-refrigerator and hotplate in each room.  Many of the large room had been carved up into smaller rooms, probably no code review. 

That was the pattern. In Minneapolis where I grew up, Franklin Avenue south of downtown was originally wealthy.  When I was a teenager it had become very seedy. 

*******

Why doesn't that pattern no longer occur.  IMO - one key issue is regional growth management initiatives to reduce urban sprawl. One effect of those initiatives was to constrain the development of new housing. Constraining the supply of new housing drives up the prices on existing housing.  Classic supply and demand.  

Now, I'm not saying that growth management policies are bad.  But to the extent that growth management policies constrain the development of new housing, they will create pricing pressure on existing housing supplies, and encouraging gentrification of neighborhoods.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 17, 2021)

True compassion not only says ‘yes,’ it also says ‘no’
					

It is not compassionate to allow young women to get trafficked in broad daylight because the Seattle Police Department is underfunded. It is not compassionate to allow people to live in tented squalor in public spaces.




					www.seattletimes.com


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> That is why I would propose jobs programs. There are many jobs that people can get with prior convictions. I agree that more companies could hire homeless people for certain jobs if the people got cleaned up through social assistance and trained for the jobs. Of course, many homeless people have severe mental illness and they should qualify for long term disability. I am not sure why they don’t get it. I see many people with not as serious disabilities on long term SSI. I guess homeless people with serious mental illness are not able to advocate for themselves due to their illness.


I wonder if drugs isn't the big issue here.  People who are inclined to drug use have options that are for more potent and far more debilitating than the classics of alcohol, heroin, and cocaine.  So we simply have many more people with scrambled brains than we faced 50 years ago. 

And given, that I don't believe it is "compassionate" to run programs that condone continued behaviors that are destructive to the individual and to society.  Fifty or sixty years ago we scooped up those people and put them into a criminal system which required them to dry out and do some semblance or rehab.  I don't see how allowing people to live in the atrocious and addled conditions that we would never tolerate fifty or sixty years ago is more humane.


----------



## lockewong (Oct 18, 2021)

So, I just read in the Sunday, October 17, 2021, San Francisco Chronicle that Walgreen's closed those San Francisco outlet stores because of the lack of revenue in those stores, and the issue was over-expansion.  It was not a theft issue.  Those stores had two thefts aka looting in the past two years.  But, as compared to their rival, CVS, in San Francisco,  they (Walgreen's) had twice as many stores.  So, they closed them for bottom-line business purposes...Also, Walgreen's will close any stores in the United States for bottom-line financial reasons...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 18, 2021)

RunCat said:


> homeless in CA have been a problem for at over 30 years


"Homeless" has been an issue for centuries, if not millennia.  Even within the last century, there have been homelessness surges associated with the Dust Bowl, and the Great Depression.  Upthread I mentioned my great-grandfather who became homeless when he lost the little that he had and became a public ward. 

It is very curious to me that almost all discussions about homelessness seem to treat as some new phenomenon.  It isn't, and isn't it likely that looking to the past might be a good source of wisdom for now?


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> So why live in California? This is not a snark, but a serious question. I like Hawaii, but I'd never live there, too expensive. So I own a few timeshares and winter some there.
> 
> I here "high wages", but what is their actual purchasing power? You might find that other places offer more "bang for the buck" at a lower wage. . .



I agree with you. I can do my job from anywhere bc I work remotely. My husband is working remotely too for now but when his company opens up again, he will need to go in perhaps one day a week. We actually left the SF Bay Area and no longer live there. I really hated the SF Bay Area and finally convinced my husband to move. Now we live in a great area that is beautiful and semi rural and you get much more bang for your buck for housing. It does not feel like California at all. People here are more middle of the road and more conservative than the SF Bay Area. Other than the high state tax, the cost of living here is very reasonable for what we have. It has become a haven for many ex-Bay Area people, which has been driving up the cost since we bought our house here 7 years ago.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2021)

klpca said:


> I wasn't going to bother posting this story again but I have an extra 5 min in my day so here we go. I was hired to work in a public accounting firm back in the early 80's. The partner who interviewed me (and I discovered later, advocated for hiring me) was a tall, good looking, charming and smart guy. Let's call him Ken. Master of the universe, if you will. I left the firm four years later and went to work for another firm. I found out a few years later that the partner who had hired me (Ken) was living on the streets of downtown San Diego. He had previously worked in a nice office building in the same area, but now he was living on the streets as a homeless person. He was severely bipolar and off of his meds. Those of us who worked for him had never, ever suspected that anything was wrong with him. He left his wife and kids and no one could reach him. One of the principals in our new firm went out and found him on the street, cleaned him up and gave him a job in the new firm. That lasted for about 3 months, then Ken was back on the street. He did not drink or use drugs. But he did have an untreated, diagnosed mental illness. No one knows what happened to him. No one has seen him in years and we all assume that his is dead. It is a shocking story, and so sad.
> 
> Coincidentally another woman who worked at our firm was the daughter of a dentist who suffered the same fate. He was bipolar and eventually was living on the streets. It is so sad.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is, but assuming that everyone on the streets is there by choice is a generalization that does not get to the root of the problem. Sure some people are just lazy SOB's and I have no problem with some tough love for them, but for the mentally ill I think that we as a society need to try a bit harder. I am certainly no bleeding heart liberal but I do have a heart. Some of us are so fortunate in life. Others have wound up with the proverbial short end of the stick. I will be honest, I don't have it in me to work directly with the homeless, so instead I am happy to donate to causes to help others, and if some of my taxes go in that direction, so be it.



I agree with you that many homeless people are mentally ill. I do not understand why we can‘t get them on SSI so they can have a small income and find a place to live.


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 18, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "Homeless" has been an issue for centuries, if not millennia.  Even within the last century, there have been homelessness surges associated with the Dust Bowl, and the Great Depression.  Upthread I mentioned my great-grandfather who became homeless when he lost the little that he had and became a public ward.
> 
> It is very curious to me that almost all discussions about homelessness seem to treat as some new phenomenon.  It isn't, and isn't it likely that looking to the past might be a good source of wisdom for now?


This reminds me of a story I heard on the radio more than 25 years ago.
A man was telling his story. Born and raised in Chicago in 1950s.
He fell on hard times.
He and a friend hopped a rail car headed for California, headed for a little town called Santa Cruz, because "we heard the weather was mild and it was easier to be homeless there". There is a huge homeless population here, many living along the banks of a river. They get bulldozed out annually.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 18, 2021)

lockewong said:


> So, I just read in the Sunday, October 17, 2021, San Francisco Chronicle that Walgreen's closed those San Francisco outlet stores because of the lack of revenue in those stores, and the issue was over-expansion.  It was not a theft issue.  Those stores had two thefts aka looting in the past two years.  But, as compared to their rival, CVS, in San Francisco,  they (Walgreen's) had twice as many stores.  So, they closed them for bottom-line business purposes...Also, Walgreen's will close any stores in the United States for bottom-line financial reasons...


My level of trust in the SF Chronicle as an "objective" source of information is on the same par as my trust in the NY Times and Fox News.

Which is to say that all of them follow the current journalism standard of practice of deciding what the slant of the story needs to be, then researching and providing the narrative to align with the established biases and focuses of the organ. 

Because it isn't about informing the public, it's about generating clicks and page views and audience.  And providing stories that don't agree with what the audience wants to hear is a fast way to descend into readership click hell.

Now if you want to use that as an information to formulate and prepare an analysis, that can be OK.  Or if you want to present it as, "here's another take" that's ok.  But pointing to a SF Chron news story as definitive than pointing to a Fox news story, IMNSHO.

********

As some background, in the 1970s and early 1980s I worked in CA state government, and one of my job duties was handling information requests that came in from news agencies on issues involved in the program I was working.  I spent a fair amount of time working with news reporters and editors to respond to those requests, help editors with fact-checking (that actually occurred in those days) and to provide background information.  That included a significant amount of work with SF Chron, SF Examiner,  Oakland Trib, San Jose Mercury-News, the McClatchy newspaper, the LA Times, OC Register, etc.  Also much of the major broadcast (TV and radio) outlets.

I remember well one particular situation, working with one of the major SF network news outlets. They were developing a story, and I was providing them with the information that we had.  When they broke the story, they included in the story that was false. And I knew that could only have happened deliberately because I had talked with the news produdor (who was running the story) specifically about the subject, had provided the background information. They chose to ignore the documentation and create their own narrative that was fabricated.

A couple of days later I was meeting my contact and I confronted him about it.  He acknowledged that what I was saying was true, but as explanation he said they presented it "made a better story".  That' wasn't presented as any kind of apology.  He was simply indulging me with an explanation for why they simply fabricated a significant part of the story.

Under the media rules of the time, broadcast networks were allowed to own a limited number of local affiliates.  And this was an affiliate that was owned by a one of the national networks.  Last info I received on him was that he had been promoted to a national editor position for the network.

************

So I learned that when reading a news story, the first thing to think about is what are they trying to make me believe, and to proceed under that I am being led in a direction intended by the writer/editor/publisher.  There certainly might be useful information in the story; that is what institutions such as the NY Times and the WA Post excel.  But what you read is excised, sliced, diced, and edited to promote readership and clicks/views, not to inform readership.  

Because a news model that is based on "informing" readership is a prescription for bankruptcy.


----------



## b2bailey (Oct 18, 2021)

Also want to comment about the way this topic started about SF and Walgreens and morphed into this.


----------



## klpca (Oct 18, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> Also want to comment about the way this topic started about SF and Walgreens and morphed into this.


We have covered a lot of territory in this thread, that's for sure.


----------



## klpca (Oct 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I agree with you that many homeless people are mentally ill. I do not understand why we can‘t get them on SSI so they can have a small income and find a place to live.


The guy I referenced earlier wanted nothing to do with finding a place to live. His disease was in control of his brain. I am not sure how to help these people.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 18, 2021)

b2bailey said:


> Also want to comment about the way this topic started about SF and Walgreens and morphed into this.


TUG threads have a long history of morphing and meandering, much like a water cooler conversation.  In fact, the TUG Lounge (nee Fern's Cafe - RIP TUG stalwart Fern Modena) was created to be just to be that kind of place. "Pull up a chair, sit down, and let's chat."

I don't apologize for that.  I have many friends who when I see them and we start to converse, the conversation could go in any direction.  Sometimes we share jokes, sometimes we commiserate.  Sometimes we wind up on topics completely unrelated to where we started.  Sometimes we do down a bunny trail, and we say that we're on a bunny trail and let's get back. Other times the bunny trail is so interesting we stay with it.

I often think of my activities in the Lounge in that fashion.  You are my friends, and friends have ordinary conversations.  And just as in my real life conversations, if a friend thinks that maybe we've gone astray they should say so.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 18, 2021)

klpca said:


> The guy I referenced earlier wanted nothing to do with finding a place to live. His disease was in control of his brain. I am not sure how to help these people.



Me neither. In the past they were locked up. 

Bill


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2021)

klpca said:


> The guy I referenced earlier wanted nothing to do with finding a place to live. His disease was in control of his brain. I am not sure how to help these people.



Good point.


----------



## Brett (Oct 18, 2021)

klpca said:


> The guy I referenced earlier wanted nothing to do with finding a place to live. His disease was in control of his brain. I am not sure how to help these people.



The people that help  (healthcare workers, churches, salvation army, etc.) say that mental illness is a big problem with the homeless


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 18, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> So why live in California? This is not a snark, but a serious question. I like Hawaii, but I'd never live there, too expensive. So I own a few timeshares and winter some there.
> 
> I here "high wages", but what is their actual purchasing power? You might find that other places offer more "bang for the buck" at a lower wage. . .



We both work here. My DH is in his early 60s and would not likely get a similar job of responsibility, pay and perks elsewhere at his age. He loves his job. I also need to work in the area. Even though we work mostly at home, We still need to be in the office at least 1 - 2 days a week.

We researched retiring out of state in Nevada. With Covid, out-of-state prices skyrocketed and the lots on new homes were half the size with only a few $100k price differential for a similar home. Why leave if there is little financial benefit? Perhaps if prices readjust we may reconsider.

We have almost perfect weather year round that we cannot get anywhere else we looked (except San Diego). We live in a suburb of the SF Bay Area which is safe and clean with many amenities. I don't need to lock my door.  We love our home and our neighbors have a social get-together every month. We've owned our home for many years so can afford it. What we don't like is how crowded the Bay Area has become. We will stay for now.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 18, 2021)

lockewong said:


> So, I just read in the Sunday, October 17, 2021, San Francisco Chronicle that Walgreen's closed those San Francisco outlet stores because of the lack of revenue in those stores, and the issue was over-expansion.  It was not a theft issue.  Those stores had two thefts aka looting in the past two years.  But, as compared to their rival, CVS, in San Francisco,  they (Walgreen's) had twice as many stores.  So, they closed them for bottom-line business purposes...Also, Walgreen's will close any stores in the United States for bottom-line financial reasons...



I thought the closing for shoplifting was a pretext to hide the fact that their stores couldn't compete with so many alternatives. If Walgreens told this version of the story it would affect their stock price.  The shoplifting story would have minimal impact.

I don't doubt about the shoplifting, however if you were in Walgreens PR, which version of the story would you prefer to tell?


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 18, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> We both work here. My DH is in his early 60s and would not likely get a similar job of responsibility, pay and perks elsewhere at his age. He loves his job. I also need to work in the area. Even though we work mostly at home, We still need to be in the office at least 1 - 2 days a week.
> 
> We researched retiring out of state in Nevada. With Covid, out-of-state prices skyrocketed and the lots on new homes were half the size with only a few $100k price differential for a similar home. Why leave if there is little financial benefit? Perhaps if prices readjust we may reconsider.
> 
> We have almost perfect weather year round that we cannot get anywhere else we looked (except San Diego). We live in a suburb of the SF Bay Area which is safe and clean with many amenities. I don't need to lock my door.  We love our home and our neighbors have a social get-together every month. We've owned our home for many years so can afford it. What we don't like is how crowded the Bay Area has become. We will stay for now.



A matter of perspective. A few $100k is about what my house sell for right now ($350k). That's for a 2300 Sq Ft, all brick house, in a nice neighborhood. (and no state income tax.)

Perfect weather? No way, Jose! Too hot in summer and too cold in winter. (OTOH American Airlines' hub is here. Straight shot to Honolulu, and some times to Kona.)

What price perfect weather?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 18, 2021)

True...but as @klpca stated. Not everything is dollar and cents. This is where we spend the bulk of our time. Our DD lives in SF now. We can be close to her. This is why some people buy Porsches and some buy Honda Civics.  No doubt we could find a similarly nice homes and neighborhoods out of state for less, but for now we are paying extra to stay.

If our kids move out of state we will likely follow.


----------



## klpca (Oct 18, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> A matter of perspective. A few $100k is about what my house sell for right now ($350k). That's for a 2300 Sq Ft, all brick house, in a nice neighborhood. (and no state income tax.)
> 
> Perfect weather? No way, Jose! Too hot in summer and too cold in winter. (OTOH American Airlines' hub is here. Straight shot to Honolulu, and some times to Kona.)
> 
> What price perfect weather?


At what price family?

We are stuck like a cork in a bottle. We live a mile away from my 82 year old mom and I am certainly not going to move away from her just when she will need the most help. My siblings live a few hours away so it is just me who can easily care for her. So even if our kids move to another state, we will be staying here. Besides, our house costs us very little so there's not a lot of savings to be had by moving away. It would actually be peanuts in the big scheme of things. It could even be a dumb financial move to sell and move at the rate our housing prices are increasing, although I hope that changes. What city can sustain an annual 25% increase in prices? At some point the bubble has to burst.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Oct 18, 2021)

lockewong said:


> So, I just read in the Sunday, October 17, 2021, San Francisco Chronicle that Walgreen's closed those San Francisco outlet stores because of the lack of revenue in those stores, and the issue was over-expansion.  It was not a theft issue.  Those stores had two thefts aka looting in the past two years.  But, as compared to their rival, CVS, in San Francisco,  they (Walgreen's) had twice as many stores.  So, they closed them for bottom-line business purposes...Also, Walgreen's will close any stores in the United States for bottom-line financial reasons...





That was a nice response to deal with an ongoing theft issue.  Those theft issues directly caused a "lack of revenue" (hence little or no profitability).


.


----------



## SmithOp (Oct 18, 2021)

There are entirely too many Walgreens/RiteAid/CVS/SaveOn pharmacy stores, that is a bubble bound to burst, closing some of them. 

I have 2 CVS, a Walgreens, and a SaveOn (Inside grocery store) within one mile radius of where I live, its ridiculous. I get all my meds mail order…I only go to CVS to buy lottery tickets 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tia (Oct 18, 2021)

100% right and that isn't the only problem where money is thrown and does exactly what is described here



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Throwing money at the situation isn't going to solve the problem.  What it will do is facilitate buildout of an infrastructure that exists to serve the homeless, and that infrastructure will ensure that the problem is never solved, because if it were solved they would all lose their jobs.  The heads of some organizations in Seattle that serve the homeless draw salaries that are on the order of $150k per year.  And for all of the money that has been given to them, problems never go away.
> 
> What happens to the money given to those organizations?  Not much of it goes to helping the homeless.  Most of it goes into paying the salaries of those who are supposed to be helping the homeless.  And the organizations utterly and avidly resist any inference that how much money they receive should be tied to the number of people they get into permanent housing.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 18, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I thought the closing for shoplifting was a pretext to hide the fact that their stores couldn't compete with so many alternatives. If Walgreens told this version of the story it would affect their stock price.  The shoplifting story would have minimal impact.
> 
> I don't doubt about the shoplifting, however if you were in Walgreens PR, which version of the story would you prefer to tell?



I read that Walgreens is loosing about $1000 a day to shoplifters that often threaten and occasionally harm their employees. While shoplifting does cost Walgreens the cost to have employees has increased too. Even at $15 per hour why would employees want to work at a location where shoplifting is acceptable and employees are often threatened ? My bet is all of these factors played a role in closing.

Bill


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> We both work here. My DH is in his early 60s and would not likely get a similar job of responsibility, pay and perks elsewhere at his age. He loves his job. I also need to work in the area. Even though we work mostly at home, We still need to be in the office at least 1 - 2 days a week.
> 
> We researched retiring out of state in Nevada. With Covid, out-of-state prices skyrocketed and the lots on new homes were half the size with only a few $100k price differential for a similar home. Why leave if there is little financial benefit? Perhaps if prices readjust we may reconsider.
> 
> We have almost perfect weather year round that we cannot get anywhere else we looked (except San Diego). We live in a suburb of the SF Bay Area which is safe and clean with many amenities. I don't need to lock my door.  We love our home and our neighbors have a social get-together every month. We've owned our home for many years so can afford it. What we don't like is how crowded the Bay Area has become. We will stay for now.



It is interesting that you say you can’t find a similar home outside CA. I have the same issue. We bought our current home in late 2014. It is a relatively new huge Mediterranean style home on 1.5 acres (with a 10 acre preserve behind us) in a golf course community. Prices have significantly increased since we bought this home not only here but all over the USA for luxury homes. We bought this home for $1M below what it cost the previous owner to build it. It is still below what she paid to build it but it is getting closer. The home’s finishes are really high end which is hard to find almost anywhere. I look on Zillow sometimes and in all the places I have looked I can’t find a similar home for what we paid in 2014. We just bought a 2.4 acre lot on a wide stretch of the golf course and may build a custom home here. However, with the problems getting builders and labor and supply shortages, we put the project on hold and may just stay here.

Like you, we live in California for my husband’s tech job. He is working from home now but when the office re-opens, he may need to go in once a week. It’s a far drive from where we live now but still doable for a long day.

The weather to me is not a pro to live here. Where we live is semi-rural and about an hour or so from Lake Tahoe. There is a lot of open land so fires are high risk. We just had a fire scare when the town next to us had a forest fire and 100 homes were destroyed. I was getting ready to evacuate but fortunately, they got the fire under control before it expanded to our town. During fire season, it is hard to breathe. Also it gets very hot in the summer, almost too hot to go outside most days. Even the Bay Area is getting affected by the smoke from the fires and the scorching heat. Sometimes I look at the temperature in the Bay Area and it’s as hot as here. So the positive of weather is declining for me. I grew up in Miami and I thought the weather there was better, although now it also gets very hot in the summer. When I was growing up, highs in the 80s were the max. Now it can get into the 90s and sometimes 100 but that’s a problem everywhere.


----------



## RunCat (Oct 19, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "Homeless" has been an issue for centuries, if not millennia.  Even within the last century, there have been homelessness surges associated with the Dust Bowl, and the Great Depression.  Upthread I mentioned my great-grandfather who became homeless when he lost the little that he had and became a public ward.
> 
> It is very curious to me that almost all discussions about homelessness seem to treat as some new phenomenon.  It isn't, and isn't it likely that looking to the past might be a good source of wisdom for now?



Agreed.   Similarly we have always had the poor.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 19, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "Homeless" has been an issue for centuries, if not millennia.  Even within the last century, there have been homelessness surges associated with the Dust Bowl, and the Great Depression.  Upthread I mentioned my great-grandfather who became homeless when he lost the little that he had and became a public ward.
> 
> It is very curious to me that almost all discussions about homelessness seem to treat as some new phenomenon.  It isn't, and isn't it likely that looking to the past might be a good source of wisdom for now?





RunCat said:


> Agreed.   Similarly we have always had the poor.


Long story below, and could be behind a paywall for some people.  But, while I do say we can look to the past, there are some elements that are new.  In short, the current versions of crystal meth scrabble the brain faster and more devastatingly than  the drugs even as few as 20 years ago, let alone 100 years ago.  









						‘I Don’t Know That I Would Even Call It Meth Anymore’
					

Different chemically than it was a decade ago, the drug is creating a wave of severe mental illness and worsening America’s homelessness problem.




					www.theatlantic.com
				




During a visit to Guatemala I was renting a room in a house in Antigua from a retired middle-class to upper middle-class family.  The Señora of the house, invited me to go grocery shopping with her, partly because she knew I was interested in just learning more about life in Guate and also to give me some more experience practicing my Spanish in common social settings.

While we were there I noted how incredibly cheap alcohol was in the store.  I thought that was fascinating, because of the huge social problems they deal with related to alcohol.  She replied that it was deliberate.  If they raised the price on alcohol they figured that people would just switch other, illicit drugs, that would be even more difficult to deal with. 

It makes me think that a strategy of providing tested and pure drugs at pricing and availability that undercuts the illicit drug trade is an option to consider.  Certainly lots of questions to consider - is that a general street option?  Do you get access only if you go into some kind of treatment and rehab setting?


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> There's a huge middle class in California that gets lost in the cloud of stereotypes of uber-rich and homeless.  LA basin is bursting with bedroom communities that aren't named Beverly Hills, Bel Aire, West Hollywood, or Brentwood.  There are middle class communities around the Bay Area, though lots of workers take long commutes from Sacramento or Stockton, where living is more affordable.  Outside specific geographic elite bubbles, California is mostly middle class.  Of course, when you go there as a tourist, you see the bubbles.



Just curios - what kind of income do you think you need to be middle class in CA?


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> And where are you from?  If not SF, then why do you care?
> 
> For every large business that makes headlines there are thousands of tech startups that come here to build the next generation of AI, blockchain and Biotech. They just don't rise to the level of click bait.
> 
> BTW...Cops are not the answer to managing mentally ill people (the vast majority are not violent).  Perhaps they have redirected funds to staff psychiatric professionals who can work with the mentally ill homeless to get them resources and assistance to get them off the street.



Get them off the street and put them where (the mentally ill homeless)?


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Below is a comparison of Crimes in SF and Cincinnati based on FBI stats:
> 
> Yes, property crimes are 4.6 percentage points higher. But look at *Violent Crime* - *Cincinnati is 7.2 percentage points higher than SF!*
> 
> ...



So both cities are way above norm.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> So both cities are way above norm.



Not for similarly sized cities. The average includes suburbs and rural. Apples and Oranges.


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

geekette said:


> Drop the word coastal.  Who the hell are “The Elites”?   Did the US adopt an official caste system when I wasn’t looking?    I only started hearing this “elites” label in the past 5-10 years.   Still don’t know who they are, why they are “elite” and how does anyone else get to join the club?   Is it wealth, family name, what?   Can one be un-elited/kicked out?
> 
> are there coastal elites and midcountry elites?
> 
> whackyass world we live in.


I have seen it defined as top 5% in education and income.


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

klpca said:


> It feels really out of control. Although we can't complain because our property tax increases are capped at 2% per year. Since we have lived here since 1987 our property taxes are low. But if the kids bought the house next door (lol) their taxes would be very high - roughly 1.25% of value.



In NJ, we had crazy increases year after year.  I think we might have the highest RE Taxes in the nation.    Chris Christie (A very good Governor if you were a hard working NJ citizen- and not part of a state union - too bad he got caught up in bridgegate) - put a 2% cap on RE taxe increases.  They have stayed rather flat since.

I our town - RE Taxes are 2.3% of taxable value - so $23K on a $1MM home.

Joe


----------



## klpca (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> In NJ, we had crazy increases year after year.  I think we might have the highest RE Taxes in the nation.    Chris Christie (A very good Governor if you were a hard working NJ citizen- and not part of a state union - too bad he got caught up in bridgegate) - put a 2% cap on RE taxe increases.  They have stayed rather flat since.
> 
> I our town - RE Taxes are 2.3% of taxable value - so $23K on a $1MM home.
> 
> Joe


Yikes. 2.3% is a ton of $$.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 19, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> It is interesting that you say you can’t find a similar home outside CA. I have the same issue. We bought our current home in late 2014. It is a relatively new huge Mediterranean style home on 1.5 acres (with a 10 acre preserve behind us) in a golf course community. Prices have significantly increased since we bought this home not only here but all over the USA for luxury homes. We bought this home for $1M below what it cost the previous owner to build it. It is still below what she paid to build it but it is getting closer. The home’s finishes are really high end which is hard to find almost anywhere. I look on Zillow sometimes and in all the places I have looked I can’t find a similar home for what we paid in 2014. We just bought a 2.4 acre lot on a wide stretch of the golf course and may build a custom home here. However, with the problems getting builders and labor and supply shortages, we put the project on hold and may just stay here.
> 
> Like you, we live in California for my husband’s tech job. He is working from home now but when the office re-opens, he may need to go in once a week. It’s a far drive from where we live now but still doable for a long day.
> 
> The weather to me is not a pro to live here. Where we live is semi-rural and about an hour or so from Lake Tahoe. There is a lot of open land so fires are high risk. We just had a fire scare when the town next to us had a forest fire and 100 homes were destroyed. I was getting ready to evacuate but fortunately, they got the fire under control before it expanded to our town. During fire season, it is hard to breathe. Also it gets very hot in the summer, almost too hot to go outside most days. Even the Bay Area is getting affected by the smoke from the fires and the scorching heat. Sometimes I look at the temperature in the Bay Area and it’s as hot as here. So the positive of weather is declining for me. I grew up in Miami and I thought the weather there was better, although now it also gets very hot in the summer. When I was growing up, highs in the 80s were the max. Now it can get into the 90s and sometimes 100 but that’s a problem everywhere.



 I'm afraid that's a level of opulence I've never aspired to.

(I'm like an old Volkswagon ad from the 1980's. - A Rich German Burgher was asked why he didn't drive a Mercedes. 'After all, you can afford to." Response " I can also afford <not> to." - I drive a 10 year old Hundai Elantra. . .works just fine for transportation)

Different strokes for different folks. . .


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> In NJ, we had crazy increases year after year.  I think we might have the highest RE Taxes in the nation.    Chris Christie (A very good Governor if you were a hard working NJ citizen- and not part of a state union - too bad he got caught up in bridgegate) - put a 2% cap on RE taxe increases.  They have stayed rather flat since.
> 
> I our town - RE Taxes are 2.3% of taxable value - so $23K on a $1MM home.
> 
> Joe



In California it is based on the the purchase price with a cap of 1% a year. Sometime local taxes can bring it to 0.25% - 1%  more but difficult laws to pass. If' you have been in your home a long time you are paying a smaller and smaller fraction of the RE Value. If you are elderly you can take that property tax valuation to your new home if you stay in Calif.  Another reason not to leave. Property taxes can add a significant bite out of retirement - especially if you need your home equity to live on or want to cash out one day. Over 20 years, although our property taxes have risen about 2% a year, our home price has appreciated more reducing the property tax ratio from 1% of the value to .07%.  Some of our neighbors who moved in more recently and paid an appreciated price are paying $5000 more a year in property taxes for a similar home.


----------



## joestein (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> In California it is based on the the purchase price with a cap of 1% a year. Sometime local taxes can bring it to 0.25% - 1%  more but hard laws to pass. If' you have been in your home a long time you are paying a fraction of the RE Value. If you are elderly you can take that property tax valuation to your new home if you stay in Calif.  Another reason not to leave. Property taxes can add a significant bite out of retirement - especially if you need your home equity to live on.



I think that is very unfair.   If the average price of a home in a city is $1MM - and someone is living in their home for 40 years and paid $100K.   The new homeowner pays $10K and old homeowner pays $1K.   Very unfair.   Someone was complaining that young people can't afford a home in CA, but this is just making it more expensive for them.

 BTW... They do it the same way by me as well, but I think it is unfair.   They should appraise the town every 5 or 10 years and assign the taxes based upon your value.


----------



## MrockStar (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Sorry to hear this. Don't you think Seattle will also wake up once businesses start leaving the city and voters complain? Similar to SF, there are many high value properties in Seattle so I would imagine that those owners would exert pressure on the city.
> 
> The cities that are in trouble are where there has been significant flight from the city e.g. Detroit in the late 20th century. SF/Seattle are far from a tipping point. Of course Detroit is now rebounding but I don't know by how much compared to it's heyday.


Its doing pretty good. Of course the rock bottom home prices combined with pretty good availability and a great/popular mayor pluse an international city on the water/river helps. Now if we can just fix the schools who knows how great things can be here in Detroit.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> Just curios - what kind of income do you think you need to be middle class in CA?


Family, I would say 100K just off the cuff.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> I think that is very unfair.   If the average price of a home in a city is $1MM - and someone is living in their home for 40 years and paid $100K.   The new homeowner pays $10K and old homeowner pays $1K.   Very unfair.   Someone was complaining that young people can't afford a home in CA, but this is just making it more expensive for them.
> 
> BTW... They do it the same way by me as well, but I think it is unfair.   They should appraise the town every 5 or 10 years and assign the taxes based upon your value.



Given the way homes have appreciated, that would be vastly unfair to the elderly on fixed incomes who would like to age in their homes.  It is not uncommon for people to have bought homes in the high 6 figures pre-2000 that are now worth $2 - 3 million in certain areas. Why should they be forced to move from their home because of property taxes? They did nothing to cause the increase in price.

Despite this cap, there are still many people who move so it washes out. The young 20 and 30 YO software and biotech engineers are making much higher salaries so it is all relative.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> I think that is very unfair. If the average price of a home in a city is $1MM - and someone is living in their home for 40 years and paid $100K. The new homeowner pays $10K and old homeowner pays $1K. Very unfair. Someone was complaining that young people can't afford a home in CA, but this is just making it more expensive for them.
> 
> BTW... They do it the same way by me as well, but I think it is unfair. They should appraise the town every 5 or 10 years and assign the taxes based upon your value.



This is an old argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Given the way homes have appreciated, that would be vastly unfair to the elderly on fixed incomes who would like to age in their homes. It is not uncommon for people to have bought homes in the high 6 figures pre-2000 that are now worth $2 - 3 million in certain areas. Why should they be forced to move from their home because of property taxes? They did nothing to cause the increase in price.



Yup. Perhaps it’s time to review what happened in Texas and elsewhere where families were unable to pay the tax on inherited properties, etc. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MrockStar (Oct 19, 2021)

Its happening more and more even in more rural communities on inland lakes.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> I think that is very unfair.   If the average price of a home in a city is $1MM - and someone is living in their home for 40 years and paid $100K.   The new homeowner pays $10K and old homeowner pays $1K.   Very unfair.   Someone was complaining that young people can't afford a home in CA, but this is just making it more expensive for them.
> 
> BTW... They do it the same way by me as well, but I think it is unfair.   They should appraise the town every 5 or 10 years and assign the taxes based upon your value.


That is what the people of California voted for overwhelmingly when they approved Prop. 13.  It was added not as a popular statute, but as a citizen amendment to the Constitution.

A big issue at the time (1978!!!!) was that property tax increases resulting solely from rising property values were forcing many homeowners with limited income (particularly retirees) to sell their houses.  

It would be interesting to see a well-done and objective economic study of the effects of Prop. 65 on gentrification. It certainly creates large incentives for people to hang on to their homes, without doing major teardowns or rebuilds.



> *Proposition 13* (officially named the *People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation*) is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of _Nordlinger v. Hahn_, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.[1]
> 
> The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limits the tax rate for real estate:
> 
> ...



IMHO - this was caused by greedy government agencies.  As property appraisals increased faster than inflation, rather than reducing tax rates correspondingly, they collected the money and expanded spending, while simultaneously enacting regular property tax increases.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That is what the people of California voted for overwhelmingly when they approved Prop. 13.  It was added not as a popular statute, but as a citizen amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> IMHO - this was caused by greedy government agencies.  As property appraisals increased faster than inflation, rather than reducing tax rates correspondingly, they collected the money and expanded spending, while simultaneously enacting regular property tax increases.



It would be interesting to compare how taxing authorities in other states are responding given they don't have these caps but RE has appreciated exponentially across the USA in the past few years. We explored moving to TX and even though other taxes were lower, the property taxes were very high.


----------



## am1 (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Given the way homes have appreciated, that would be vastly unfair to the elderly on fixed incomes who would like to age in their homes.  It is not uncommon for people to have bought homes in the high 6 figures pre-2000 that are now worth $2 - 3 million in certain areas. Why should they be forced to move from their home because of property taxes? They did nothing to cause the increase in price.
> 
> Despite this cap, there are still many people who move so it washes out. The young 20 and 30 YO software and biotech engineers are making much higher salaries so it is all relative.



Very unfair.  Get them to take out a reverse mortgage. Or sell and move on as they are using more resources then needed and are contributing to high prices by not selling.  Or have their kids pay the taxes out of their inheritance.  

Where I live it use to be under 30k reported purchase price is tax free.  It was changed to 120k recently for primary residence.  A lot of million dollar places pay no taxes as the place was inherited or free (farms).  I agree with not taxing below a limit as its a waste of resources.  Evaluations were tried 6 or 7 years ago but were abandoned.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

am1 said:


> ...they are using more resources then needed...



Wow just wow. You might feel quite differently if this were you.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> We explored moving to TX and even though other taxes were lower, the property taxes were very high.


After investigating various locales, DS#1 and DDIL#1 moved to Texas.  They've very much encouraged us to consider TX for our retirement. But property taxes are an issue.  On the other hand, there isn't any income tax. 

As we've discussed together, government needs to get their money from somewhere, and if they don't have their hand in one pocket they will have it in another one. The only questions are what pockets they have their hands in, how deep do they put their hands in, and what do they do with their hands while they are in there.


----------



## am1 (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Wow just wow. You might feel quite differently if this were you.


For sure but one should have to decide what is important to them.  If one or two people want to stay in a 4-5 bedroom house worth over a million on a limited fixed income that is up to them but they should be paying taxes just the same as anyone else.  If not it costs everyone in lost tax income and higher housing prices.  Not to mention the cost to the environment.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 19, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> After investigating various locales, DS#1 and DDIL#1 moved to Texas.  They've very much encouraged us to consider TX for our retirement. But property taxes are an issue.  On the other hand, there isn't any income tax.
> 
> As we've discussed together, government needs to get their money from somewhere, and if they don't have their hand in one pocket they will have it in another one. The only questions are what pockets they have their hands in, how deep do they put their hands in, and what do they do with their hands while they are in there.



We have had a handful of relatives and a few friends move to Houston. The first one left about 10 years ago. They seem to like it. I can't imagine that property taxes are lower in King County than anywhere Texas.

Bill


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 19, 2021)

easyrider said:


> We have had a handful of relatives and a few friends move to Houston. The first one left about 10 years ago. They seem to like it. I can't imagine that property taxes are lower in King County than anywhere Texas.
> 
> Bill


I mentioned into which pockets does government insert their hand.  When we were in CA, government had it's hand in every pocket they could, as deep as they possibly could.  The only limits they had was the Prop 13 limit, which CA government agencies have been trying find any way to circumvent ever since. 

In the Northwest, WA does not have income tax and OR does not have sales tax.  So far the citizens of those states have resisted government getting hands into those pockets.  Significantly, in WA there is much discussion about creating an income tax, due to social inequities of the current tax structure, which relies heavily on sales tax.  I find it quite interesting that the none of the  proposals involve eliminating the state sales tax.  So all of them are opening another pocket, without closing off another pocket. 

In talking with DS #1, their property taxes in Houston are significantly larger than ours.  They are large enough that there is a cottage industry of people who will appeal your assessments to the assessors office, working on contingency for a percentage of the savings. This is viable at the residential level.  

We discussed whether it would make sense to do something like this where we live in Belly-view.  He looked at our information and concluded that there wasn't enough money to be made in WA to make that business worthwhile.


----------



## klpca (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> I think that is very unfair.   If the average price of a home in a city is $1MM - and someone is living in their home for 40 years and paid $100K.   The new homeowner pays $10K and old homeowner pays $1K.   Very unfair.   Someone was complaining that young people can't afford a home in CA, but this is just making it more expensive for them.
> 
> BTW... They do it the same way by me as well, but I think it is unfair.   They should appraise the town every 5 or 10 years and assign the taxes based upon your value.


They changed it years ago because the other model priced the elderly out of their homes.

At any rate we are one of a handful of original owners in our neighborhood. Most people move over the years and the property is reappraised upon the new sale.


----------



## klpca (Oct 19, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> Family, I would say 100K just off the cuff.


Would have been my guess too, although even at that income it's tough to buy a home.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 19, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I mentioned into which pockets does government insert their hand.  When we were in CA, government had it's hand in every pocket they could, as deep as they possibly could.  The only limits they had was the Prop 13 limit, which CA government agencies have been trying find any way to circumvent ever since.
> 
> In the Northwest, WA does not have income tax and OR does not have sales tax.  So far the citizens of those states have resisted government getting hands into those pockets.  Significantly, in WA there is much discussion about creating an income tax, due to social inequities of the current tax structure, which relies heavily on sales tax.  I find it quite interesting that the none of the  proposals involve eliminating the state sales tax.  So all of them are opening another pocket, without closing off another pocket.
> 
> ...



I wonder if Houston has reduced property tax for senior citizens. In Washington I think there is. I wouldn't qualify because it is based on agi not including ss. 

Bill


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 19, 2021)

am1 said:


> For sure but one should have to decide what is important to them.  If one or two people want to stay in a 4-5 bedroom house worth over a million on a limited fixed income that is up to them but they should be paying taxes just the same as anyone else.  If not it costs everyone in lost tax income and higher housing prices.



IMHO...This sounds too socialistic and govt controlling to drive seniors out of their lifelong home. Because of RE price appreciation, I would not worry about CA govt getting their fair share; they do not need more money with one of the highest income tax rates.  The young have always paid more than elders. Just look at Social Securty.


----------



## am1 (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> IMHO...This sounds too socialistic and govt controlling to drive seniors out of their lifelong home. Because of RE price appreciation, I would not worry about CA govt getting their fair share; they do not need more money with one of the highest income tax rates.  The young have always paid more than elders. Just look at Social Securty.


Not at all, just market forces where every house pays the same percent taxes on the value of their house.  Those who can will and those who cannot sell or go into debt (probably against the value of said house).  Taxes are lower as a whole and prices of houses are not increased because older people do not sell.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 19, 2021)

joestein said:


> In NJ, we had crazy increases year after year.  I think we might have the highest RE Taxes in the nation.    Chris Christie (A very good Governor if you were a hard working NJ citizen- and not part of a state union - too bad he got caught up in bridgegate) - put a 2% cap on RE taxe increases.  They have stayed rather flat since.
> 
> I our town - RE Taxes are 2.3% of taxable value - so $23K on a $1MM home.
> 
> Joe


Our taxes in Hamilton County in Cincinnat suburbs are now 3.2% of assessed value, and three local agencies are trying to pass another levy that will raise them again. The problem here is they are allowed to place levies on every ballot so they sneak them through when there are few issues to vote for and nobody votes except their supporters. Warren County taxes nearby are less than half that. I guess you can figure out that Hamilton County is primarily Democrat while Warren primarily Republican. Schools are also much better in most Warren County suburbs.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 19, 2021)

Ken555 said:


> Yup. Perhaps it’s time to review what happened in Texas and elsewhere where families were unable to pay the tax on inherited properties, etc.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



What tax? There is no state estate tax in Texas. No income tax, so no worries about capital gains.

Any tax would be a Federal tax. beyond any state's control.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 19, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> It would be interesting to compare how taxing authorities in other states are responding given they don't have these caps but RE has appreciated exponentially across the USA in the past few years. We explored moving to TX and even though other taxes were lower, the property taxes were very high.



Question, what is the difference between like properties, and what is the purchase cost for like property? I.e. how much capital would you save?

Question 2. would the higher tax amount (important! the <amount> you pay out is the value times the rate), if one place has a higher rate versus a lower price, it might work out even.

Question 3 how much saving would you get from not paying state income tax, and the difference (if any) on your sales tax purchases.

Note: I don't want you to post any numbers. Rather, I want you to do your own calcs and then look at the comparison.

I look at it this way. If a house in California was sold at $1 million, and one bought an equivalent house in Texas at $500,000; that's $500,000 in extra retirement funds. (But the taxes!!!) What's the difference? CA - income tax + plus real estate versus TX - property taxes. 

OTOH -  there are too many people coming here and running up the real estate prices. Feel free to stay in California. . .


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 19, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> I look at it this way. If a house in California was sold at $1 million, and one bought an equivalent house in Texas at $500,000; that's $500,000 in extra retirement funds.


That's a big point why DS#1 and DDIL think we should we move to Houston.  On the other hand, they don't have kids and are unlikely to have any.  Meanwhile, DD and DSIL and DGD live in San Diego County.  And if we're going to leave WA, one of my priorities is to be able to enjoy grandchildren.  So TX doesn't look good from standpoint, regardless of taxes.  

Meanwhile, DS #3 is getting married in Denver in January, and the two of them are not likely to waste time.  But, then are not committed to Denver at all, and have mentioned Flagstaff as a possible location.  So perhaps Sedona is in our future????


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Feel free to stay in California. . .


Noted.

The choice to stay here is driven more by relationships than money. An extra $xxx,xxx is not going to make a measurable difference in our quality of life. There's no chance we are moving anywhere but here is how I figure it. We have a small mortgage at 2.5%. Not going to pay it off by choice. Prop taxes here are low and because we haven't moved since 1987, ours are really low. We learned the law and made choices accordingly, kind of like learning how to maximize exchange value by buying an SDO for $1 and trading into WKORV. Learn the rules or get burned by the rules. There is no tax on social security in CA and we are managing retirement plan distributions to keep our CA tax low probably in the neighborhood of roughly 4%. (I currently work but my job would not be able to be moved - anywhere - but I plan on retiring within the next few years). We have set up our home to be low cost in retirement. The only expense out of our control is homeowners insurance which is high because we live on the edge of a canyon preserve and pay the price for the fire danger. We have planned for years to be able to live here comfortably and we will, partially because we have been prudent with our finances, partially because we live modestly by choice. We aren't worried a bit about retirement.  I might make a different choice to live somewhere else if it was necessary financially, but it is not. But the main thing that is important to me is my family. My family is here. My mom. My dad. My three kids. My siblings. My FIL and MIL. My husband's siblings. I want to live close enough to have good relationships with my family and to do that, we will stay here. It is my number one priority at this stage in my life. We are so lucky to have the choice. I genuinely hope that everyone who has posted in this thread feels blessed to live where they do.


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> After investigating various locales, DS#1 and DDIL#1 moved to Texas.  They've very much encouraged us to consider TX for our retirement. But property taxes are an issue.  On the other hand, there isn't any income tax.
> 
> As we've discussed together, government needs to get their money from somewhere, and if they don't have their hand in one pocket they will have it in another one. The only questions are what pockets they have their hands in, how deep do they put their hands in, and what do they do with their hands while they are in there.


Btw we have friends who have retired to Texas - sell your crappy suburban home and buy a ranch in Hill Country, lol - and they seemed to indicate that there is some kid of program for seniors that defers their property tax while they are alive and it gets paid when they pass away. I didn't investigate any further but if that was the deciding factor for you you may want to take a look.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 20, 2021)

klpca said:


> f that was the deciding factor for you you may want to take a look.


The deciding factor is proximity to grandchildren.  Housing is fungible.  Time with grandchildren isn't.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> Family, I would say 100K just off the cuff.



Can a family buy a modest home with that income or afford the other basic middle class defining items?


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That is what the people of California voted for overwhelmingly when they approved Prop. 13.  It was added not as a popular statute, but as a citizen amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> A big issue at the time (1978!!!!) was that property tax increases resulting solely from rising property values were forcing many homeowners with limited income (particularly retirees) to sell their houses.
> 
> ...



The way it is supposed to work is that the total assessed value of all real estate is spread out over the approved budget.    If the total value of all homes increase 50% but the budget only goes up 5% - RE Taxes should only see a 5% increase.

Every year the percentage of assessment that you pay taxes on changes a bit due to changes in assessments.  At least by me.

About 10 years ago, they assessed every home in town - due to a county law.   Total taxes remained the same, but some houses went up and some went down.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> After investigating various locales, DS#1 and DDIL#1 moved to Texas.  They've very much encouraged us to consider TX for our retirement. But property taxes are an issue.  On the other hand, there isn't any income tax.
> 
> As we've discussed together, government needs to get their money from somewhere, and if they don't have their hand in one pocket they will have it in another one. The only questions are what pockets they have their hands in, how deep do they put their hands in, and what do they do with their hands while they are in there.


 

Get a few goats and you can be an exempt farm.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> IMHO...This sounds too socialistic and govt controlling to drive seniors out of their lifelong home. Because of RE price appreciation, I would not worry about CA govt getting their fair share; they do not need more money with one of the highest income tax rates.  The young have always paid more than elders. Just look at Social Securty.



That is anything but socialistic.   I think it is quite capitalistic.

I would also say that the young should pay more is also socialistic.   The young usually have the least of all.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Our taxes in Hamilton County in Cincinnat suburbs are now 3.2% of assessed value, and three local agencies are trying to pass another levy that will raise them again. The problem here is they are allowed to place levies on every ballot so they sneak them through when there are few issues to vote for and nobody votes except their supporters. Warren County taxes nearby are less than half that. I guess you can figure out that Hamilton County is primarily Democrat while Warren primarily Republican. Schools are also much better in most Warren County suburbs.



So, in your opinion, how does Warren country manage to have better schools on 1/2 the taxes than Hamiliton.   Also - why not move to Warren.


----------



## Brett (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> Get a few goats and you can be an exempt farm.



In Virginia if you have a horse you get a significant RE tax break on your "farm"


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> It would be interesting to compare how taxing authorities in other states are responding given they don't have these caps but RE has appreciated exponentially across the USA in the past few years. We explored moving to TX and even though other taxes were lower, the property taxes were very high.


In our state, RE taxes are based on mill levies, and the total amount of tax that a taxing authority can collect is capped, with allowances for increased population.  The only way the total amount of taxes can be increased is via an increase in the mill levy which must be voted on by the public.  This limits government expansion and does not tie the budget to RE value increases.

So for example, if RE increased an average of 20% in my county, and my house also increased by 20%, there would be no change to my taxes.  If my house only increased 10%, I would see a small decrease, and if it increased by 40%, I would see an increase.

Kurt


----------



## Superchief (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> So, in your opinion, how does Warren country manage to have better schools on 1/2 the taxes than Hamiliton.   Also - why not move to Warren.


Warren County has much better government and a lot fewer agencies to take their cut. We live in the house I grew up in and my brother lives next door. Our houses are just north of the city, are on 1 acre treed lots with a horse farm behind us. We have spent a lot to update the house and have additional projects ongoing. We are very tempted to move but it would cost too much to sell house, pay commissions, and then buy something comparable there. I told my wife if we go to the trouble of moving, we will move to South Carolina where weather is much better and taxes are lower.

Added: One problem we have here in Hamilton County is that our schools and other local agencies can try to pass levies every time there is an election of any kind. Most of them pass when there are only few people voting because there is nothing else to vote on. Winton Woods schools has had a levy on almost every ballot for the past five years. They passed the last one during the primary in which there were no Republicans running. I'm not sure who regulates this, but I think tax levies should only be allowed during major elections, and at least 35% of registered voters in that district must vote in favor of it.


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The deciding factor is proximity to grandchildren.  Housing is fungible.  Time with grandchildren isn't.


I hear you on that one. Our first grandchild is arriving in March but "the kids" live in Truckee. They haven't decided where they will be settling down so for now we're planning on monthly visits.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> The way it is supposed to work is that the total assessed value of all real estate is spread out over the approved budget.    If the total value of all homes increase 50% but the budget only goes up 5% - RE Taxes should only see a 5% increase.


That's theoretical, but it often doesn't work that way. That's what led to Prop 13 in CA. Politicians can always find a way to spend public money, so If the assessed value went up by 50%, then revenues went up by 50%, and the budget went up correspondingly.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> Can a family buy a modest home with that income or afford the other basic middle class defining items?



In the commuter cities, yes.  Hundreds of thousands of houses aren't sitting empty, after all.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That's theoretical, but it often doesn't work that way. That's what led to Prop 13 in CA. Politicians can always find a way to spend public money, so If the assessed value went up by 50%, then revenues went up by 50%, and the budget went up correspondingly.



Those are two completely separate issues.  If the assessed value goes up at a rate greater than the budget - the tax rate is supposed to fall.   If the opposite is true the tax rate grows.    

The problem was with the increase in spending.  In NJ Chris Christie put in a cap on increased spending by towns - I think 2% a year.

So, just soak the newer homeowners.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> That is anything but socialistic.   I think it is quite capitalistic.
> 
> I would also say that the young should pay more is also socialistic.   The young usually have the least of all.



Sorry, I have a hard time buying that more government taxing for public services is capitalistic.  Maybe capitalistic for the government administrators who are lining their pockets and receiving lifetime retirement and health.  

FWIW....young engineers and biotech in Silicon Valley and SF do not have the least of all. It is not uncommon to see young couples making $150k -$200k each ($300 - $400k) - one works at Facebook, the other works at Twitter or Google. They are the ones driving up housing prices.  It is far more lucrative for the elders to cash up to a million or more out of their home and move further inland or out of state than to sit on their property tax base. Isn't a carrot (cash out) better than a stick (tax them) as incentive?

The state coffers are smiling all the way to the bank. They not only get higher property taxes based on the elevated sales price but also the capital gain above $500k on the home. I would not feel sorry at all for the state government at all. They get their pound of flesh.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> Those are two completely separate issues.  If the assessed value goes up at a rate greater than the budget - the tax rate is supposed to fall.   If the opposite is true the tax rate grows.


Again, that's just theoretical.  In my life, wherever I've lived, that has never been the case.  I have never seen tax rates go down as assessed value rises. The tax rate stays the same as the assessed value rises, and the government takes in and spends the added revenue. 

That's not a huge issue when RE values rise at the same rate as inflation.  That actually produces an effectively constant revenue source.  The issue arises when RE prices increase faster than inflation.


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Again, that's just theoretical.  In my life, wherever I've lived, that has never been the case.  I have never seen tax rates go down as assessed value rises. The tax rate stays the same as the assessed value rises, and the government takes in and spends the added revenue.
> 
> That's not a huge issue when RE values rise at the same rate as inflation.  That actually produces an effectively constant revenue source.  The issue arises when RE prices increase faster than inflation.


Well, you should come to Colorado -- that is how it works here.

Kurt


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Again, that's just theoretical.  In my life, wherever I've lived, that has never been the case.  I have never seen tax rates go down as assessed value rises. The tax rate stays the same as the assessed value rises, and the government takes in and spends the added revenue.
> 
> That's not a huge issue when RE values rise at the same rate as inflation.  That actually produces an effectively constant revenue source.  The issue arises when RE prices increase faster than inflation.



They can still overspend and just borrow.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Sorry, I have a hard time buying that more government taxing for public services is capitalistic.  Maybe capitalistic for the government administrators who are lining their pockets and receiving lifetime retirement and health.
> 
> FWIW....young engineers and biotech in Silicon Valley and SF do not have the least of all. It is not uncommon to see young couples making $150k -$200k each ($300 - $400k) - one works at Facebook, the other works at Twitter or Google. They are the ones driving up housing prices.  It is far more lucrative for the elders to cash up to a million or more out of their home and move further inland or out of state than to sit on their property tax base. Isn't a carrot (cash out) better than a stick (tax them) as incentive?
> 
> The state coffers are smiling all the way to the bank. They not only get higher property taxes based on the elevated sales price but also the capital gain above $500k on the home. I would not feel sorry at all for the state government at all. They get their pound of flesh.




I am not feeling sorry for the gov't.   They should get the same revenue - regardless of what assessments are.    I feel sorry for younger people who are basically paying welfare for a bunch of older people living in multi-million dollar homes.


----------



## Snazzylass (Oct 20, 2021)

klpca said:


> I'm not even a bit offended by those words but the level of cringe is high. May as well wear a t-shirt that says "I am a tourist". No one here calls it that. Well at least no one who has lived here for awhile. But tourists definitely use those words.
> 
> Yes. We say SoCal and NorCal. So if you say that you may be mistaken for a Californian. Say "Cali" or "Frisco" (lol it is hard to type those!) and we know that you are from somewhere else.


Or maybe it's a generational thing? My niece who was born and raised in SoCal is the first time I heard the term "Cali." The second time was here.


----------



## Luanne (Oct 20, 2021)

Snazzylass said:


> Or maybe it's a generational thing? My niece who was born and raised in SoCal is the first time I heard the term "Cali." The second time was here.


My daughters are third generation Californians.  Neither one of them would use Cali.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> I am not feeling sorry for the gov't.   They should get the same revenue - regardless of what assessments are.    I feel sorry for younger people who are basically paying welfare for a bunch of older people living in multi-million dollar homes.


The people living in these multi-million dollar homes live there because that's their home and they likely put a lot of work and money into to it. They didn't buy it as an investment. If they sell it, they won't be able to afford a home in the same area and will have to pay all of the selling/buying and moving expenses. That is a lot of money. I know several people in CA that don't move because they can't afford to.


----------



## Snazzylass (Oct 20, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I'm not sure exactly what these indices are based on, but I assume it is a measure relative to population. The city of Cincinnati represents only about 1/3 of people living in the total metropolitan area. Most of the family communities are not in the city and a lot of people are moving to Warren and Butler counties to avoid high property taxes in Hamilton County. Most of the violent crimes are concentrated in specific areas and are related to drugs and gangs, like most other cities. These areas also have higher property crime. Car break-ins, shoplifting and burglaries aren't wide spread, and people here feel safe parking their cars and walking in most of the downtown and suburban areas.
> 
> We lived in Concord, CA in the 80's and really enjoyed our time there. We moved away due to the high cost of living, but I agree the weather is almost perfect and much better than Cincinnati. We traveled to the Bay area every few years, stay in Walnut Creek and used BART to visit SF. We noticed a big change on our last visit, with a lot more trash, needles, and homeless around the BART stations (even in Pleasant Hill) and especially in the city. Our friends still live in Walnut Creek and work in the city, but they are becoming more concerned about safety and high cost of living. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and we hope they start cracking down again on crime so people feel safe to visit.


Exactly!
It's a poor comparison and the post is ignorant. What's the old saying? About numbers and stats? 

I know both Indy & Cincy - lived both places. Indy does have a crime problem for sure. They are aware of it and trying to address it.
However, in general SF is much more affluent. It's practically the exact opposite of those 2 Midwest cities. SF doesn't even have a cemetary. I just came from spending a week there with family who live close to the Mission District. It's not Media Hype. It's real.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 20, 2021)

Snazzylass said:


> Exactly!
> It's a poor comparison and the post is ignorant. What's the old saying? About numbers and stats?
> 
> I know both Indy & Cincy - lived both places. Indy does have a crime problem for sure. They are aware of it and trying to address it.
> However, in general SF is much more affluent. It's practically the exact opposite of those 2 Midwest cities. SF doesn't even have a cemetary. I just came from spending a week there with family who live close to the Mission District. It's not Media Hype. It's real.



SF has two cemeteries, though they are both old.  The city outlawed burials within the city limits in 1900, and most pre-existing graves were even moved across the bay.  Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.


----------



## geist1223 (Oct 20, 2021)

There are lies, damm lies, and statistics. Or something like that.


----------



## joestein (Oct 20, 2021)

Superchief said:


> The people living in these multi-million dollar homes live there because that's their home and they likely put a lot of work and money into to it. They didn't buy it as an investment. If they sell it, they won't be able to afford a home in the same area and will have to pay all of the selling/buying and moving expenses. That is a lot of money. I know several people in CA that don't move because they can't afford to.



Maybe they can't, but it shouldn't fall on a new buyer.   

Two identical homes next to each other.  One paid $100K in the 80s and the other paid $1MM recently.   The new homeowner is subsidizing the RE Tax of the old homeowner for $4,500.  That is just not right.  But it is the law.


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2021)

Snazzylass said:


> Or maybe it's a generational thing? My niece who was born and raised in SoCal is the first time I heard the term "Cali." The second time was here.


I have definitely heard people younger than me mention the song "Going Back to Cali" by LL Cool J as the basis for calling it "Cali". He is from New York. Maybe in 20 more years it will be a common term but right here, right now it just isn't a term used by people from California. It is nails-on-a-chalkboard for everyone I know. Just one of those terms that grinds people's gears.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> Maybe they can't, but it shouldn't fall on a new buyer.
> 
> Two identical homes next to each other.  One paid $100K in the 80s and the other paid $1MM recently.   The new homeowner is subsidizing the RE Tax of the old homeowner for $4,500.  That is just not right.  But it is the law.



It's not a 1MM house until it sells for 1MM.  It's elitism to suggest that a long time resident should be forced out of his home via tax engineering.


----------



## geekette (Oct 20, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> It's not a 1MM house until it sells for 1MM.  It's elitism to suggest that a long time resident should be forced out of his home via tax engineering.


Yes.

A long term resident has been paying property tax and upkeep, else the home would not have appreciated in value.

I am certainly against forcing widows from homes they've been in for 40-60 years to avoid prop tax bill they can't pay.   Having a home worth a mil doesn't mean there is a bank account of similar size.  People can be house rich and cash poor, especially over decades of staying put.  

The American Dream was to own the home outright.   Then things are supposed to get easier, without a mortgage.  It's not ok to  present homeowner with a bill akin to another mortgage.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 20, 2021)

joestein said:


> Maybe they can't, but it shouldn't fall on a new buyer.
> 
> Two identical homes next to each other.  One paid $100K in the 80s and the other paid $1MM recently.   The new homeowner is subsidizing the RE Tax of the old homeowner for $4,500.  That is just not right.  But it is the law.



So what? The financial world is unequal:

Two new homes in a development. One person negotiated x. another negotiated y. Same home layout.
Two airplane seats on the same plane one bought for $150, the seat next to it for $500
Two stocks. One bought during a market low, one during market high both sold at same price. Same stock but different returns for each.
Rental units in an apartment building. Same layout different rent if one rented a long time ago vs. someone moving in.
Venture Capital Rounds are not valued the same.
New condo pre-build prices vs. post-build for the same unit.
...the list goes on and on.

It if were your mother or grandmother being pushed from the home of 40+ years where she raised her children you might feel differently. Why is it granny's fault that the prices rose? She will be paying higher capital gains in the end when it is ultimately sold. Is it fair that she pays more in capital gains tax than the young couple who paid a higher price and lower capital gains? It all nets out in the end.


----------



## DrQ (Oct 20, 2021)

*Magnificent Mile no more: Chicago is blighted by shoplifting as ANOTHER American city goes down the toilet because its left-wing AG stops prosecuting shoplifters who steal less than $1000 of goods*

*Chicago's Magnificent Mile has been the target of rampant shoplifting that caused several stores to close their doors*
*State's Attorney Kim Foxx mandates that Chicago prosecutors only issue felony charges for theft of property over $1,000*
*Thieves know they can grab armfuls of merchandise without being stopped by store security *
*The city's crime issue may only grow worse as at least 50 cops have been put on unpaid leave for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine*
*Cities throughout the country are facing similar issues, including San Francisco, where Walgreens just announced is was closing another five stores*









						Chicago's Magnificent Mile is plagued by a shoplifting spree
					

Chicago's Magnificent Mile has been plagued by a string of robberies and a wave of crime in the past few months, as some say that the city's 'soft-on-crime' policies embolden the thieves.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So what? The financial world is unequal:
> 
> Two new homes in a development. One person negotiated x. another negotiated y. Same home layout.
> Two airplane seats on the same plane one bought for $150, the seat next to it for $500
> ...



Other than possible rent control on your apartment example, all of the other are the result of the free market, while the disparity in taxes is the result of political activity. Just an observation that the tax could be changed by political action while the others would need direct interference in a free market.

Cheers.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 20, 2021)

Ok true, but taxes are not equal either. 15% bracket, 24% 36% corps rates. Corps that pay $0. Deductions that count and dont count. Soc. Security deductions up to a $ cap but none if you make over that amount.

Same salary but one is tax smart and takes writeoffs; the other doesn't so pays more tax.

Same stock purchased one sells at 364 days and pays 36% for ST gain. The other investor holds same stock, sells at 366 days and only pays 20%  LT gain. Only 2 days earlier fair to pay 16% more?

Two earner couples contribute 2x to Social Security but dont get 2x benefits...


----------



## am1 (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So what? The financial world is unequal:
> 
> Two new homes in a development. One person negotiated x. another negotiated y. Same home layout.
> Two airplane seats on the same plane one bought for $150, the seat next to it for $500
> ...



Have the kids foot the tax bill, reverse mortgage or sell.  By her staying it is using up more limited resources then her selling and a younger family moving in to enjoy the house just as she and her family did.  No need to subsidize that.


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2021)

.


CalGalTraveler said:


> Ok true, but taxes are not equal either. 15% bracket, 24% 36% corps rates. Corps that pay $0. Deductions that count and dont count. Soc. Security deductions up to a $ cap but none if you make over that amount.
> 
> Same salary but one is tax smart and takes writeoffs; the other doesn't so pays more tax.
> 
> ...


Well if folks are upset about granny staying in her home wait until they find out about stepped up basis.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 20, 2021)

am1 said:


> Have the kids foot the tax bill, reverse mortgage or sell.  By her staying it is using up more limited resources then her selling and a younger family moving in to enjoy the house just as she and her family did.  No need to subsidize that.



Wow. That's draconian thinking. What about personal freedom? and the contributions and sacrifices that she made?

Do you support some members of the younger generation that can't wait for granny to kick the bucket so they get the inheritance? Based on your argument, it sounds like you believe granny is inefficient sitting on her lifelong savings so should die or give away her savings to younger families to use whether they deserve it or not.

And what if the senior allows the younger family to live with them in that home? or uses the money to pay for their grandchildren's care & education?


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 20, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Not for similarly sized cities. The average includes suburbs and rural. Apples and Oranges.



Wouldn’t the data on these charts be indexed so that the rate is per capita to take into acount that the cities are different sizes? Otherwise it is useless data and I would not be quoting it.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 20, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> Family, I would say 100K just off the cuff.



HUD defined “Low Income Limits” in San Francisco as *$82,200 for an individual and $117,400 for a family of four in* 2018


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 20, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> HUD defined “Low Income Limits” in San Francisco as *$82,200 for an individual and $117,400 for a family of four in* 2018


San francisco for sure.  But the rest of the state drags that number down dramatically.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So what? The financial world is unequal:
> 
> Two new homes in a development. One person negotiated x. another negotiated y. Same home layout.
> Two airplane seats on the same plane one bought for $150, the seat next to it for $500
> ...



I like paying much lower property taxes than my home is worth. It is one of the few tax “advantages” we get. I can also see Joel’s point as to how unfair it is. 

The examples above are how the capitalistic market works (except #4 is not accurate unless you have rent control and #5 there is a reason why venture capital rounds are not valued the same). Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes. Real estate taxes are very unfair. And making this debate into one about seniors misses the point, IMO.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I like paying much lower property taxes than my home is worth. It is one of the few tax “advantages” we get. I can also see Joel’s point as to how unfair it is.
> 
> The examples above are how the capitalistic market works (except #4 is not accurate unless you have rent control and #5 there is a reason why venture capital rounds are not valued the same). Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes. Real estate taxes are very unfair. And making this debate into one about seniors misses the point, IMO.


Its fixed incomes that are victimized by property tax creep, so i dont think debating with the experience of seniors misses the point at all.....


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Wouldn’t the data on these charts be indexed so that the rate is per capita to take into acount that the cities are different sizes? Otherwise it is useless data and I would not be quoting it.



You are correct that the figures are per capita, however the total includes the per capita of suburbs and rural which are much lower per capita and thus bring down the average.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes.



Fair...and that's why many major corps pay $0 in taxes, and wealthy pay less % than middle class...


----------



## klpca (Oct 21, 2021)

Taxes are inherently unfair. They often try to right a wrong (progressive rates or the alternative minimum tax) or stimulate a specific business sector (solar credits). They are anything but "fair" and I don't think that they were ever meant to be fair. They are honestly used as a tool by politicians.


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

So more on the RE taxes....

The lowered tax bases also pass on inheritance as long as the inheritor uses it as a primary residence.   So now the savings are generational.   Someone can still be paying taxes on a 1980 value in 30 or 40 years from now.

In addition, a person can rent their home under prop 13 and still receive the lowered tax while collecting market rent.

Plus while an inheritor has use the home as a primary residence, I am sure there are ways around it.   What happens if they live in the house for a year or two then rent.  What happens if they live in the basement or backyard cassita?    

It is the law, but this shows it is even MORE unfair.    It is socialist and unsustainable over the long time.   I am sure that many inheritor will just rent it out and claim the lower taxes even though it is not allowed.  Who is checking anyway?   Gov't is usually inefficient and inept.

Joe


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

Ty1on said:


> Its fixed incomes that are victimized by property tax creep, so i dont think debating with the experience of seniors misses the point at all.....



I think it misses the point because Joe said property taxes are unfair. They are unfair even if it hurts some people. While it may “victimize“ seniors, it also “victimizes” young people and low/middle income buying their first home as well as people who must move. The upper middle income and high income people are benefiting. However, this did not keep me from moving anyway.

I am not arguing to change the property tax system at all. I am just agreeing with Joe that it is unfair. Right now, we are paying about half the property taxes we would be paying if property taxes were not more or less fixed.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

Two other factors driving up home prices.

1) An influx of Chinese from Hong Kong and Mainland who are attempting to get their money and families out of China.

2) Wall St. buying up entry level homes to create rental portfolios. IMO this has by far the largest impact on reducing home supply for young families.

I can also see Joel's point but I don't believe driving seniors on fixed incomes out of their homes with taxes is fair nor is it the larger issue with the housing supply. I am a capitalist and favor a carrot of property appreciation incenting them to cash out over more government tinkering.


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:
Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes.


"Supposed to be is the key word"  It is quite progressive on wage income and deductions.  ... Wealthly individuals pay less taxes because we have an 'wage income' based tax with preference given to capital.   Most wealthy individuals get their income from sources other than income.   Corporations also have plenty of credits and loopholes in their favor to avoid a lot of taxation.

Just realize that these wealthy individuals and corporate entities own the politicians on BOTH sides.   Why else do they get obscene speaking fees once they leave office?  or Ridiculous book deals?  or now... buying your kid's crap art for $000's of thousands of dollars anonymously .


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> Taxes are inherently unfair. They often try to right a wrong (progressive rates or the alternative minimum tax) or stimulate a specific business sector (solar credits). They are anything but "fair" and I don't think that they were ever meant to be fair. They are honestly used as a tool by politicians.



I agree with you that the way taxes are implemented are unfair and political. This article was just on the Wall Street Journal and it‘s a good example of a tax proposal that is unfair and political.

It talks about how the government is saying they want to tax the ultra rich with their new tax program. In reality they will “sock it” to the working rich, the people who have no tax shelters and already pay half their income in federal and state taxes not including payroll taxes, property tax, sales tax, etc. I know there will be no sympathy from the general public for the working rich but in CA with two income earners, it is not hard to be part of the working rich because our cost of living and taxes are so high.









						Opinion | Biden’s Real Tax Target Isn’t the Superrich
					

His plan would sock it to the ‘working rich,’ whose taxes are already high, not billionaire investors.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> TravelTime said:
> Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes.
> 
> 
> ...



Government and corruption go hand in hand, has for thousands of years, and no one should be surprised. Taxes are simply one aspect of unequal influence due to money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> TravelTime said:
> Taxes are supposed to be “fair.” That is why we have progressive taxes.
> 
> 
> ...



The word “wealthy” needs to be redefined as the “ultra rich” or “super wealthy.” Average wealthy people i.e. “the working rich” have no tax shelters. They have been taken away by the government. Even SALT deductions are gone. Even before, most tax deductions are phased out at an income level that really is not that “wealthy.” Regular “wealthy” people are paying the vast majority of tax revenue and subsidizing everyone else. Here is an article that explains this.









						Opinion | Biden’s Real Tax Target Isn’t the Superrich
					

His plan would sock it to the ‘working rich,’ whose taxes are already high, not billionaire investors.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> One other factor driving up prices in Calif. is an influx of Chinese from Hong Kong and Mainland who are attempting to get their money and families out of China.
> 
> I can also see Joel's point but I don't believe driving seniors on fixed incomes out of their homes with taxes is fair. I am a capitalist and favor the carrot of property appreciation incenting them to cash out over more government tinkering.



Ultimately, the law is the law.  No one is ever going to vote to change it.   Nobody ever votes for something that costs money - regardless of the benefit or fairness.

I suffered the same tax penalty.   I sold my home and bought a house that was 26% more expensive than the price that I sold my home for.     My RE taxes have gone from $9200 to $17,500, an increase of 90%.   That is based upon the the seller's old value.  I am guess that they will re-assess it next year based upon the purchase price (I closed on my house towards the end of the tax year - I am guessing it was too late to change the bill).  If so, my taxes will go up to $19,900, an increase of 116%.

The people who bought my old house will pay $15,750, and increase of 71%.      I benefited from this tax break for a few years, but it is still very unfair.  Especially when prices have increased dramatically over the last few years.   I was probably getting a benefit, but maybe 25% rather than 71% until the last couple of years.

Appraising the entire town is much more fair.  Most of the county appraises their property every 5 years for tax purposes, my township decided to pass on that.  Not sure what the arguments were.  Probably the members of the town board are long time residents and didn't want to incur any additional RE tax.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Fair...and that's why many major corps pay $0 in taxes, and wealthy pay less % than middle class...



Again, let’s not throw around the word “wealthy” like this without a definition. The word “wealthy” is not specific enough to identify the real people who are getting away with lower taxes. I agree it is unfair for corporations and billionaires (and many multi multi millionaires) to pay lower taxes.

I’ll post an excerpt from the article since it’s behind a firewall and I do not think may Tuggers are subscribers.

……………….

The Biden administration is trying to sell its Build Back Better agenda by demonizing the superwealthy, but that’s just the sales pitch. The actual product is a tax bill sent mostly elsewhere, to the already highly taxed “working rich.”

The litany of the supposed tax crimes committed by tech founders and private-equity billionaires is long and well-known: “They pay less than their secretaries do!” They spend money borrowed against their shares, leaving most of their wealth untouched and untaxed until death. Their children inherit those shares, kicking in the step-up in basis, and their massive capital gains are then blasted into the loophole ether, leaving their heirs to pay “only” the 40% estate tax, some of which perhaps they can avoid. Private-equity billionaires do much of the same stuff and also get to use the famous carried-interest loophole. By trading their labor for shares in risky enterprises, the lucky—or very good—ones pay capital gains, not ordinary income, rates on these gains. And all these miscreants are, of course, supposedly hiding tons of untaxed wealth offshore, likely aiming to become Bond villains.

The list is a mix of things critics are right about (the step-up in basis is hard to defend except perhaps as a bulwark against overly high estate-tax rates), that are arguable (carried interest) and that are nonsense (that wealthy Americans hide much of their money offshore untaxed)….

…..The working rich already face—and actually pay—high marginal tax rates on ordinary income, and ordinary income is most of what they generate. These rates can exceed 50% today in blue states and cities (before adding Medicare taxes and all the rest). In our highly progressive tax system, the working rich already pay far higher marginal and average tax rates than their secretaries. They also don’t have many ways to reduce their estate taxes. The working rich seldom resemble the caricatures used in the “make them pay their fair share!” sales pitch….









						Opinion | Biden’s Real Tax Target Isn’t the Superrich
					

His plan would sock it to the ‘working rich,’ whose taxes are already high, not billionaire investors.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

And yet...you can leave your stocks alone to grow, never sell so no capital gains and only get taxed on the small annual dividends and distributions. Why not treat property the same? Why is property taxed and not stocks?

Moreover, when you die, those stocks are given a stepped up basis as will your home. Is it fair for a younger generation which had no hand in working or saving the assets to get favorable tax treatment of a stepped up basis when they cash out?


----------



## klpca (Oct 21, 2021)

Superchief said:


> The people living in these multi-million dollar homes live there because that's their home and they likely put a lot of work and money into to it. They didn't buy it as an investment. If they sell it, they won't be able to afford a home in the same area and will have to pay all of the selling/buying and moving expenses. That is a lot of money. I know several people in CA that don't move because they can't afford to.


So true. If we wanted to move we would pay more to move between commission, moving costs, and tax on the gain over the $500,000 exclusion than we paid for our house originally . And this is the hard part - we would have to find something else to buy and our market is tight, tight, tight. Trying to find something is difficult. So we will sit tight.



joestein said:


> So more on the RE taxes....
> 
> The lowered tax bases also pass on inheritance as long as the inheritor uses it as a primary residence.   So now the savings are generational.   Someone can still be paying taxes on a 1980 value in 30 or 40 years from now.
> 
> ...


Not any more. That was just eliminated this year. This article does a good job of explaining the ins-and-outs of the law in California. I do not know if New Jersey is different. I am only aware of the laws in the state where I live. https://www.personalcapital.com/blo...a-proposition-13-proposition-19-what-to-know/

At any rate, a parent to child transfer or grandparent to grandchild transfer is almost always a poor decision tax wise if the child ever plans on selling the home because of the loss of the stepped up basis. The only time it makes sense is if the child wants to stay in the home indefinitely.

To all who are worried about our real estate market in California here is our experience. In our neighborhood, an average suburban neighborhood of about 200 homes, I can count the number of original homeowners on two hands (but it isn't like I know everybody though). We have had plenty of turnover in the past 30 years and due to the age of the homes and the age of the owners, the current market has brought out a number of people ready to get out and we have had quite a few sales the past couple of years. That was always the crux of the law - that the state would get the increased revenue upon sale of the house and that's exactly how it works. In the past 35 years my mom has bought and sold 6 homes. She loves moving I guess lol. We have stayed put because we moved 5 times in the first 4 years of marriage and before we bought this house my husband told me "pick the one you love because we are never moving again" - and he wasn't kidding apparently. As the old saying goes, they aren't making any more land and at least close in to the metro areas, we are built out. Newer housing is going to be more dense and they are even relaxing rules on granny flats to generate extra housing. We have a land shortage in the metro areas, and so our housing prices have skyrocketed. We have also had people convert their single family homes in suburbia into Airbnb's. That has not helped our housing shortage at all, but the same people who love Airbnb's seem to be upset that the market for starter homes is tight - yet they are supporting that short term rental market. And I would also like to point out that those homes are usually bought and converted so CA is getting plenty of property taxes on those houses.

We came close to buying another house a few years ago but in the end decided to stay put because we wanted to take a trip to Europe every year with the money instead of paying $10,000 more in property tax. That was my actual mental math. We haven't gone to Europe every year but in my mind I have a $10k travel budget because we stayed in this house. Not logical but that was how the decision was made.

With taxes, as with timeshares (and we could debate for days the fairness of resale timeshares getting the same benefits as those who paid retail for theirs) knowledge is power. Get a good CPA who can advise you on what your choices are under the law. Or spend the time to know and understand the law, but unless your tax situation is straightforward, having some kind of an advisor who understands the law will save you money in the long run. With every new administration there are winners and losers under the new laws. A good advisor will help you understand where you stand and sometimes it is not as bad as it seems. Sometimes you can structure a business to minimize taxes. Get a good tax advisor especially if you are paying a lot in tax. It really isn't a DIY activity, because as your tax situation becomes more complicated, the advice needs to become more nuanced and personalized.


----------



## Brett (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Again, let’s not throw around the word “wealthy” like this without a definition. The word “wealthy” is not specific enough to identify the real people who are getting away with lower taxes. I agree it is unfair for corporations and billionaires (and many multi multi millionaires) to pay lower taxes.
> 
> I’ll post an excerpt from the article since it’s behind a firewall and I do not think may Tuggers are subscribers.
> 
> ...



But that is a WSJ  *opinion* piece
kinda like the 2017 tax cuts were a GREAT and HUGE tax cut for the "middle class"


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> The word “wealthy” needs to be redefined as the “ultra rich.” Average wealthy people have no tax shelters. They have been taken away by the government. Even SALT deductions are gone. Even before, most tax deductions are phased out at an income level that really is not that “wealthy.” Regular “wealthy” people are paying the vast majority of tax revenue and subsidizing everyone else. Here is an article that explains this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting article - sadly a lot of familes like mine who are dual income professionals who might have annual incomes in the 300s - 500s and are already heavily taxed and the ones who pay the price.

VERY TRUE.  I am in that category, but 99+% of it is wage income and I no where to shelter any of it, especially now that SALT is limited.     Well... at least I am no longer paying AMT.

Even when I retire, the majority of my assets are in 401Ks, they will be considered taxable income, which will affect the taxability of my SS and the amount I need to pay for Medicare.   

I know I probably shouldn't complain, I am sure many families would like to be in my predicament.  but we have worked long and hard for what we have and also lived under our means to try to save for the future.  It would be nice to get a break - at least in retirement.   Make 401K gains taxable at capital gains rates.


----------



## Brett (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Fair...and that's why many major corps pay $0 in taxes, and wealthy pay less % than middle class...



And those groups (and others)  have different definitions of "fair"


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 21, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> The word “wealthy” needs to be redefined as the “ultra rich” or “super wealthy.” Average wealthy people i.e. “the working rich” have no tax shelters. They have been taken away by the government. Even SALT deductions are gone. Even before, most tax deductions are phased out at an income level that really is not that “wealthy.” Regular “wealthy” people are paying the vast majority of tax revenue and subsidizing everyone else. Here is an article that explains this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the major purposes of progressive taxation is to keep poor people from getting rich. . .


----------



## emeryjre (Oct 21, 2021)

Government spending never goes down.   Federal, State, County, City, or whatever.  It only goes up.  Therefore taxes have to go up.  If the taxing authority relies on property taxes, than property taxes have to rise.

The only way out of raising taxes is to accumulate debt or engage in deficit spending.

Any wonder the deficits are going up.  

We even have new economic theories to justify this.  Modern Monetary Theory.


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> So true. If we wanted to move we would pay more to move between commission, moving costs, and tax on the gain over the $500,000 exclusion than we paid for our house originally . And this is the hard part - we would have to find something else to buy and our market is tight, tight, tight. Trying to find something is difficult. So we will sit tight.
> 
> 
> Not any more. That was just eliminated this year. This article does a good job of explaining the ins-and-outs of the law in California. I do not know if New Jersey is different. I am only aware of the laws in the state where I live. https://www.personalcapital.com/blo...a-proposition-13-proposition-19-what-to-know/
> ...



I would think that stepped up basis only affects RE Tax, not capital gains.  Especially at the federal level.


----------



## Brett (Oct 21, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> One of the major purposes of progressive taxation is to keep poor people from getting rich. . .



Or rich people getting poor


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

Brett said:


> But that is a WSJ  *opinion* piece
> kinda like the 2017 tax cuts were a GREAT and HUGE tax cut for the "middle class"



Everyone got a tax cut in the 2017 taxes.  It is hard to cut taxes on people who do not pay much to begin with.  I am certainly not middle class, but not wealthy in my mind either.   I shaved off a couple of percentage points on my effective tax rate - which I usually track.   (Defined by actual federal tax per TR/gross income)


----------



## klpca (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> I would think that stepped up basis only affects RE Tax, not capital gains.  Especially at the federal level.


No, step up means that when the owner dies the cost basis of the asset now becomes the fair market value of the asset to the new owner. So parent owns the house with a cost basis of $300k. Parent dies and leaves the house to a kid (hopefully via a living trust). Value of the house at date of death is 1mm. Basis in the hands of the beneficiary is $1mm, house can be sold with no capital gains if sold immediately. If the house is held longer then the gain will be the difference between the sales price and the $1mm in basis.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> No step up means that when the owner dies the cost basis of the asset now becomes the fair market value of the asset to the new owner. So parent own the house with a cost basis of $300k. Parent dies and leave the house to a kid (hopefully via a living trust). Value of the house at date of death is 1mm. Basis in the hands of the beneficiary is $1mm, house can be sold with no capital gains if sold immediately. If the house is held longer then the gain will be the difference between the sales price and the $1mm in basis.



Which means the owner and his heir successfully cheated the "taxman" of the taxes on $700,000. . .


----------



## am1 (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Wow. That's draconian thinking. What about personal freedom? and the contributions and sacrifices that she made?
> 
> Do you support some members of the younger generation that can't wait for granny to kick the bucket so they get the inheritance? Based on your argument, it sounds like you believe granny is inefficient sitting on her lifelong savings so should die or give away her savings to younger families to use whether they deserve it or not.
> 
> And what if the senior allows the younger family to live with them in that home? or uses the money to pay for their grandchildren's care & education?



A lot of what ifs and speculation on your part. Bottom line is Granny can do what she wants but pay the going rate is fair.  I am against inheritance as I prefer to work for my money.  I do not have a solution for it though.


----------



## klpca (Oct 21, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Which means the owner and his heir successfully cheated the "taxman" of the taxes on $700,000. . .


No, they followed the law as written. But is definitely feels like they cheated, doesn't it?


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> No, they followed the law as written. But is definitely feels like they cheated, doesn't it?



So did that person with the billion dollar Roth IRA. Funny how some people can be OK with sneaking money past the "taxman" one way, and then get all upset when somebody else does it another (but also totally legal) way.

(Not personal to anyone here.)


----------



## bluehende (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> Everyone got a tax cut in the 2017 taxes.  It is hard to cut taxes on people who do not pay much to begin with.  I am certainly not middle class, but not wealthy in my mind either.   I shaved off a couple of percentage points on my effective tax rate - which I usually track.   (Defined by actual federal tax per TR/gross income)


Mine went up.  Before the change I basically wiped out all my income through itemized deductions and personal exemption  After the law the new standard deduction with no personal exemption did not come up to my income.  I know my situation was unique to low income (small pension), high itemized deductions (mostly health care expenses) and no kids.  Removing that personal exemption was a blow to a lot of low income people that did not gain anything from the increased itemize/stamdard deductions.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

IMHO "fair" and "taxes" never belong in the same sentence. The USA has the best taxes money can buy.  Any government wonk that wants to tinker with Prop 13 will only result in more taxes for all. Why is giving the taxing authority more money to waste on government overhead to enforce a new tax law an "equitable" solution? The taxing authorities make up revenue where they can - let's not forget that Calif has some of the highest individual income taxes in the nation.


----------



## geekette (Oct 21, 2021)

All of this is why I have long favored national sales tax.  If you don't spend, you aren't paying taxes.  If you spend, you are paying taxes.  Put the tax collection onus on the businesses.    Audit them, not us.

Probably the tax rate from raw materials to finished goods passing through multiple companies would be lower than the retail, final sale, tax.

Hard to escape this fee, plus we would collect as international travellers spend here.  

The details, I dunno, this concept fell off the radar a long time ago, sadly.   Plenty of exemptions, like for food and toiletries, ya know, basic necessities.   

Tax code is overly complex and burdensome, and plenty of cheaters.


----------



## Brett (Oct 21, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> So did that person with the billion dollar Roth IRA. Funny how some people can be OK with sneaking money past the "taxman" one way, and then get all upset when somebody else does it another (but also totally legal) way.
> 
> (Not personal to anyone here.)



right, nothing personal
Some of us here inherited a significant amount of money that received a "stepped up" tax basis .....  it felt good to personally bypass the "taxman"


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> No, step up means that when the owner dies the cost basis of the asset now becomes the fair market value of the asset to the new owner. So parent owns the house with a cost basis of $300k. Parent dies and leaves the house to a kid (hopefully via a living trust). Value of the house at date of death is 1mm. Basis in the hands of the beneficiary is $1mm, house can be sold with no capital gains if sold immediately. If the house is held longer then the gain will be the difference between the sales price and the $1mm in basis.



Prop 19 allows the lowered RE tax basis to passed via inheritance to a child if they make it a primary residence.   They will still get the lower RE tax base and the stepped up basis for capital gain purposes.


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> So did that person with the billion dollar Roth IRA. Funny how some people can be OK with sneaking money past the "taxman" one way, and then get all upset when somebody else does it another (but also totally legal) way.
> 
> (Not personal to anyone here.)



The paypal pre-IPO stock should never have been allowed.  They should not allow non-cash contributions to a Roth or regular IRA.   Except for rollovers from similar accounts.


----------



## Ty1on (Oct 21, 2021)

geekette said:


> All of this is why I have long favored national sales tax.  If you don't spend, you aren't paying taxes.  If you spend, you are paying taxes.  Put the tax collection onus on the businesses.    Audit them, not us.



This has its own pitfalls:

A:  An overwhelmingly larger percentage of one's income would be spent on taxable goods by the poor than the rich.
B:  The wealthy could tap their business supply chains to siphon off goods outside the tax structure.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

Brett said:


> But that is a WSJ  *opinion* piece
> kinda like the 2017 tax cuts were a GREAT and HUGE tax cut for the "middle class"



However, 1) the opinion is based on facts, 2) it is my opinion and 3) many people have the same opinion. Just because it is labeled “Opinion” does not make it untrue. That is the fallacy of many people. Just because you do not agree with the so-called “opinion” does not make it untrue. Also many people do not make enough money to know the facts.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> Interesting article - sadly a lot of familes like mine who are dual income professionals who might have annual incomes in the 300s - 500s and are already heavily taxed and the ones who pay the price.
> 
> VERY TRUE.  I am in that category, but 99+% of it is wage income and I no where to shelter any of it, especially now that SALT is limited.     Well... at least I am no longer paying AMT.
> 
> ...



You understand this bc you are in the income range where we are overtaxed compared to the super wealthy. We pay taxes to support the rest of Americans. This is a fact. Many Tuggers are discrediting  the article because it is labeled “opinion” but we know it is factual.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> One of the major purposes of progressive taxation is to keep poor people from getting rich. . .



I do not understand. The progressive tax means lower income people pay less as a percentage of their income. Many lower income people pay very little. They do not get rich because their income is low.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> IMHO "fair" and "taxes" never belong in the same sentence. The USA has the best taxes money can buy.  Any government wonk that wants to tinker with Prop 13 will only result in more taxes for all. Why is giving the taxing authority more money to waste on government overhead to enforce a new tax law an "equitable" solution? The taxing authorities make up revenue where they can - let's not forget that Calif has some of the highest individual income taxes in the nation.



We are not saying it should change. Of course, personally, I do not want it to change. We are just saying it is unfair. I agree with you that taxes are not fair. I posted an article showing that taxes are not fair. The super wealthy are paying a lower percentage that regular people and much less than the working rich who have no tax shelters except their 401K.


----------



## klpca (Oct 21, 2021)

joestein said:


> Prop 19 allows the lowered RE tax basis to passed via inheritance to a child if they make it a primary residence.   They will still get the lower RE tax base and the stepped up basis for capital gain purposes.


Sounds like the sweet spot for tax planning. Probably works great for families with one kid or  big enough estate that one kid gets the house and everyone else gets other assets.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 21, 2021)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That's theoretical, but it often doesn't work that way. That's what led to Prop 13 in CA. Politicians can always find a way to spend public money, so If the assessed value went up by 50%, then revenues went up by 50%, and the budget went up correspondingly.



This is what I noticed with our properties. The assessments have substantially increase so we own more property tax. The only benefit seems to be an increase in property tax is an increase in tax write off for most of the properties.

Bill


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

@TravelTime FWIW That comment was not directed at you. We both agree.

The tax system is already set up to penalize those with wages vs. those that hold assets and earn capital gains and dividends. Just look at the hedge and PE funds like Black Rock whose partners aren't taxed on wages but on lower capital gains rates.


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

klpca said:


> Sounds like the sweet spot for tax planning. Probably works great for families with one kid or  big enough estate that one kid gets the house and everyone else gets other assets.



But extremely unfair to other RE Tax paying people.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Oct 21, 2021)

easyrider said:


> This is what I noticed with our properties. The assessments have substantially increase so we own more property tax. The only benefit seems to be an increase in property tax is an increase in tax write off for most of the properties.
> 
> Bill



Except if you live in high SALT states such as Calif and NY where you are capped at $10,000 SALT. That really hurts.

The way we get eliminate the SALT limits with our vacation home is we treat it as an AirBnB rental business and then we write off all the SALT expenses against the rental income.  Can't do that with primary unless we started to AirBnB rooms...not happening.

Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and the American way...


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 21, 2021)

I did copy and paste enough of the article for folks who do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and/or who are not in the top tax bracket to understand the difference between overtaxing the working rich vs undertaxing the super rich. Also this discussion does not take into account the property taxes. We lost SALT deduction which was one of our few deductions. There is also pass through deduction for my sole proprietorship bit we lost that too since our combined income is too high.

Also, many people do not know that RSUs are taxed at ordinary income when they are awarded even if you do not sell them. We hold them now and take the risk there will be growth. But our tax return have extra “income” we do not get and we are taxed close to 50% on that. If we hold more than a year, then we pay the capital gains tax plus CA state tax on the earnings when we eventually sell.

————————

The Biden administration is trying to sell its Build Back Better agenda by demonizing the superwealthy, but that’s just the sales pitch. The actual product is a tax bill sent mostly elsewhere, to the already highly taxed “working rich.”

The litany of the supposed tax crimes committed by tech founders and private-equity billionaires is long and well-known: “They pay less than their secretaries do!” They spend money borrowed against their shares, leaving most of their wealth untouched and untaxed until death. Their children inherit those shares, kicking in the step-up in basis, and their massive capital gains are then blasted into the loophole ether, leaving their heirs to pay “only” the 40% estate tax, some of which perhaps they can avoid. Private-equity billionaires do much of the same stuff and also get to use the famous carried-interest loophole. By trading their labor for shares in risky enterprises, the lucky—or very good—ones pay capital gains, not ordinary income, rates on these gains. And all these miscreants are, of course, supposedly hiding tons of untaxed wealth offshore, likely aiming to become Bond villains.

The list is a mix of things critics are right about (the step-up in basis is hard to defend except perhaps as a bulwark against overly high estate-tax rates), that are arguable (carried interest) and that are nonsense (that wealthy Americans hide much of their money offshore untaxed)….

So who will pay the bulk of the myriad tax increases? Call them the working rich—people with very high ordinary income in a given year. While some also qualify as superwealthy, many will earn high incomes only for a short while (think athletes and movie stars) and use those fat years to finance decades of lower earnings.

The working rich already face—and actually pay—high marginal tax rates on ordinary income, and ordinary income is most of what they generate. These rates can exceed 50% today in blue states and cities (before adding Medicare taxes and all the rest). In our highly progressive tax system, the working rich already pay far higher marginal and average tax rates than their secretaries. They also don’t have many ways to reduce their estate taxes. The working rich seldom resemble the caricatures used in the “make them pay their fair share!” sales pitch.

Now, if you want to argue, as some do, that successful professional couples in New York and Los Angeles who already pay more than 50% in combined federal, state and local income tax should actually pay more than 60%, let’s debate that honestly. After all, progressives pine for the days of 90% marginal rates from when “Leave It to Beaver” dominated the airwaves, even though that fairy tale has been repeatedly debunked as, unlike now, there were enough loopholes available to make the actual taxes paid far lower. Such a hike, phrased as above, would at least be honest. Though “Make this hard-working, already high tax paying couple’s taxes even higher!” is a far weaker battle cry than demanding higher ordinary tax rates for alleged tax cheats like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett who, unlike our well-off couple above, don’t have much in the way of ordinary income to tax at the forthcoming higher rates……….









						Opinion | Biden’s Real Tax Target Isn’t the Superrich
					

His plan would sock it to the ‘working rich,’ whose taxes are already high, not billionaire investors.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## joestein (Oct 21, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @TravelTime FWIW That comment was not directed at you. I We both agree.
> 
> The tax system is already set up to penalize those with wages vs. those that hold assets and earn capital gains and dividends. Just look at the hedge and PE funds like Black Rock who's partners aren't taxed on wages but on lower capital gains rates.



The idea is that capital will be used for investment that helps the economy.  But that is a lot of BS.   Stocks are not an investment into a company.   It is just selling/buying paper between entities.  Only IPO issuances are investments into companies.

I have always thought that our tax system should be adjusted to lower the burden on wage income and increase it on capital.  Have lower taxes on wages, interest and dividends - thing people live on.   Increase it on income sources that people generally don't live on - like cap gains.

Also - I realize that I pay higher taxes because I earn more, however, it seems like a double hit when I also have to pay a higher medicare premium at 65 when I have been paying higher medicare taxes my entire life.    Same for SS - once you pass a certain amount of income - you get a tiny fractional retirement benefit, but still pay a full SS percentage (until you hit the limit) and it is more taxable as well.   My point is the "working rich" continues to get hit on all sides.

My brother who was quite rich (Multiples more than me - at least until his divorce - a lot of the wealth was from her inheritance) was able to get ACA (Obamacare) health insurance with a large discount because their income was sheltered from the eligibility calculation.   I am sure they are not the only rich people doing this.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 21, 2021)

_[*Moderator Note*: Thread closed while under review for contentious political comments.] <-- SueDonJ_


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 21, 2021)

CLOSED: This topic has strayed far from the original post, and a number of people have exploited it as a soapbox for their social and political views which are not appropriate for TUG.


----------

