4 ms·

Your comment made me think of how astonished I was at the numbers of elderly in the South Bay when I relocated here. You'd think those folks would have cashed

Your comment made me think of how astonished I was at the numbers of elderly in the South Bay when I relocated here. You'd think those folks would have cashed out and moved to a tax friendly state with better weather, but for some reason they've stayed put.

FreedomToCreate 7y ago
They have stayed put because there is no where with better weather
- downrightmike 7y ago
  If they move just a state over, the average temps are over 100 degrees during the day. There are other issues with the heat like an elderly lady died because the power company turned her power off for being $51 behind. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aps-cut-power-heat-customer-dead-phoenix-summer-shutoff-11310515 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aps-cut-power-heat-cust...
- zem 7y ago
  also a lot of cheaper and more "tax friendly" places tend to be red states.
- 01100011 7y ago
  As someone over the hill, I can confirm that the older I get, the more heat feels good. There's a reason why Arizona is full of retirees. The cold, humid air in the bay area, especially during winter, is not good for an old body. Now obviously heat can kill the elderly, but if someone cashed out their bay area home and moved, they'd have more than enough money to buy a nice place and run the air conditioner whenever they like. If nothing else, I'd figure they'd move to LA for even better weather and cheaper rent. That doesn't help with the tax situation, but it's something. Maybe they're here for the family connections, but it seems less and less likely to be the case given the exodus of longtime residents from the area. If they don't own a house, I can't see how they'd manage to stay. Renting around here on a fixed income must be brutal.
mathattack 7y ago
Their houses are paid off and they are locked in to low property taxes.
- 01100011 7y ago
  You could sell your bay area house for $1M and buy a palace in AZ for half that. That leaves you with a nice chunk of change to pay property taxes with.
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    But it's unnecessary. If you bought your 3 bedroom house in Cupertino in 1978 for $60k, you're paying taxes on about $140k, so about $1400 a year. These people can live on just Social Security. If they can easily afford to stay where they are with all of their friends and community, in a spectacular climate, not have to deal with the hassle of moving or maintaining a larger house, and pass a $2.5 million asset to their kids, why would they move?
    - 01100011 7y ago
      > why would they move? To follow their children who probably left the bay area so they could raise a family? To escape the cold and humid winters of this 'spectacular climate'(seriously, that's a very relative opinion. San Diego was better. Phoenix is fine if you have AC). To not have to deal with the hassle of maintaining a 40-60 year old house? To not have to pay some of the highest state income taxes around? To reallocate their assets to a growth vehicle and pass on more wealth to their children(seriously our market is maxed for now)? To live near millions of people in their age bracket in an environment that caters to them? To have access to superior medical care(IME, South bay sucks. San Diego is better. Phoenix is better. San Antonio is better. etc...). CA is generally a horrible place to retire unless you have money to burn. If I were 65+, had children, and owned a house in the south bay, I would leave in a heartbeat unless my children were working FANG jobs in the same area of the bay.
  - mathattack 7y ago
    The economics work better for renters that are moving, rather than owners. For an owner, their property taxes are lower than it would be with a new house out of state. If they want they can borrow against the home value to access the equity. Their income is lower, so less attraction moving to a lower tax state.
dougmwne 7y ago
I think the simplest explanation is that once people have put down decades worth of roots in a place, most would prefer to stay, no matter how many millions their house would sell for. I think for most people the upheaval of leaving all your friends, acquaintances, family, local culture, habits, patterns of living, and your very home behind far outweighs even a eye-opening property value. You'd need a damn good reason to leave, so unless you're forced, you'll stay.
- freewilly1040 7y ago
  I think you make a great point, but it begs the question: why does changing houses mean giving up your roots?
  - beiller 7y ago
    Probably because making profit on selling your home means you have to move away. Because your neighbours home also went up just as much.
  - ikeyany 7y ago
    You would understand if you thought of it as 'leaving your home' instead of 'changing houses'.

FreedomToCreate 7y ago

They have stayed put because there is no where with better weather

downrightmike 7y ago
If they move just a state over, the average temps are over 100 degrees during the day. There are other issues with the heat like an elderly lady died because the power company turned her power off for being $51 behind. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aps-cut-power-heat-customer-dead-phoenix-summer-shutoff-11310515 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aps-cut-power-heat-cust...
zem 7y ago
also a lot of cheaper and more "tax friendly" places tend to be red states.
01100011 7y ago
As someone over the hill, I can confirm that the older I get, the more heat feels good. There's a reason why Arizona is full of retirees. The cold, humid air in the bay area, especially during winter, is not good for an old body. Now obviously heat can kill the elderly, but if someone cashed out their bay area home and moved, they'd have more than enough money to buy a nice place and run the air conditioner whenever they like. If nothing else, I'd figure they'd move to LA for even better weather and cheaper rent. That doesn't help with the tax situation, but it's something. Maybe they're here for the family connections, but it seems less and less likely to be the case given the exodus of longtime residents from the area. If they don't own a house, I can't see how they'd manage to stay. Renting around here on a fixed income must be brutal.

mathattack 7y ago

Their houses are paid off and they are locked in to low property taxes.

01100011 7y ago
You could sell your bay area house for $1M and buy a palace in AZ for half that. That leaves you with a nice chunk of change to pay property taxes with.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  But it's unnecessary. If you bought your 3 bedroom house in Cupertino in 1978 for $60k, you're paying taxes on about $140k, so about $1400 a year. These people can live on just Social Security. If they can easily afford to stay where they are with all of their friends and community, in a spectacular climate, not have to deal with the hassle of moving or maintaining a larger house, and pass a $2.5 million asset to their kids, why would they move?
  - 01100011 7y ago
    > why would they move? To follow their children who probably left the bay area so they could raise a family? To escape the cold and humid winters of this 'spectacular climate'(seriously, that's a very relative opinion. San Diego was better. Phoenix is fine if you have AC). To not have to deal with the hassle of maintaining a 40-60 year old house? To not have to pay some of the highest state income taxes around? To reallocate their assets to a growth vehicle and pass on more wealth to their children(seriously our market is maxed for now)? To live near millions of people in their age bracket in an environment that caters to them? To have access to superior medical care(IME, South bay sucks. San Diego is better. Phoenix is better. San Antonio is better. etc...). CA is generally a horrible place to retire unless you have money to burn. If I were 65+, had children, and owned a house in the south bay, I would leave in a heartbeat unless my children were working FANG jobs in the same area of the bay.
- mathattack 7y ago
  The economics work better for renters that are moving, rather than owners. For an owner, their property taxes are lower than it would be with a new house out of state. If they want they can borrow against the home value to access the equity. Their income is lower, so less attraction moving to a lower tax state.

dougmwne 7y ago

I think the simplest explanation is that once people have put down decades worth of roots in a place, most would prefer to stay, no matter how many millions their house would sell for. I think for most people the upheaval of leaving all your friends, acquaintances, family, local culture, habits, patterns of living, and your very home behind far outweighs even a eye-opening property value. You'd need a damn good reason to leave, so unless you're forced, you'll stay.

freewilly1040 7y ago
I think you make a great point, but it begs the question: why does changing houses mean giving up your roots?
- beiller 7y ago
  Probably because making profit on selling your home means you have to move away. Because your neighbours home also went up just as much.
- ikeyany 7y ago
  You would understand if you thought of it as 'leaving your home' instead of 'changing houses'.