32 ms·

Must be a weird California problem. I simply don't see this problem in Texas. I have known several people who have fled California to Texas for exactly that r

Must be a weird California problem. I simply don't see this problem in Texas. I have known several people who have fled California to Texas for exactly that reason. EDIT: Look through the data and ask yourself why you would want to pay more for what appears (according to the data) to be a less diverse, more expensive, and more dense area. What the data doesn't reflect is home size. I paid $125k for a 3000sqft foreclosure a few years ago that is now worth $200k. I couldn't get half a garage for this in the bay area. http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/san_francisco_ca/fort_worth_tx/people http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/san_francisco_ca/fo...

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
It's more of an everywhere-but-Texas problem. Texas has a great tradition of respecting property rights. Most states are not like this.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  But this comes at an expense to nature and or natural preserves for wildlife. California has some of the greatest protected forests and areas like Yosemite. So, yes we pay more and have more restrictions, but a better question is is it worth it? Following the articles car analogy, this is like requiring cars to have airbags for the safety of the people in them, but that comes at a higher cost on the purchase price of the car.
  - tomschlick 11y ago
    And SF has some of the highest rent in the country because they won't zone for larger apartment buildings.
  - surfmike 11y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. We have minimum lot size restrictions, and restrict lots to one housing unit (R1 zoning). These regulations push up the prices of homes (since it increases the minimum amount of land for a housing unit), and do nothing to save forests and national parks. In fact, if we keep building low density neighborhoods, more open space will be used up than if our zoning allowed for denser development.
  - gwbas1c 11y ago
    I think you miss the point: Two words: Eminent Domain. Silicon Valley (and other areas in CA) need to use eminent domain to build high-rises. The housing crisis can be solved without impacting nature preserves.
    - mcguire 11y ago
      Didn't some place in New Jersey get roundly hosed around here when they pulled eminent domain on some properties and then turned them over to developers? Something about property rights?
    - ghaff 11y ago
      Or tech companies could just move to the many areas of the country, such as many areas of the Midwest, where housing isn't so constrained. There's plenty of space in the US. Just not in the Bay area.
      - drivingmenuts 11y ago
        Sure, and then they'd be stuck with Billy Joe and Jim Bob, who once used a computer back in the 90's, as a workforce. Or they could offer the same California salaries to programmers, who would live like kings in a small town but wouldn't have the same conveniences, and still spend the same amount of money. Moving to the countryside doesn't always make business sense. Sure, costs to have a business in an urban area, but it's easier to find workforce at all needed levels and the trappings of urban civilization keep your workforce occupied and happier in their off hours. Case-in-point: I work for a cash-strapped startup (for reasons) and sometimes have to live off my savings, but I live in an urban area. I could move to my hometown, where my costs would be about 25% of my current expenses, but then I'd be living in a special kind of hell where there are few good restaurants and the nearest bookstore is 60 miles away.
        douche 11y ago
        Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. There are huge swathes of the United States that are becoming depopulated because industry died and all of the young people have had to leave to find work. I just got back from a trip home to western Maine, and it's disturbing the number of houses that are just abandoned up there.
- Animats 11y ago
  Texas has a lot of very low value real estate. US real estate is cheap if you're willing to live in Outer Nowhere.
  - bdcravens 11y ago
    Yes, there's a lot of wide open spaces in Texas, but there's tons of sub $200K houses in decent subdivisions sub $200k, and within 15 minutes of downtowns $200k-300k. I live in an older area midway between downtown Houston and the upscale Woodlands area in North Houston; my house is value at $105k. (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, corner lot, 1600 sq ft, big fenced yard)
    - qdog 11y ago
      Sure, but you have to live in Houston. Austin house prices in good school districts are expensive. I just sold a house for 10k in a small town in a part of Texas with almost no jobs, so you can find houses, but houses close to the biggest job markets in desirable neighborhoods just aren't that cheap. You can, however easily retire in BFE with a cheap house if that's the desire.
      - bdcravens 11y ago
        Definitely, though Dallas prices are on par with Houston. However, even in Houston, there are expensive homes (such as in the medical district, River Oaks, The Woodlands, etc) My mom lives in a little $20k house about 90 minutes north of Dallas. (and it's not necessarily BFE, but in an older part of a 40k city)
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Nah, it's more some parts of the U.S. are just ridiculously expensive. In many areas of South and East, you can get quite affordable homes within 20-30 minutes drive of the areas (eg "downtown") that have the big businesses and expensive homes. Local example is nearby properties at $80k-200k half-hour away from condos costing nearly a million right next to businesses. Locals working there spend most of their day, lunch breaks, and some free time on weekends around all those people. No need to live over there even for networking. And then there's Texas doing it's own thing with its own cost-benefit analysis. As usual. ;)
coroutines 11y ago
Nice try, Rick Perry.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Pull up Zillow for Houston or Dallas, pick a home a random - sub $200k is pretty easy to find.
mullen 11y ago
You are not paying for Earthquake proofing your house and space is more limited because of mountains and hills. Plus, houses in the middle of BFE California are cheap too.
- achen2345 11y ago
  I am not talking about the middle of nowhere. I am talking about actually within the boundaries of a city of similar population size. Houses in Texas are far cheaper than that in the middle of nowhere as well.

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago

It's more of an everywhere-but-Texas problem. Texas has a great tradition of respecting property rights. Most states are not like this.

bluejekyll 11y ago
But this comes at an expense to nature and or natural preserves for wildlife. California has some of the greatest protected forests and areas like Yosemite. So, yes we pay more and have more restrictions, but a better question is is it worth it? Following the articles car analogy, this is like requiring cars to have airbags for the safety of the people in them, but that comes at a higher cost on the purchase price of the car.
- tomschlick 11y ago
  And SF has some of the highest rent in the country because they won't zone for larger apartment buildings.
- surfmike 11y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. We have minimum lot size restrictions, and restrict lots to one housing unit (R1 zoning). These regulations push up the prices of homes (since it increases the minimum amount of land for a housing unit), and do nothing to save forests and national parks. In fact, if we keep building low density neighborhoods, more open space will be used up than if our zoning allowed for denser development.
- gwbas1c 11y ago
  I think you miss the point: Two words: Eminent Domain. Silicon Valley (and other areas in CA) need to use eminent domain to build high-rises. The housing crisis can be solved without impacting nature preserves.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    Didn't some place in New Jersey get roundly hosed around here when they pulled eminent domain on some properties and then turned them over to developers? Something about property rights?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Or tech companies could just move to the many areas of the country, such as many areas of the Midwest, where housing isn't so constrained. There's plenty of space in the US. Just not in the Bay area.
    - drivingmenuts 11y ago
      Sure, and then they'd be stuck with Billy Joe and Jim Bob, who once used a computer back in the 90's, as a workforce. Or they could offer the same California salaries to programmers, who would live like kings in a small town but wouldn't have the same conveniences, and still spend the same amount of money. Moving to the countryside doesn't always make business sense. Sure, costs to have a business in an urban area, but it's easier to find workforce at all needed levels and the trappings of urban civilization keep your workforce occupied and happier in their off hours. Case-in-point: I work for a cash-strapped startup (for reasons) and sometimes have to live off my savings, but I live in an urban area. I could move to my hometown, where my costs would be about 25% of my current expenses, but then I'd be living in a special kind of hell where there are few good restaurants and the nearest bookstore is 60 miles away.
      - douche 11y ago
        Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants! If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second. Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. There are huge swathes of the United States that are becoming depopulated because industry died and all of the young people have had to leave to find work. I just got back from a trip home to western Maine, and it's disturbing the number of houses that are just abandoned up there.
Animats 11y ago
Texas has a lot of very low value real estate. US real estate is cheap if you're willing to live in Outer Nowhere.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Yes, there's a lot of wide open spaces in Texas, but there's tons of sub $200K houses in decent subdivisions sub $200k, and within 15 minutes of downtowns $200k-300k. I live in an older area midway between downtown Houston and the upscale Woodlands area in North Houston; my house is value at $105k. (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, corner lot, 1600 sq ft, big fenced yard)
  - qdog 11y ago
    Sure, but you have to live in Houston. Austin house prices in good school districts are expensive. I just sold a house for 10k in a small town in a part of Texas with almost no jobs, so you can find houses, but houses close to the biggest job markets in desirable neighborhoods just aren't that cheap. You can, however easily retire in BFE with a cheap house if that's the desire.
    - bdcravens 11y ago
      Definitely, though Dallas prices are on par with Houston. However, even in Houston, there are expensive homes (such as in the medical district, River Oaks, The Woodlands, etc) My mom lives in a little $20k house about 90 minutes north of Dallas. (and it's not necessarily BFE, but in an older part of a 40k city)
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Nah, it's more some parts of the U.S. are just ridiculously expensive. In many areas of South and East, you can get quite affordable homes within 20-30 minutes drive of the areas (eg "downtown") that have the big businesses and expensive homes. Local example is nearby properties at $80k-200k half-hour away from condos costing nearly a million right next to businesses. Locals working there spend most of their day, lunch breaks, and some free time on weekends around all those people. No need to live over there even for networking. And then there's Texas doing it's own thing with its own cost-benefit analysis. As usual. ;)

coroutines 11y ago

Nice try, Rick Perry.

bdcravens 11y ago
Pull up Zillow for Houston or Dallas, pick a home a random - sub $200k is pretty easy to find.

mullen 11y ago

You are not paying for Earthquake proofing your house and space is more limited because of mountains and hills. Plus, houses in the middle of BFE California are cheap too.

achen2345 11y ago
I am not talking about the middle of nowhere. I am talking about actually within the boundaries of a city of similar population size. Houses in Texas are far cheaper than that in the middle of nowhere as well.