[flashbunny]

nobody is forcing them to live in cities.

nobody is forcing liberal cities to enact rent controls that drive up prices.

There are plenty of places where the land is cheap, the air is clean, and there's plenty of space to roam.

However I'd prefer liberals stay in the cities.

[goldstategop]

I've a 1455 sq ft condo. OK, its minimalist with small rooms side by side. But compared to a generation ago, I get three bedrooms and two bathrooms. In Europe, shoebox condos are overpriced. I get a better deal in America.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Dallas59]

Hey....Everyone is equal under Socialism...This person should be happy that the tyrant Bush will be outa office in a year and some months...They need to think about the coming Democrat revolution.../s

[AlaskaErik]

Sounds like a recipe for insanity. I'll stick with my small town and the 2400 sq ft house on an acre. That's just the right size for two people.

[Kirkwood]

Don't live in San Francisco if you can't afford it.

[PERKY2004]

My American Dream hasn't been down-sized.

My husband and I live in California, in a fairly large city (500,000+).

My husband is active-duty military. I am a stay-home wife. We just entered our 40s.

We own a lovely, 2,700 sq ft home in a very nice neighborhood, with a swimming pool, on a 1/4 acre lot.

Own. Not mortgaged, but owned.

Why? How? Because over the years we have made wise choices, and lived frugally, and saved. And, thanks to the blessings and benevolence of the Lord, we achieved that mythical "American Dream."

If people find it too expensive to be squooshed into a City like San Francisco, they should move. I did.

[Liberty Wins]

Wow, and to think the libs made their own hellish utopia, are living in it and don't recognize it.

[RedStateRocker]

I'll just add to the 'Don't whine about not being able to afford to live in an expensive place if you can't afford to' crowd. They ain't making any more land in San Francisco, and even if they allowed rampant building the streets and other infrasturcure are already at capacity. To say nothing of earthquakes. Sheesh, it's one of the most expensive areas in the world because, just like the others, it's a limited commodity.

[peggybac]

http://www.irrationalknowledge.com/12-22-2005/why-you-cant-afford-a-house-in-a-blue-state/

Why You Can’t Afford a House in a Blue State
Filed by: Justin on Thursday, December 22, 2005 @ 3:05 pm

I have the misfortune of living in Massachusetts, one the bluest states in the nation. Housing prices have been increasing even though Massachusetts is the only state in the nation with a declining population. Once you understand this you will understand why people are “voting with the feet” and moving to red states.

The short explanation for the skyrocketing housing prices is the Law of Unintended Consequences. As this article in the Economist explains, housing prices are rising fastest in the northeast and in the west coast (read: blue states) due to government limitations on the development of new housing. There are several reasons for this.

Housing Bubble

Low interest rates may be driving up housing prices. It may also be the case that the 1999 tax law that gives a $500,000 deduction on capital gains taxes for your primary residence is also driving up housing prices. But there are other factors at work.. This article is about those other factors.

Environmentalism or Affordable Housing?

Stanford economist Thomas Sowell has written a great article describing the impact of open spaces zoning laws (laws that forbid all development, including housing) on housing prices. Last march housing prices rose by $2000 a day in San Mateo, even though San Mateo has seen its overall population drop as young people are gentrified by the high cost of living.

Open spaces laws are interesting because they throw two liberal goals into conflict: environmentalism and affordable housing for the poor and working class.

Public Schools

There are two reasons why public schools have driven up the cost of housing. The first reason is money. Towns know that new houses cost money because you have to build new schools. Businesses bring in money from taxes and do not require many services. Towns preferentially zone for commercial rather than residential use in order to maximize tax revenues and minimize expenses. The Washington Post has a good article on the subject here.

The second reason is more uncomfortable: race (as we have persistently argued, the real reason behind race issues is actually culture). The quality of a school is not determined by funding; the quality of a school is determined by the degree of commitment the parents have to education. That is why Washington DC public schools are among the worst in the nation despite being some of the highest funded. Neighborhoods act a filtering process. Families get sorted out based on socioeconomic standing. Everyone that has ever shopped for a house knows this: “This is a nice neighborhood and the schools are great - can we afford it?”

The unintended consequence of “free” public schools is that housing prices are increasing. Housing is the gatekeeper to education. Economists talk about inelastic demand - demand for things for which there are few substitutes. Private schools are expensive when you are already paying taxes for public school. We could eliminate this reason for expensive housing by decoupling public schools from housing. But by definition that would require vouchers, which the left will not accept.

The Two Income Trap

Given that there isn’t enough housing in neighborhoods with good schools to go around, imagine the following two scenarios.

The one income world: Imagine if the only people in the housing market were in one income families. Then couples would bid for housing based on the husband’s salary. There isn’t enough housing to go around, so some families will lose this game of musical chairs for good housing.
The two income world: If one of these “losing” families became a two income family then they could easily win the bidding war. But since there still isn’t enough housing to go around, they would just make another single income family the new “loser”. As more and more women join the workforce, the price of housing rises.
The houses in the two income world are identical to the houses in the one income world, but they cost a lot more money. This is the two income trap. Women have joined the workforce in numbers and Americans are working harder than ever, but real purchasing power has not increased.

A Blue State Problem

As the Economist article mentioned above stated, expensive housing is largely (although not exclusively) a blue state problem. At this point it should be clear why. Conservatives are less likely to have two income families, have a stronger respect for property rights, and are less likely to support overboard environmental policies that forbid development while working families struggle to afford housing.

Property rights do not protect the rich, although they do make it tougher for the rich to work the system to their advantage. Think about all those wealthy homeowners in San Mateo – I’m sure they are liberal enough to be staunch environmentalists, but it doesn’t hurt that these laws are driving up the value of their homes. The liberal response to the corruption of government power is bigger government (and hence, more corruption and rent seeking). The conservative response is smaller government. And hence cheaper housing in red states, and people voting with their feet and leaving the blue states.

This article in the Wall Street Journal makes similar points and is well worth reading.

[Porterville]

And I should care about ratz living in a city why?

[hsalaw]

What a miserable little whiner. No one's forcing him to live in San Francisco, probably the most expensive city to live in outside of New York. I grew up in a solidly middle-class, two-income family in the 1950s and 60s - my mother was a teacher, and my father an engineer - and the seven of us lived in a three-bedroom house with one bathroom. This guy would probably consider that to be poverty-level squalor. Idiot.

[Kickass Conservative]

I wonder how many liberals would fit inside John Edwards new 28,000 square foot house?

[DB]

Votes have consequences.

When you continually vote in endless building regulation and micromanage every aspect of construction through to the color of paint it costs, it costs dearly.

Go try to build something in San Francisco (or any other major city) and see what it takes. It is nearly impossible unless you are politically connected. Most city councils are no growth based and were elected by the voters. Pretty obvious why there's a shortage of affordable housing...

[SIDENET]

Boo hoo.

Nobody made this guy live in San Francisco. Instead of whining about prices there, maybe he should look elsewhere.

[Centurion2000]

Living in a megacity is for idiots.

[ex-Texan]

Living space, unless one belongs to that tiny percentage called the upper class, is shrinking as the human population continues to grow. While the rural poor leave open sky and rolling plains to flock to the edge of the metropolis--they crowd into ramshackle slums in the third world, or one-room units in the first--the middle class is clinging to its precious status by contending with far smaller living spaces than those of previous generations.

A Few Very Helpful Examples are Pictured Below:

This one bedroom house was listed for sale for $ 515,000 in Los Angeles. It did not sell but may reappear on the market later this year:

This three bedroom, one bath house was for sale in Los Angeles for only $ 445,000. It did not sell. The rumor is that it has been rented to Mexicans.

Want to learn more? Clickity, click click Or -- View helpful charts and graphs Here

[lndrvr1972]

Its called ridiculous taxes. That is the problem. Too many people in this country need to speak up and ask where their hard earned money is going. And IMO many of these taxes are unconstitutional.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[VOA]

"I remember when a middle-class family could own a Victorian home
in San Francisco. "

LOL!
That was in the era of the old movie "I Remember Mama"!
(Early 1900s)

Before the housing market got into permanent bubble mode via the
gay influx and the Internet bubble!

[Arrowhead1952]

Sounds like Andrew Lam has a bad case of Class Envy. The American Dream has not downsized, it has been redefined by the liberal DBM.

Large cities are "hell holes" and tend to draw all the libs so someone else can foot the bill. More government means less freedom. If he doesn't like the small home he can afford in SF, he can move somewhere else.