May 3, 2016 @ 3:45 p.m.
There's one more reason for consumers to avoid La Mesa, and for businesses to go elsewhere (or go OUT of business): La Mesa now has the second highest sales tax in the county -- 8.75%. Only union run, predatory National City is higher (9%). El Cajon WAS higher (9%), but last year they reduced their sales tax to 8.5%. Most of the county and cities are 8%.
I won't shop in La Mesa. And I encourage others to do the same.
Oct. 8, 2015 @ 5:26 a.m.
Yes, let's drive up housing costs and rents. Drive out the undesirables.
You know the type -- lower income people, especially minorities that make us white folks uncomfortable. They are not "our kind" of people.
Yeah, let's make San Diego America's Finest City -- drive the blue collar residents (especially blacks and Hispanics) out so we rich white folks can enjoy the beach in peace.
Okay, okay, some Asians can stay. Diversity IS important.
Oh sure, quite a few well-to-do San Diegans will leave too -- for other regions that offer better economic opportunities and far lower housing costs. We don't need their tax dollars to fund some of the most overpaid public employees in the nation. Or their pensions.
Ahhhh, California Dreamin'.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 9 a.m.
Don, you think private investment is bad, I think it's good. You see rape (is that an economic term?), I don't.
"Private equity is a scam by definition"??? I'm not sure what dictionary you are referencing. For one company to invest in another (profit making) company is a scam? Yet for a private company to invest in a start-up company is good? Oh my!
You claim some FUTURE meltdown in Texas as these nefarious corporate investors gut the companies -- which of course is impossible to refute, as there's ALWAYS the future -- it never gets here. So far -- in spite of this evil investing has been going on in Texas for decades -- your concerns seem to lack substance. Perhaps you can cite some gutting in Texas, along with the magnitude of such transgressions.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:48 a.m.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:12 a.m.
Yes, housing prices in these primo locations have soared back to pre-recession levels. Of course, continuing low interest rates have helped.
But assuming that interest rates rise to a more normal level (1-2% higher than current rates), this housing boom will come to a screeching stop. People simply could not qualify for home loans and/or would choose not to pay such high rates.
Rising home prices has been great for us home OWNERS, but not good for our younger population which has to pay the government scarcity-created prices (or higher rent).
As a result, California ranks 49th worst for percentage of home ownership.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:05 a.m.
As you well know, I'm no fan of John Moores. You and I were prominent critics of the Petco Park giveaway. He's a "rent seeker" -- trying to earn profits via government subsidies that he can't earn in the free market.
But I take no joy in the departure of wealth (and jobs) from California to Texas.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:01 a.m.
I find this assertion puzzling. Apparently you consider venture funds pouring into California for tech a GOOD thing, but funds pouring into Texas businesses a BAD thing.
I don't understand the difference -- it's private funding. Should you not be railing against venture capital ruining our CA tech industries? Seems to me you are PRAISING this trend as a GOOD thing (which I agree with -- it IS a good thing).
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 7:56 a.m.
You ARE correct -- I DID misread it. My apologies.
Aug. 27, 2014 @ 8:51 p.m.
Don, it's okay to "doubt that adjusted for cost-of-living, Texas salaries are higher than those in California," but the evidence seems pretty strong that such is the case. Housing costs are a HUGE portion of a person's (especially a FAMILY's) COL. If you have statistics that refute this -- if the COL differential is significantly less than my sources say, please publish how much (with source, of course).
Here's more to consider: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2012 median household income in California was $57,020. Texas was $51,926. Hence the median Texas household earns 91% of what a California household earns. Surely you understand that the COL differential is bigger than that 9% differential -- housing cost alone more than makes up this differential. Then there's that income tax difference to consider.
March 23, 2014 @ 1:54 p.m.
NOTE: Here's an aspect of the anti-Prop 209 bill that most will overlook. Included in this new stealth quota system bill is a redress of the longstanding grievance against gender discrimination. It's gone on for generations and continues even today -- ask any liberal.
But here's the thing: The bill will require what amounts to discrimination against the gender that is too frequently admitted -- you guessed it -- WOMEN.
In 2010 the UC system admitted 95,403 women and only 84,178 men -- a PRIMA FACIE case confirming discrimination. I look forward to the innovative progressive implementation of this solution to gender discrimination.
© 2016 San Diego Reader