Abandoning Suburbia

I live on Whidbey Island, the site of four slides in the last year. It made me think about the "stability" of housing and its value as "real" property. So, I blogged about it. I think society is bifurcating: urbanization as people move in-city relying on infrastructure versus ruralization as people move towards self-sufficiency. Both can be paths to debt-free. But where does that leave, 3,000 square feet homes in suburbia?
Just thinking, so I decided to pass it along.
http://trimbathcreative.wordpress.co...ing-redefined/

I more-or-less agree with James Howard Kunstler's take on Suburbia. In the future, at best a desert, at worst the Killing Fields.

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...696165&thumb=1I say this every time this subject comes up: I live in a modest custom-built house in a neighborhood of similar construction, with a small forest on my 100 sq ft lot and a much larger one within walking distance. I love, love, love my suburb. It's true it's not particularly walkable, but a short hike could get me to mass transit, a good grocery store and drugstore, and I drive so little it doesn't matter anyway. It makes up in sheer natural beauty what it lacks in urban grit. I've lived in a tiny resort town (350 gossipy souls), downtown in two cities (Portland and Bellevue), in central Portland, and in a couple of suburban neighborhoods, and my strong preference is for suburbs. The only thing hellish about them is lawn mowers, IMO.


I doubt I agree with James Howard Kunstler on anything; his creepy sour personality could curdle milk at a hundred yards, I'm sure. What a nasty shriveled soul.

ETA: Maybe I don't understand what constitutes the dreaded "suburban hell." I live within the city limits of an incorporated town with a recognizable downtown area, a library, and all the mod cons, as they say. I'm something like 12 miles from a big city--I can see it from my window, pretty close. If I'm missing something here, I don't know what it is.

Jane, I've hard Kunstler speak, and he is hilariously droll. I concur with his estimation of most suburbs. You happen to beina pretty sweet area, and the Eastside suburbs are improving immensly, IMO.

I drive much less now that I live in the city than when I was on Lopez Island. "Self-sufficiency" is a non-concept to me. Even the most remote cabin on Lopez still relies on local infrastructure, be it roads, the library, etc. I love that community, and was a part of it for nearly 20 years, from commercial farming to a cabin in the woods to helping found the Community Land Trust.

Rural areas depend upon urban infrastructure to provide those things they cannot produce, and urban communities depend upon rural agriculture. We are very much interdependent. There is no such thing as self sufficiency.

You can find both heaven and hell within the same suburban city limits, actually -- Issaquah is a prime example. I would LOVE to live in downtown Issaquah and have a job at KCLS headquarters or the Issaquah branch library. Everything within walking/biking distance and FLAT. Transport me a couple of miles to the Highlands or that horrible condo development above Fred Meyer, though, and I probably wouldn't be very happy.

The Seattle area is actually quite nice in that several of the surrounding suburban towns now have pretty compact, walkable, well-resourced downtown areas that are linked with each other and with downtown Seattle by decent public transit. So as long as you live within the urban parts of the suburbs, you can have the best of both worlds.

If/when we move back to the Seattle area, we'll probably end up in one of those suburbs. Would love to live near my brother in the north end of Seattle, but his neighborhood is a bit pricey for us, unless we build up a much bigger stash.

lhamo

We lived in the city before we moved here. It had advantages: we could walk to many places; DH biked to work. It had disadvantages: search helicopter lights through the windows at night (and we lived in a 'good' part of the city); mail theft; bicycle theft; our car was broken into 3X in 5 years (and believe me, it wasn't a car you would think was a theft magnet!); it was noisy all the time (cars, sirens, etc); when you did need to drive somewhere, the traffic was horrible. That city did not have good mass transit at the time; the buses were limited and known for breaking down in the 100+ degree heat. I had to commute to the outskirts of the city for my job.

When we moved to MN we bought a modest (<1500 sq ft) suburban house, mostly because DD was 18 months old and we could not undertake restoration in a house with lead paint, which included every house we looked at in the city (they all needed restoration, that is). It took some time to adjust, but there are again many advantages of our second-tier suburb: there is a lot of green space, which leaves me with a much more peaceful feeling than I ever had in the city; it is safe; schools are among the best in the state, while our city-living friends complain; we have space in our yard to grow a substantial garden. It has disadvantages: there aren't many places we can walk or bike (but we can bike to school, library, grocery, parks, farmers market when weather is good), and transit options are extremely poor. DH's commute is about the same length that mine was when we lived in the city. It takes us less than 30 minutes to be in either downtown Mpls or St Paul.

I'll take our current suburb over our past city any day. Feeling safe in my home is invaluable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lhamo

You can find both heaven and hell within the same suburban city limits, actually -- Issaquah is a prime example. I would LOVE to live in downtown Issaquah and have a job at KCLS headquarters or the Issaquah branch library. Everything within walking/biking distance and FLAT. Transport me a couple of miles to the Highlands or that horrible condo development above Fred Meyer, though, and I probably wouldn't be very happy...
lhamo

---

What happened to Issaquah is a crime--such a beautiful setting, such ugly developments. Some city planner needs to be sent to the stocks. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif The same thing happened in Beaverton, Oregon about the time I left. You can have density, beauty, and architectural integrity all at once. Mountain Park in Lake Oswego, Oregon is one of my favorite examples. It's on my short list of places to move.

I can imagine Kunstler being snarky--he seems to disdain everyone but a few fawning acolytes--but not droll. His fantasies of societal ruin seem practically masturbatory. Can you tell I'm not a fan?

I don't see any reason most suburbs can't convert themselves to more self-sufficient cities--with the exception of really far-flung, widespread ones. I have enough land to grow a bit of food and husband chickens and rabbits and tilapia if I had to, and I can walk to a water source. I agree with you, redfox, that we're all interdependent, and I find the whole "longing for apocalypse" meme pretty repulsive. It assumes that we're all stupid barbarians incapable of meeting challenges with vigor and creativity.

Interesting topic.

There seems to be a number of folks here that live in Western Washington and Oregon - quite progressive areas of the country where life is not quite as sprawling and car dependent - I say this from my experience of living in SE Portland for 5 years in the 90's - this is an area of the country where people really tend to care about environmental issues and quality of life. To me this is a very different mindset than the one where I am living now, though I do see some positive changes over time.

]Here in Phoenix, things sprawl much much much more and I am able to make due without a car only because I live so close in to downtown. If I lived further out, it would be much more difficult. And getting to the topic here, uggggggghhhhhh I have no desire personally to live further out in some sprawling car dependent hell, and hell is what I would consider it. I can see where Kunstler may be referring more to Sunbelt sprawl cities where there are miles and miles and miles of cities where everything looks the same and hardly any lots and construction was thrown up overnight and is perhaps of dubious quality. I'm glad to see here in Phoenix light rail and also more folks using mass transit but I also understand that for a good half of this sprawling metro area mass transit is not a realistic option due to no access to buses and distances and times to commute via bus involved. Rob

I live in the suburbs, if someone passes you walking somewhere--even though you can walk to a lot of basic amenities here within a half mile to a mile--they think your car broke down.

Also, we have parks that no one goes to, and neighbors you never see. I value the fact that my street has not been as transient as many--I've known my immediate neighbors on three sides for almost 30 years, but I think that's a fluke.

Also, there is no town center in my township, which also hinders community. It was built as little Levittown type homes on farms when people started to move out of Brooklyn--not much planning. A farmer would make a few bucks and a subdivision would go up. A school went with it, but not many shops or amenities.

I have roots here, so I like it It's familiar, comfortable, I know my mailman well, I know the merchants, and I cross paths with teachers my kids have had throughout the years, so that's what makes it "home."

While I'm not a big fan of suburbs in general (I always wanted to live in Manhattan), I think you have to look at them on a town-by-town basis Some of them function well and others not so much.

Here's my own blog entry on suburbia:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

...
While I'm not a big fan of suburbs in general (I always wanted to live in Manhattan), I think you have to look at them on a town-by-town basis Some of them function well and others not so much.
...

---

Exactly. You can't generalize about "suburbs," which can be small towns, edge cities, undifferentiated sprawl, or something altogether different, anymore than you can lump all cities together.

since the beginning of time people have been burning each others fields, stealing their belongings and treating those below their station or those of color despicably. Yet, civilization rises up from the ashes and thrives. The only choice is to do your best with what you have no matter if you are a city, rural or suburban dweller. I don't dwell on it.

i agree that there is suburbia and there is suburbia.

I've been in suburbs that were heavily car-based and didn't even have side walks for pedestrians to walk the hood. I've been in suburbs that were about 2-4 miles from the nearest grocery, but then development happened and it was an easy 1 mi trot to lots of amenities. I've been in suburbs that were revitalized old towns (my personal favorite) that blended via sprawl into the city.

I currently live in a suburb that has a cute little downtown, but no real grocery. There's a corner shop that has a bit of food (mostly processed, but some fresh fruit/veg), another corner shop that focuses on candy/ice cream, two cafes and a fish and chip's shop, a dress shop, and an art gallery, plus our local doctor. There's also an accountant's office, several churches with different public functions, and the bowles club which has the RSA. I'm working to bring in a farmer's market -- ideally a bi-weekly one eventually.

I can't walk to work -- I can take a bus or drive, and we discovered that it saves time and money to drive (i think this is poor planning on the part of the city, but hey, that's just me) so we drive. If the bus system were more affordable, we'd probably go that route as I actually enjoy doing the bus. :D

I would prefer to live back in the city. I think it would be better for us, but DH loves this suburb. It's only a 15 minute drive to the city, so it's not like it's "far out" -- it's just that I have to drive!

I agree...there is suburbia and there is suburbia. Where do you put people when city housing and space for industrial development are maxed out? It is pretty much inevitable in a prospering area.

Where is live, the city is building up in the form of high rise lofts that seem trendy and low maintenance, but also a little sterile. Many of our "suburbs" are built around little satellite towns that had their own traditional downtown as well as the newer ubiquitous strip malls and box stores and have 50's and 60's houses with mature landscape. We have a developing rapid transit system to connect the downtown and outlying areas. So where does the city end and the suburb begin?

I think there is the stereo typical suburb with ticky-tacky houses all in a row. Often cheap construction and no true downtown or sense of community. Not all suburbs are equal.

In our thirty plus years of owning homes, we have tried several living styles - a 100 yr old house in a crime-filled downtown area, a new house we had built wayout in far-flung suburbia, a cottage on four acres...and several others including our current and favorite, a 50s house in an inner ring suburb of a large city. It has proven to be the most sensible situation thus far and would probably be advisable in most other large cities. I think it depends on a lot of factors though whether or not urban or rural is best for being self-sufficient.

I grew up in (and also currently live in) an area that, when my parents moved there in the late 1960's, was a distant suburb of L.A. (at about 50 miles south of LA). There were 1950's tract housing communities in each smallish city with lots of local ammenities like shops, restaurants, movie theatres, schools, etc... There was some space between each little suburban town and the larger cities - parks, farm fields, little ranches, orange groves, some wilderness areas, etc... and a small municipal center for each town. The whole county probably had less than 200,000 population and my city had less than 10,000 people. It was a nice suburban area to live and grow up in.

Over time it has become a one huge sprawling giant mega-suburb with a county population of over 3 million (which abuts LA counties population of 10 million and 2 other counties with several million each) where each town and county blends into the other, and all the little pockets of nature have been paved over for more houses (McMansions tract houses on tiny lots), lite industry and office blocks, malls and strip malls and big box stores. It truely is suburban sprawl at it's finest. So now there is very little open space left to develop, and developers have moved further afield to create an even larger suburban sprawl - at least before the recession which halted a lot of development. There are no slow or no growth rules in place here and so it's become a free for all. Places like Portland, Or where a slow groth policy is in effect can really help keep suburbs nice and it would be nice if more cities developed that. It's too late for it here in SoCal, but I'd hate to see beautiful suburbs of some of the bigger cities turn out like the L.A. Suburban Sprawl-Monster that is spread out for 100 miles or more in a all directions.

As I drove to Sprouts this morning, I was thinking about how convenient it is to live in a suburb. I really have everything I need within a few miles of my cottage. I remember living in NYC and how hot and expensive it was there. My life is so much cheaper, easier, and more comfortable here. I remember missing my car when I lived in NY. The subways were crowded and smelly. I do feel spoiled in LA. My parents think they are going to develop the neighborhood that I'm in...the mail carrier told me that they've already drawn up the routes. They've put in a city college, and a few housing developments with homes that are priced from $500,000.-$700,000. My plumber told me that they may want to knock down my house, offer me $500,000, and put up two houses. He's bought and sold five homes in the San Fernando Valley.
My grandfather bought some land up in Napa many years ago. He and my dad held it and paid the property taxes on it. They grazed cattle for Harris Ranch on it. Now they're developing it. It's a great way to make some passive income over time if you have the patience. Homes in that area are quite pricey.

awakenedsoul,
if you got a $500,000 offer, would you take it? just curious

DW and I lived in a couple classic, outer-ring suburbs when we were first married. They were nice houses by most standards, but the areas pretty much had nothing within walking or sensible biking distance. It was classic car travel or nothing. Our sense of community, such as it was, and our social lives pretty much revolved around the schools and a few immediately adjacent neighbors. It was pretty boring because everyone was just like us. I can't say it was a bad life because it wasn't, but it just never felt like there was any soul to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

awakenedsoul,
if you got a $500,000 offer, would you take it? just curious

---

Lainey,
That's a great question. I think about the pros and cons a lot. If they build new homes around me, (I'd say there are about 100 older homes in our little pocket,) it might make sense to stay and keep mine. I think most of the druggies and undesirables would cash out. If I knew I could buy something tiny, charming, and that had an orchard, then I would sell and move. (I think I'd fit in better in CO, NM, or OR.) I also love Europe. I'm not really sure. Each time I've put my house on the market, I've ended up keeping it. When I see what else is out there, I just like mine so much more. But, I get tired of next door neighbors who throw their leftovers in my orchard and garden, and park their cars in front of me house. It's that macho thing. It seems like this part of LA is becoming like the San Fernando Valley. (which has really gone downhill.) I try to focus on the positives, because there are many. It takes a long time for fruit trees to mature, too. Growing food has really been rewarding and such a money saver! Another thing I've considered is that if both of these developments happen, in ten or twenty years I could afford to live in a very nice area in Carmel. Sometimes fairytale cottages come on the market. Right now they go for around $600,000, (which is very pricey,) but they would be cheap to heat and cool. The trade off would be living in an area with very high end, well maintained homes. I'm not sure...

If you sell and then buy a new to you house in CA aren't you then subject to the higher taxes on the new house? Or if you spent the proceeds on a house in another state would you not then be subject to the much higher annual real estate taxes on that property?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweetana3

If you sell and then buy a new to you house in CA aren't you then subject to the higher taxes on the new house? Or if you spent the proceeds on a house in another state would you not then be subject to the much higher annual real estate taxes on that property?

---

Awakendsoul is too young to take advantage of this, but in Calif part of our Prop 13 property tax rules allows for other things than just keeping taxes at 1% of the purchase price with annual increases of no more than 2% on prop taxes. It also includes a one-time transfer of your homes original property tax basis (usually original purchase price) to a new home if you are 55 and the new home you buy is of equal or lesser cost than what you sold your old home for. Another Prop allows for the transfer of property between child and parent or grandparent without increasing the property taxes on the house no matter what the child paid the parent for it. For example: I bought my Mom's house in 1996. She had owned it a long time, had paid around $20K - 25K for it and her Prop 13 tax rate was $300/year. I paid her $120K for it. So my property taxes should have been minimum of 1% of that amount - $1,200/year or more. However, because I bought it from my Mom, I could transfer her prop tax rate of $300/year so I was able to get that. Then, if I had stayed there until I was 55, I could have sold it for say $300K and bought a new place for $300K or less, I could have transferred that tax basis of $300/year to my new place rather than have to pay the approx. $3,000 or more in prop taxes/year. And of course a 2% annual tax increase on $300 is lots less than an annual 2% tax increase on $3,000! Going to keep property taxes low forever!.

But yes, if Awakensoul wasn't 55 when she sold her place and bought another , she'd have to pay property taxes based on the new houses purchase price. In Calif that is 1%. Same if she moved to a Calif county that doesn't transfer the old tax basis, or out of state. For myself, if I was in Awakened soul position, I'd probably take the $500K and run to somewhere less expensive but just as nice - especially if they will probably develop her area (and being Calif they will) eventually. I plan to sell my place once we've (sis and I) have helf it 2 years to avoid capital gains taxes (also something Awakensoul needs to calculate in if she sells) and move to a different locale. For me staying here is just a combo of investment and practicality (have yard for dogs and sis is here to pet sit so I can travel) not love of the area or house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

in Calif part of our Prop 13 property tax rules allows for other things than just keeping taxes at 1% of the purchase price with annual increases of no more than 2% on prop taxes. It also includes a one-time transfer of your homes original property tax basis (usually original purchase price) to a new home if you are 55 and the new home you buy is of equal or lesser cost than what you sold your old home for. Another Prop allows for the transfer of property between child and parent or grandparent without increasing the property taxes on the house no matter what the child paid the parent for it.

---

I hope you Californians recognize what a sweetheart deal this is! Yes, real estate in California is pricier than in many other areas. Yes, some of the state is going broke. But, short of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, I can't think of any other place where property taxes aren't going up Up UP. On our home, median-priced for the Twin Cities market, we're paying about $200 a month in property tax, not to mention the "fees" we've been paying so politicians can boast they've kept our property taxes low. And it wouldn't matter if we bought our house from the Governor hisself. :) On my investment property, the tax is going up by about a third next year. Not that I think everyone should cap their property taxes like this. But please recognize it for the screamin' deal it's been over several years.

Yes well you do realize the state income tax rate here is nearly 10% marginal on what is a middle class income here? Yea that goes right on top of whatever federal taxes you pay. It's near the highest in the nation, try that with no deductions. Then the state adds on SDI taxes too. Then the state sales taxes are one of the highest in the nation as well, it fluctuates a bit, but often it isn't too far from 10% either. I tell people (renters like me) in places like Taxachussetes about the taxes I am paying (sales and income) and THEY can't believe that I am paying such high taxes! It's really that bad. Only we don't get the quality of services most high tax states get (K-12 education, infrastructure - none of those things are in good shape).

It seems like the entire burden of taxation is shifted on to wages in order so homeowners can have low taxes even though many of those wage earners will themselves never be able to afford houses here. Can you say regressive in the extreme? So yea fine California, where property profits are rewarded and working for a living is most definitely not.

I also think things like Prop 13 directly contribute to the unaffordability of housing here, housing prices diverging vastly from the national correlates pretty well with the passages of Prop 13. But that's correlation, here's theory: Prop 13 keeps houses that would otherwise be released to the market off the market (you may not even downsize as an empty nester, even if it otherwise makes sense, because then you lose the tax benefits), the tax benefits can be transferred integenerationally too. Seems to me it must keep some houses off the market. Then ... the future benefits of all those tax breaks are probably figured into the cost of a house, this is basically just doing discounting of all those future tax benefits into the current price. Not the only reasons houses are an arm and a leg here but one reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

I hope you Californians recognize what a sweetheart deal this is! Yes, real estate in California is pricier than in many other areas. Yes, some of the state is going broke. But, short of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, I can't think of any other place where property taxes aren't going up Up UP. On our home, median-priced for the Twin Cities market, we're paying about $200 a month in property tax, not to mention the "fees" we've been paying so politicians can boast they've kept our property taxes low. And it wouldn't matter if we bought our house from the Governor hisself. :) On my investment property, the tax is going up by about a third next year. Not that I think everyone should cap their property taxes like this. But please recognize it for the screamin' deal it's been over several years.

---

Oh yeah. I do realize it. My father has been very aware of that, too. He and my mom bought a home 30 years ago in the Bay Area for $140,000. Now it's worth almost two million. Their property taxes are low, because of Proposition 13. If one of the three of us, (my brothers and I,) buys the other two out, we can keep the taxes low, like Spartana did with her mom's house. But, since my older brother died, my parents realized how dangerous it would be to transfer property to adult children who are in debt and way underwater on their mortgages. Spartana is frugal, but my brothers and sister in law overspend. Their homes have plummeted in value. I'd rather my parents keep the money in case they need it for long term care.
I pay about $1,400. a year in property taxes on the cottage I bought 15 years ago. The only way I would buy an expensive home is if I become very wealthy and could afford the property taxes. I may be in that position in my sixties. (If not, I can stay here and enjoy my simple and inexpensive lifestyle.) I don't have any heirs, and I live happily on very little. This cottage would also be a good rental property if they don't develop the area. But, they already are putting in homes a block from where I live. When I bought this house, this area was considered the country. It's on the outskirts. The strategy does work in CA. It's good for someone like me who never really earned a lot of money. Buy and hold...my approach has been to spend very little.
My thoughts on Carmel were that a one bedroom cottage going for $600,000. now would go up to a million or more. My dad feels real estate in Carmel is overpriced. But, it still might work for me if these other developments pan out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

I hope you Californians recognize what a sweetheart deal this is! Yes, real estate in California is pricier than in many other areas. Yes, some of the state is going broke. But, short of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, I can't think of any other place where property taxes aren't going up Up UP. On our home, median-priced for the Twin Cities market, we're paying about $200 a month in property tax...

---

Before you go getting all jealous (;)) know this: I have directly benefited from Prop. 13 because we bought our house from my MIL, so we pay about half the yearly property tax our neighbors do. And we still pay $266 a month in property tax, on a modest 1971 tract home, in one of the less expensive Bay Area cities.

As to the OP, I have lived in 6 different cities in my life, all in California, and all suburbs. I hope to try something else in the next couple of years (the urban end of the spectrum), to get a new experience. I think I will like it better, but there's only one way to find out. I definitely wish we had better access to transit and more pedestrian-friendly spaces where I live.

Kara

Here in Minnesota, our local sales tax is 7.375% (we pay extra for the arena a mile away). Cheaper than 9.75%, but if you don't buy much, it doesn't cost you much. :) Income tax for us is 7.05%. Property tax runs a couple hundred a month. Plus fees for road maintenance, sewers, security system (if you have one),... Definitely one of the higher-tax states, as we don't do without an income tax, like Washington does, or property taxes, as California almost does. But I used to live in New York, so I don't complain about the taxation here as much as native Minnesotans do. I can actually see what I'm paying for here; that was much harder in New York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

I hope you Californians recognize what a sweetheart deal this is! Yes, real estate in California is pricier than in many other areas. Yes, some of the state is going broke. But, short of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, I can't think of any other place where property taxes aren't going up Up UP. On our home, median-priced for the Twin Cities market, we're paying about $200 a month in property tax, not to mention the "fees" we've been paying so politicians can boast they've kept our property taxes low. And it wouldn't matter if we bought our house from the Governor hisself. :) On my investment property, the tax is going up by about a third next year. Not that I think everyone should cap their property taxes like this. But please recognize it for the screamin' deal it's been over several years.

---

We pay $275/month for a relatively modest house around 2,000 square feet with a bit extra land. And if you understand the shape that it was in for most of the decades we lived here, "modest" doesn't describe it it was downright low end.

Why do you consider that $200/month a lot of money? That seems fairly low to me, although I think of Twin Cities as being fairly high in taxes, for the Midwest anyway. We are not and do not want to reach New Jersey level property taxation.

I live in an exurb, with a line of foothills between us and Denver (just the way we like it). I can take the bus downtown and in a few days will be 15 minutes from the light rail, which will get me to the entire Denver area...well, at least the parts I may need to go to. I'm happy to be here. I'm not interested at this juncture in being any further in, or any further out. Kunstler makes my head hurt, but I happen to agree that when the sh** hits the fan, inner cities and anything within striking distance are going to become extremely difficult places. High concentration of very desperate (hungry) people, high degree of food insecurity, high dependence on imported food, water, etc....hopefully the community structures will be enough to help most people make it, but I would not want to be caught there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

I hope you Californians recognize what a sweetheart deal this is! Yes, real estate in California is pricier than in many other areas. Yes, some of the state is going broke. But, short of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, I can't think of any other place where property taxes aren't going up Up UP. On our home, median-priced for the Twin Cities market, we're paying about $200 a month in property tax, not to mention the "fees" we've been paying so politicians can boast they've kept our property taxes low. And it wouldn't matter if we bought our house from the Governor hisself. :) On my investment property, the tax is going up by about a third next year. Not that I think everyone should cap their property taxes like this. But please recognize it for the screamin' deal it's been over several years.

---

Oh I recognize it for sure. One of the things I always ask around here is "how much do you pay in property taxes in your state?" since, if I want to move out of here (I do eventually) then that will be a big consideration. Of course, as you said, housing costs here are generally much higher than other places - the average in my ethnic working class 'hood is close to $400K, so base property taxes would start at $4,000/year PLUS the many other things like school bonds and special assesments (taxed at a percentage of the purchase price) that get tacked onto your annual property tax bill. For instance, even though my old houses property tax amount was only $300/year, I paid about $1,000/year because of the "extras". So in a $4,000/year property tax bill the total amount due might actually be closer to $5,000 or $6,000/year - over $500/month for a 1950's 1,000 sf tract home in a lower income ethnic working class neighborhood. My current property taxes (split with sis) are over $300/month for a "serious" fixer in orginal condition from the '50's and in the same area and same size as above. So it's not THAT cheap!! My situation in my old house was somewhat unique and certainly isn't the norm for most Hellifornians. But if you can buy an inexpense home in Calif (and you can) or already own a place with low taxes like my Mom did or Awakenedsouls parents do, the prop tax structure is great - especially for retired people on a fixed income. You know it won't go up by more than 2% a year and so most can stay in their homes forever. I have heard some horror stories about very drastic and rapid property tax increases in other states that caused many seniors to lose their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awakenedsoul

If one of the three of us, (my brothers and I,) buys the other two out, we can keep the taxes low, like Spartana did with her mom's house. But, since my older brother died, my parents realized how dangerous it would be to transfer property to adult children who are in debt and way underwater on their mortgages. Spartana is frugal, but my brothers and sister in law overspend. Their homes have plummeted in value. I'd rather my parents keep the money in case they need it for long term care.
.

---

I actually bought my Mom's house at the (then) fair market value as my Mom was planning to sell it to move into a smaller seniors co-op apt and I (and dh) both worked fairly close by and were looking for a house to buy ourselves. So it wasn't just transferring the property to me and then my Mom continuing to live there, it was an actual sale with a mortgage, etc... My Mom got the full amount of money for the home's value (but with no real estate commission having to be paid because we did it ourselves) to buy her little apt for $27K - leaving her $93K in equity to suppliment her $400/month Soc. Sec. & support herself, and it became my & dh's home after we bought it. Then I bought him out a year & 1/2 later when we seperated. When my Mom died, my sister and I equally just inheirited her co-op apt (sold it for $93K) and any cash she had left over after we paid off all her medical bills and probate expenses. It did have to go thru probate (expensive night mare!) and would have been best if she had put it in a revocable living trust.

I also would never put my house (or any assets) into someone else's name. I've heard a lot of horror stories about parents putting their kids on the deed or titling their house to the kids to avoid probate and/or estate taxes and then the kids get sued or have an accident, etc... and the parents lose their home because it's in the kids name. Best to put things like that in a revocable living trust instead.

My property taxes have hovered around $5000 a year for some time. They haven't changed appreciably even though the market value of the house dropped 25% or more a few years ago. If I could find just the right place, I'd downsize in a minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

Why do you consider that $200/month a lot of money? That seems fairly low to me, although I think of Twin Cities as being fairly high in taxes, for the Midwest anyway. We are not and do not want to reach New Jersey level property taxation.

---

Really! $200?? Chicken feed compared to our taxes in NJ. I feel darned lucky that I only pay $7800/annually. Most of the towns around me are in the five figures, but we have high ratables in our area which keeps our taxes lower, relatively speaking.

High property taxes are yet another reason renting is becoming increasingly appealing to me (in a small city center or resort town rather than the 'burbs or the country). For what Cathrine pays in Prop taxes alone, I could rent a nice house somewhere - even in Calif if I went back to someplace like in my ski resort town where you can find nice little cabins right in town for under $700/month. I wonder what the "true cost of home ownership" would be if people calculated in all the property taxes they paid over the years - along with maintenance, repairs, renovations, insurances, cost to buy and sell the house, interest on a mortgage, capital gains taxes when sold, etc... - and used that "total" amount to determine what they paid as home owners. For instance, I paid $120K for my first house and sold it for $220K several few years later. Seems like a big profit but isn't once you add in all those other expenses over the years. Renting is looking better and better all the time. Plus, when the Apocalypse comes to suburbia (referencing the OP's article), it'll be easier to move on down the road to a better life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

Why do you consider that $200/month a lot of money? That seems fairly low to me, although I think of Twin Cities as being fairly high in taxes, for the Midwest anyway.

---

$2,400 a year is high relative to what I was paying in property tax when I moved into the house eight years ago (by about 50%; I'd have to dig to find the specific percentage). That figure also does not include the several hundreds of dollars we now pay separately as "fees" for street "maintenance" (I use that term quite loosely), plowing city streets (another generous verb), sewers and hydrants, permits, etc. So let's say closer to $3,000 a year. Our house is a mid-70s rambler of about 1800 square feet on a standard city lot and probably would sell for around $150-160,000 now (well below what I paid for it but at least slightly higher than it was during The Great Recession). The annual property tax amount has never gone down in all that time, even if the "taxable value" of the house fluctuated to reflect the disaster in the market. It does not help that the Minnesota Legislature manipulates property tax heavily in response to voting years and/or whoever squeaks the loudest about tax rates making it impossible to go on.

Maybe based on what others are paying, the property tax here (at least on a house in this bracket) is not killer. But it certainly has not seemed to track the value of the property and it does not reflect well on what people with similar houses are paying in first-ring suburbs here. And it's not the only higher tax we pay here. Like I said elsewhere, at least I can see where much of the money is going. But ... well, now we're reaching a whole separate off-topic topic. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

Maybe based on what others are paying, the property tax here (at least on a house in this bracket) is not killer. But it certainly has not seemed to track the value of the property and it does not reflect well on what people with similar houses are paying in first-ring suburbs here. And it's not the only higher tax we pay here. Like I said elsewhere, at least I can see where much of the money is going. But ... well, now we're reaching a whole separate off-topic topic. :(

---

It's sort of like Warren Buffet says: that he pays much much more in property taxes on a very modestly priced house the bought in North Dakota for $14,000 years ago and that hasn't appreciated by a huge amount, then he does on a place he bought in Calif that is now worth millions. Seems unfair. During the boom years, if I had kept my first house, it's value went up to over $500K yet the property taxes would have remained at $300/year for me. That wouldn't happen in too many places outside of Calif.where they would have risen to reflect the overall housing situation. However, if on the other hand someone bought a house during the boom and paid $500K for it and their property taxes were $5,000/year, when the bust came and their house value dropped by half they probably still have to pay $5,000/year in taxes unless they can get them reduced by the county. OK now I'll quite hijacking the suburbia thread and changing it into a property tax thread.

My daughter and son-in-law live very close to the downtown urban core of a major US city. My wife and I live in the suburbs of that same city. They pay far, far more for housing, insurance, taxes, education, home upkeep etc. In fact they pay far, far more for pretty much everything except for food (the same as ours) and commuting expenses (They have a slight advantage over us. They drive less distance but in heavier traffic). I think that in our area the suburbs give a far better quality of life but understand that is a matter of personal taste and preference. However, looking purely at the economics of the situation there is no question that us suburbanites come out way ahead at least in our little corner of the planet.

Yeah, it's cheaper for me to live in suburbia, too. A while back I put my house on the market and was going to move into the mountains. I found an REO for $70,000. in a gorgeous neighborhood. (mostly second homes.) But, it was a 45 min. drive from town. It also had association fees. (about $1,000. a year.) The land alone was worth $150,000, but I think it would have been hard to sell. Plus, everything up there had two bedrooms and two bathrooms. I prefer a small one bedroom, one bathroom cottage. (Lower overhead and less cleaning.)

I also would never put my house (or any assets) into someone else's name. I've heard a lot of horror stories about parents putting their kids on the deed or titling their house to the kids to avoid probate and/or estate taxes and then the kids get sued or have an accident, etc... and the parents lose their home because it's in the kids name. Best to put things like that in a revocable living trust instead.[/QUOTE]

Yes. So true. I have a copy of the trust, but it still makes me nervous to be grouped with my brothers. I'm going to email my parents your story. I feel like the same thing that happened to my older brother could easily happen to the middle one. (stroke and coma.) He has the same lifestyle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awakenedsoul

Yes. So true. I have a copy of the trust, but it still makes me nervous to be grouped with my brothers. I'm going to email my parents your story. I feel like the same thing that happened to my older brother could easily happen to the middle one. (stroke and coma.) He has the same lifestyle...

---

I think if your parents want to stay in their home until they pass or decide to sell and move, then a living trust is the way to go. My Dad this on his property and it worked for us (sis and I) but we didn't have any issues or disagreements about how to settle either my Moms or my dads properties. Just sold everything, paid off any debts and medical bills, end of life stuff, taxes, etc.. and split what ever was left 50/50. I was the executor and trustee so handle everything. However I have heard that many siblings get into battles for many years over this stuff - and then never have a relationship again. With your parents estate being so large, and possible fights with your brothers about how to do thing, even having a trust can be difficult.

I agree with Jane. I live in the suburbs in a neighborhood built in the 60's. Our house is under 1200 square feet. Every inch is used. Very close to stores and quiet. Sadly the town mayor wants it to be more like a mini city with dead end planning and skyrocketing taxes. The schools are good. I would like to move back to the city if the kids would be out of school.I would definatly downsize and use more public transportation.I want to walk/bike more perhaps we'll lead by example. I use a manual push mower, so far I'm the only one on the block.I enjoy using my carpet sweeper too at home. I am working on stocking up on natural food, visiting the weekly farmer's market etc. That kind of shift takes time and commitment but it'll become a good habit before you know it.I can picture self sustained suburbia.