Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

[Bimmerman]

Did not mean to imply that you didn't, just saying why I did not make a bigger deal about appreciation.

 

Also agree that now is a good time to buy. Although the perfect time may have been a few months ago when interest rates were lower, but hindsight being 20-20.

 

No worries, you didn't imply that at all.

 

Here's hoping rates stay low for another year until I have enough savings to front a down payment.

[Darth_Yuthura]

My home has appreciated about 15% while the interest I pay is 6%. Tell me where I've lost money.

 

Wow! 15% increase each year? Oh wait... that's after how many years did you say? I remember seven, but could be wrong. If it was seven... +15% vs. -42% (it would be lower if this is an annuity)

 

Oh and please take inflation into account. It has been quite high in recent years. That's about another - 10.8 % of the dollar value from seven years ago.

 

-------

 

I also deliberately put in a contradicting argument for my last post. If anyone knew what they were talking about, they could have commented on that post again, they could have said that I hadn't the d******** idea what I was talking about. And they would have been right about it that time.

 

I have actually calculated some figures and thought that a $300,000 house costing over $900,000 over 30 years was just too significant that no one would take it seriously. A more generous home loan would have given people some idea just how significantly more you pay for a house than just the value for an annuity loan. Obviously you could shorten an annuity period, but if you're struggling just to keep food on the table; that may not be able to make the $2500 payments each month + costs of living for a decade.

 

The whole point behind this latest argument was to demonstrate why it's better for more people to rent than to buy houses. It is clearly better to rent than for a house. No one has presented an effective set of numbers that work to show which is really the better bargain.

 

I argued that sprawl was linked to the latest economic crisis... I was told that it was 'Because houses are expensive, and this expense, this added luxury, contributes to the economy. The problem is not people wanting to have their own homes and their own green spaces, the problem is people being stupid about it and companies taking advantage of it.'

 

I was asked where would we find the land to put these 'massive cities' and my answer was that high density would have destroyed less agricultural land. I was told that my solution was unrealistic because you can't destroy neighborhoods that already exist.

 

I was asked about high crime. I answered that more taxpayers would have allowed for more officers per unit of land area. I was told people didn't want to spend more taxes to employ more police officers... forgetting that the scenario meant more officers for less tax money.

 

I have presented very simple solutions that have been proven effective and the opposition look to new technologies that don't exist yet and don't take into account for the macroeconomics involved in such projects that limit their rate of growth.

 

----

 

The world is an impossibly complex set of systems dependent upon other systems which are riddled with defects... some that we seek to improve on, but more often are those that are improved upon one at the expense of another. Suburban sprawl is one such defect. Growing crops to feed 90% of the grain to cows is a defect. Planned obsolescence is an environmental and economic problem. Increased dependence on foreign resources through globalization is a flawed concept when non-renewable energy becomes more scarce. This list goes on and I would not proclaim to understand a fraction of it all. For those that I do know of, I don't act on them all.

 

I don't recycle everything that I throw away. I don't actually live in a city as I write this. I'm not a vegetarian. I actually squander lots of fuel when I don't have to. I could write pages of acts that I take where I don't 'lead by example' in this thread.

 

Why do I actually state this? Like people wouldn't already have guessed? The difference is that when I do anything, I know how my acts reflect upon others and I don't burry my head in the sand because I'm told something that's unpleasant to know. It doesn't mean I or anyone has to ACT on it, but please don't just ignore something because it's unpleasant to hear.

 

-----

 

At this point, I'm tired of this thread and being ostracized whenever I present something unpleasant and get harassed for it. Whatever comes, it comes, I don't care!

[Darth Avlectus]

Poor quality schools may not be due to high population density, but poor quality due to overcrowding could be related to high population density could it not?

Happens even in small towns. Particular cases I'm thinking of, though, are due to the fact many illegals and their children live in those areas. And the towns seem to foster a particular undercurrent for it. (Casinos wheeling and dealing in transporting cheap workers and owning apartments in a nearby neighborhood.) But as my point pertains pertains to the schools: rural areas who happen to have a population get more dense over time, this is true.

 

Also, school problems could be due to mismanagement of the schools's funds--however my old highschool's case was probably a relatively isolated one. They always are asking for more money, but it seems like they never get their projects done, nor turn up a better educated graduating population. They certainly don't spend it on better equipment or textbooks, or materials for the students.

 

 

Having bad neighbors could be related to infrastructure if people are forced to accept a more condensed way of living I would think. Condensing folks into urban areas kind of makes who you end up living near kind of a crap shoot doesn't it?

Happens in rural areas too, but for different reasons. My only guess is that people can get more territorial out in the open or in the wilderness. Or all the rejects from the city come there.

 

Out in the valley area where I was recently living: condensed or not, if the infrastructure sucks, it tends to make everyone grumpy. Like we're all sleeping in trash for the few who own all the businesses and apartments. While they wallow in money. Mom and Pop business owners were a little happier if they didn't have to compete with some big company who undercut them.

 

Okay...

 

Poor school systems: this is a government problem, not one that is caused because of high population density. There is nothing that links these these as cause and effect. I know of a school in a community of about 3000 people (my mother the head librarian there) and this is a terrible place. My mother's being stressed to her limit because the school's budget is stretched to the brink. This is the same for various schools of this size in Wisconsin, not just in major cities. Madison also has some very good schools, which defies the notion that big cities have terrible schools. And small cities don't always have the best school systems.

 

While I am inclined to agree with you having come from a more rural area, I would say it is rather a combination of mismanagement (funding, staff, resources, etc.) and under-the-radar over population. However this is just my opinion based on my background.

 

Bad neighbors: that's a problem related to the people, not the city's infrastructure.

 

While I have been around no shortage of jerks, I more often find it is due to some bigger reason than just having a chip on their shoulders. Like being stuck in a living situation that sucks AMONGST jerks. Surely you can relate, I think?

 

It can be, it can also not be, school systems are highly dependent on the income of the people living in the school district, and the culture that those people have. Not to mention that larger class sizes are more difficult for teachers to handle, and therefore more prone to problems.

That sort of was why my school where I grew up had so many problems. Highly dependent to the point of local gov't. instating a monthly property tax or something like that. Plus the staff and admin were just... incompetent. However, while it had population overcrowding as I got closer to the end of high school, it wasn't always that way. However, such is the story in various places in CA. Even jokes about CA being a foreign country now.

 

If everyone is getting an equitable amount of home-living space, it's likely that they will be working equitable jobs, which means that taxes are going to be mediocre to poor. You could cram more students in a school in an attempt to make more money per head, but that requires cutting other costs, such as making larger classrooms, fewer teachers, and less staff. Leading to a higher probability of problems due to a diminished capacity to address issues quickly or at all.

Ah, how familiar.

 

It's both. People, like all creatures, are territorial, and most people like to feel that they have something that is theirs and theirs only. A little box piled in with a thousand other boxes does not develop this, and it only takes one bad neighbor, or one accident, to start the whole place getting on edge.

 

You mean like a landlord who screws everyone out of their money and chinses out on the housing maintenance, combined with cheapskate managers who try to pull whatever crap they can to keep you in place while they let their favorite little pet screw off? Yeah, I know that one.

 

If you don't think privacy is important, then I HIGHLY recommend living in a frat house or a dorm in an older college for a while.

Hmm. Good point. Example: Simply a place where it's 5 to an apartment for 2 because rent is *so damn expensive*. The whole complex is that way. Imagine a 2 room (just rooms one next to the other, maybe 10X10 ft. avg.) one *small* bathroom, a kitchenette and no laundry room. You live with: your lover, your coworker with a staring problem, a graveyard shift worker at some other place, a grocery store worker who comes home and gets drunk all the time.

 

You don't get much sleep, your neighbors play rap music all night long, landlord is trying everything he can with due dates to make you late, it's a mess all over, you can't leave your wallet out, anything of value is subject to theft while you're gone, you have to be quiet in the daytime when you're home from work, your girlfriend complains "chad makes me uncomfortable" all the time when changing or showering, you come home to find drunk dude lying in a puddle of his own bodily fluids, they all want to use your car.

 

In summary: privacy is well treasured.

 

Because houses are expensive, and this expense, this added luxury, contributes to the economy. The problem is not people wanting to have their own homes and their own green spaces, the problem is people being stupid about it and companies taking advantage of it.

Not even companies, just cheapskates.

 

There are a lot of reasons to rent instead of own, but saving money is not one of them.

Tell me about it.

 

Also agree that now is a good time to buy. Although the perfect time may have been a few months ago when interest rates were lower, but hindsight being 20-20.

 

Agreed. Yeah, my uncle in lake Elsinore bought 10 cookie cutter houses in a development with a mass of foreclosures. Got a *hell* of a deal. --As if he wasn't already doing well enough in his 70s.

[mimartin]

I'd say someone was corrected when they present something false, but that would be a subject of another thread. at least now I understand that thread

[Jae Onasi]

Wow! 15% increase each year? Oh wait... that's after how many years did you say? I remember seven, but could be wrong. If it was seven... +15% vs. -42% (it would be lower if this is an annuity)

You forgot that I also gained ownership of a portion of that home on top of the appreciation, and had a sizable tax deduction every year.

 

Oh and please take inflation into account. It has been quite high in recent years. That's about another - 10.8 % of the dollar value from seven years ago.

Given your comment below, please cite your source. I can't take your word on it.

 

I also deliberately put in a contradicting argument for my last post. If anyone knew what they were talking about, they could have commented on that post again, they could have said that I hadn't the d******** idea what I was talking about. And they would have been right about it that time.

Uh, I did point out the problems with your post, but I decided to be polite instead of saying I thought the post was a pile of misinformed crap. I made the assumption, apparently completely incorrectly, that you were misinformed.

 

I have actually calculated some figures and thought that a $300,000 house costing over $900,000 over 30 years was just too significant that no one would take it seriously.

a. I ignored your figures as misinformed.

 

b. I consider your intentional lying a form of trolling. I'm addressing that with the rest of the moderator staff.

 

A more generous home loan would have given people some idea just how significantly more you pay for a house than just the value for an annuity loan. Obviously you could shorten an annuity period, but if you're struggling just to keep food on the table; that may not be able to make the $2500 payments each month + costs of living for a decade.

Then buy a smaller house--it'll still be larger than most apartments. I sure as heck didn't need a 300k home. I bought mine for 130k. Most people don't buy 300k houses anyway.

 

The whole point behind this latest argument was to demonstrate why it's better for more people to rent than to buy houses. It is clearly better to rent than for a house. No one has presented an effective set of numbers that work to show which is really the better bargain.

With your statement about creating a post where you intentionally present falsehoods, I have no more reason to believe you. You have lost my trust.

I have presented very simple solutions that have been proven effective and the opposition look to new technologies that don't exist yet and don't take into account for the macroeconomics involved in such projects that limit their rate of growth.

You keep forgetting the one thing that everyone here who objects to this keeps saying--we don't want to live in an urban setting.

 

I don't recycle everything that I throw away. I don't actually live in a city as I write this. I'm not a vegetarian. I actually squander lots of fuel when I don't have to. I could write pages of acts that I take where I don't 'lead by example' in this thread.

I have nothing positive to say about this comment.

 

At this point, I'm tired of this thread and being ostracized whenever I present something unpleasant and get harassed for it. Whatever comes, it comes, I don't care!

You certainly do care--don't BS.

You're tired of everyone pointing out the flaws in your arguments and opinions. No one here has harassed you, flamed you, or called you any names, and any potential rudeness has quickly been dealt with. Respondents in this thread have given you the courtesy of honest, polite answers and provided a lot of information for you to evaluate for your own decision-making. They deserve better from you than this.

 

Closed pending further staff review.