So the value of these properties is the mean average for the state which is what your statement about the percentage of the total housing stock suggests.
I suggest otherwise that these particular properties far exceed the average mean price of a house in California. And these are not just homes, these are also commercial real estate properties which have an even higher value and value to the tax base.
Where did you get your numbers ?
If you had not brought up the budget of California I would not have responded to it. And how do you not talk about a budget deficit when you bring up the subject of the budget ?
Your oars do not seem to be in the water. Just sayin'.
Let's stick to the math I used before... (12,000 / 7,500,000) * 100 â 0.16%
12,000 is the reported number of destroyed buildings. Not all houses, but let's assume they are.
I estimated single family units in CA at 7.5M, that's low based on 2020 data
The mean value of those homes isn't the metric for revenue, it's purchase price. Value has accelerated greater there than in the rest of the state, but the rule exists for everyone so let's just leave you your "value" assumption and move on....
Let's assume the taxable base of the homes destroyed is 5X the average in the state. That would make their percentage of the state revenue 0.8% (0.16 X5).
CA's RE tax revenue from private property is $90B. If all of the revenue went away for the 12,000 properties, it would equal $720M ($90B x 0.8). That's not the case, and any percentage of that number, while significant, isn't THE REASON that Newsome or others would create policy.
You are grasping at every possible conspiratorial straw to try and "prove" for some reason that California is managed by idiots. The rules weren't enacted by Newsome, they are a product of the famous "Prop" system that I've heard about forever even though none of them have ever affected me.
The point of all of this is to say.... stop tossing partisan bullshit about mismanagement every chance you get as some sort of litmus test / circumstantial proof that you, Trump, and the Republicans are right that the country needs to be destroyed from the inside. Any of the solutions to these problems are expenses you wouldn't pay for anyway, so suggesting mismanagement as the cause is opportunistic for situations that are unavoidable because of both parties. If you're not sure, let's discuss the Texas electrical grid and their willingness to "plan ahead" and "invest in safety".
I didn't bring up the budget, you did and I just responded. Never was my point, it was yours. I only mentioned that Newsome was blocking the legitimate sale of property and his motivation for it. It is also to keep people from cashing out and moving taking their taxable income part out of the tax base with them. Newsome is desperate to keep people from leaving with the annual loss around 700,000 people per year. That is a boat load of taxable income going bye, bye. He has been trying hard to get an exit tax imposed as a penalty for leaving. So far he has failed to get that done. You're playing checkers.
I appreciate that on Fox news and your online sources facts are inconvenient, but to paraphrase our discussion. - you suggest that Newsome is making policy to protect real estate tax revenue. - I respond, pointing out the stupidity of an argument over 0.16% of housing stock, and the resultant impact on RE taxes - You point out there is an accumulated deficit (with links even) - I respond by questioning your newfound concern for CA deficits while supporting the guy who created more national debt than anyone, a mark he's sure to enhance soon - you respond that I brought up the budget. Yet another example of your fact avoidance strategy: never answer a question or respond to a statement... you just throw out another one. The problem with my playing checkers is that you go from playing tic-tac-toe to hopscotch to connect 4 with every answer.
So the value of these properties is the mean average for the state which is what your statement about the percentage of the total housing stock suggests.
I suggest otherwise that these particular properties far exceed the average mean price of a house in California. And these are not just homes, these are also commercial real estate properties which have an even higher value and value to the tax base.
Where did you get your numbers ?
If you had not brought up the budget of California I would not have responded to it. And how do you not talk about a budget deficit when you bring up the subject of the budget ?
Your oars do not seem to be in the water. Just sayin'.
These fires are going to be where the rubber meets the road regarding the excuse of Climate Change for the reason for the disaster. It is not going to fly with this one.
This is the big one, bigger than the one started by Mrs O'Leary's cow.
There is going to be hell to pay for this one. This one is going to cripple California. Newsome is already blocking sales of burned out properties. No he's not protecting the homeowner, he's protecting the tax base. The property tax on an burned out lot at the sale price is a hell of a lot less than one with a $1 million structure standing on it.
This time, the rich people suffered as well as everyone else. There have been at least 12,000 and counting, structures burned. People are pissed, to put it mildly. We are in constant contact with friends. The wife is networking a group to find shelter for homeless pets and hears it.
California is set to lose 4 to 5 House seats in 2030 due to population loss and this will only accelerate it.
Calling it Climate Change is not going to work on this one.
To us a local expression, saying it's Climate Change is the same things as saying mañanya ... as in I'll get to it ...
Just who do you think 'us' is. If you think it's anything beyond you and your reality denying circle jerk you're just deluded.
If you look at FEMA funding from 2017-2019 (periods that have wrapped), and allocate the spend by resident, you get the following:
State
FEMA $/Resident
.Louisiana
2,721
.Hawaii
1,551
.Florida
953
.Alaska
687
.Texas
639
.Arkansas
530
.Vermont
525
.Nebraska
454
.Iowa
447
.South Dakota
385
.Kentucky
362
.North Carolina
334
.Mississippi
293
.West Virginia
278
.California
230
.Oregon
223
.Alabama
222
.Oklahoma
209
.Kansas
206
.South Carolina
206
.New Mexico
184
.North Dakota
182
.Missouri
173
.Georgia
163
.Michigan
123
.Montana
122
.Maine
115
The rest are under $100/pp.
I don't recall your outrage over hurricane mismanagement for Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, or Florence. The numbers above include wildfires for those years, including the camp fire. Hurricanes are as predictable and drought and Santa Ana winds in CA. Why don't they plan better?
Historically, California is a net funder of FEMA... paying more in taxes to support the program than they draw. All of the red states you suggest are "so well run"... they use California's money to pay for their disasters.
Do you ever think about your positions, or do you just wanna be as big an asshole as possible like all the other cult members?
seems like a case to move to one of the M states. Well, except for Missouri
I didn't bring up the budget, you did and I just responded. Never was my point, it was yours.
I only mentioned that Newsome was blocking the legitimate sale of property and his motivation for it. It is also to keep people from cashing out and moving taking their taxable income part out of the tax base with them.
Newsome is desperate to keep people from leaving with the annual loss around 700,000 people per year. That is a boat load of taxable income going bye, bye. He has been trying hard to get an exit tax imposed as a penalty for leaving. So far he has failed to get that done.
You're playing checkers.
I appreciate that on Fox news and your online sources facts are inconvenient, but to paraphrase our discussion.
- you suggest that Newsome is making policy to protect real estate tax revenue.
- I respond, pointing out the stupidity of an argument over 0.16% of housing stock, and the resultant impact on RE taxes
- You point out there is an accumulated deficit (with links even)
- I respond by questioning your newfound concern for CA deficits while supporting the guy who created more national debt than anyone, a mark he's sure to enhance soon
- you respond that I brought up the budget.
Yet another example of your fact avoidance strategy: never answer a question or respond to a statement... you just throw out another one.
The problem with my playing checkers is that you go from playing tic-tac-toe to hopscotch to connect 4 with every answer.
So now you care about deficits? The US federal deficit is $35T with an annual budget of $7T (deficit of 500%)... no worries...lower taxes. California per your link has $158B debt with a $300B budget (deficit of 50%), and the real estate taxes from the fire are armageddon. Do you ever get tired of being foolish?
I didn't bring up the budget, you did and I just responded. Never was my point, it was yours.
I only mentioned that Newsome was blocking the legitimate sale of property and his motivation for it. It is also to keep people from cashing out and moving taking their taxable income part out of the tax base with them.
Newsome is desperate to keep people from leaving with the annual loss around 700,000 people per year. That is a boat load of taxable income going bye, bye. He has been trying hard to get an exit tax imposed as a penalty for leaving. So far he has failed to get that done.
In the fiscal year of 2024, California's state debt stood at about 158.05 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the state's debt was 57.17 billion U.S. dollars in 2000.
The cost of this fire has been estimated to be up to $200 billion and rising. That money is real and is going to come from somewhere.
The budget deficit for 2024 - 2025 is set to be $68 billion. Put those numbers in your rounding errors ...
C'ya ...
So now you care about deficits? The US federal deficit is $35T with an annual budget of $7T (deficit of 500%)... no worries...lower taxes.
California per your link has $158B debt with a $300B budget (deficit of 50%), and the real estate taxes from the fire are armageddon.
The impact of the real estate taxes from the fires are a rounding error. Turn off the TV, stop spewing rhetoric, and think before typing the next foolish comment.
Later, I'm out (thought I'd beat you to it this time).
In the fiscal year of 2024, California's state debt stood at about 158.05 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the state's debt was 57.17 billion U.S. dollars in 2000.
The cost of this fire has been estimated to be up to $200 billion and rising. That money is real and is going to come from somewhere.
The budget deficit for 2024 - 2025 is set to be $68 billion. Put those numbers in your rounding errors ...
There is going to be hell to pay for this one. This one is going to cripple California. Newsome is already blocking sales of burned out properties. No he's not protecting the homeowner, he's protecting the tax base. The property tax on an burned out lot at the sale price is a hell of a lot less than one with a $1 million structure standing on it.
For somebody who says they know California, you sure have a blind spot for reality.
The damage is staggering, but in CA 12,000 owner-occupied residences equals about 0.16% of all properties (out of ~7.5M in the state).
(12,000 / 7,500,000) * 100 â 0.16%
Newsom said that CA will not re-assess homes rebuilt, meaning he's going to lose a bit of money on initial assessment, but as we all know, the new homes will be worth more than those that burned, and those homes will flip and the tax revenue will go up.
The CA budget is almost $300B. The impact of the real estate taxes from the fires are a rounding error. Turn off the TV, stop spewing rhetoric, and think before typing the next foolish comment.
Later, I'm out (thought I'd beat you to it this time).
Nice conflation. The subject is the Los Angeles fires, right ? And the mismanagement of resources given known and predictable events.
and how those known predictable events are made significantly worse by climate change, but you are focused on resume critiques instead of the glaring klaxon of a problem that you refuse to acknowledge. right?
These fires are going to be where the rubber meets the road regarding the excuse of Climate Change for the reason for the disaster. It is not going to fly with this one.
This is the big one, bigger than the one started by Mrs O'Leary's cow.
There is going to be hell to pay for this one. This one is going to cripple California. Newsome is already blocking sales of burned out properties. No he's not protecting the homeowner, he's protecting the tax base. The property tax on an burned out lot at the sale price is a hell of a lot less than one with a $1 million structure standing on it.
This time, the rich people suffered as well as everyone else. There have been at least 12,000 and counting, structures burned. People are pissed, to put it mildly. We are in constant contact with friends. The wife is networking a group to find shelter for homeless pets and hears it.
California is set to lose 4 to 5 House seats in 2030 due to population loss and this will only accelerate it.
Calling it Climate Change is not going to work on this one.
To use a local expression, saying it's Climate Change is the same things as saying mañanya ... as in I'll get to it ...
The subject is the Los Angeles fires, right ? And the mismanagement of resources given known and predictable events.
If you look at FEMA funding from 2017-2019 (periods that have wrapped), and allocate the spend by resident, you get the following:
State
FEMA $/Resident
.Louisiana
2,721
.Hawaii
1,551
.Florida
953
.Alaska
687
.Texas
639
.Arkansas
530
.Vermont
525
.Nebraska
454
.Iowa
447
.South Dakota
385
.Kentucky
362
.North Carolina
334
.Mississippi
293
.West Virginia
278
.California
230
.Oregon
223
.Alabama
222
.Oklahoma
209
.Kansas
206
.South Carolina
206
.New Mexico
184
.North Dakota
182
.Missouri
173
.Georgia
163
.Michigan
123
.Montana
122
.Maine
115
The rest are under $100/pp.
I don't recall your outrage over hurricane mismanagement for Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, or Florence. The numbers above include wildfires for those years, including the camp fire. Hurricanes are as predictable and drought and Santa Ana winds in CA. Why don't they plan better?
Historically, California is a net funder of FEMA... paying more in taxes to support the program than they draw. All of the red states you suggest are "so well run"... they use California's money to pay for their disasters.
Do you ever think about your positions, or do you just wanna be as big an asshole as possible like all the other cult members?
The subject is the Los Angeles fires, right ? And the mismanagement of resources given known and predictable events.
and how those known predictable events are made significantly worse by climate change, but you are focused on resume critiques instead of the glaring klaxon of a problem that you refuse to acknowledge. right?
nice sidebar. But the three bullet points listed specifically note how human caused climate change is making things worse. would you care to dodge again?
Nice conflation.
The subject is the Los Angeles fires, right ? And the mismanagement of resources given known and predictable events.
The Santa Ana Winds are unique to the area. And just a little reminder, SoCal is a desert, not some lush tropical paradise. Deserts are known to be dry. One reason they call them deserts IIRC. No matter how much you irrigate the place, it is still a desert. This is the life cycle of deserts and in particular in the area where the Santa Ana's blow.
This particular desert has been populated beyond sustainability.
nice sidebar. But the three bullet points listed specifically note how human caused climate change is making things worse. would you care to dodge again?
In the case of the Santa Ana Winds, climate change has absolutely nothing to do with them. These winds are the direct result of geographic features only which allow these winds to happen, the same as they have for millennia. And will continue until California falls into the ocean because of the Big One. Climate change does not explain everything regardless of how much you try.
And no matter how hard you try to deny it, there is an impact due to human caused climate change. These changes are making the base problem significantly worse.
U.S. wildfires are being fueled by southwestern North America’s driest 22-year period in at least 1,200 years, based on soil water content. Human-caused climate change was responsible for 42% of that soil dryness. 1
In the western United Stateshuman-caused climate change caused more than half the increase in forest fuel aridity (how dry and flammable vegetation is) since the 1970s and has approximately doubled the cumulative area burned in forest fires since 1984.2
Climate change-related declines in western spring snowpack, and increased evaporation from higher temperatures in spring, summer, and fall, have in the decades since the early 1980s reduced moisture and contributed to a marked increase in the frequency of large fires and the total area burned by western wildfires.3 A study of western U.S. ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forests concluded that climate change-related moisture deficits are undermining post-wildfire forest regeneration and recovery there
The Santa Ana Winds are unique to the area. And just a little reminder, SoCal is a desert, not some lush tropical paradise. Deserts are known to be dry. One reason they call them deserts IIRC. No matter how much you irrigate the place, it is still a desert. This is the life cycle of deserts and in particular in the area where the Santa Ana's blow.
This particular desert has been populated beyond sustainability.
