Am I Going to Hell?

[Lindsey]

To my great horror, I for once in my life find myself in agreement with Nancy (Dis)Grace and her guests: I think Paris Hilton's butt belongs in the LA County jail. And I'm glad the judge didn't let himself be steamrolled into allowing her to be simply "grounded" (but with the right to host wild parties) at home.

Does this mean I am going to hell?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

To my great horror, I for once in my life find myself in agreement with Nancy (Dis)Grace and her guests: I think Paris Hilton's butt belongs in the LA County jail. And I'm glad the judge didn't let himself be steamrolled into allowing her to be simply "grounded" (but with the right to host wild parties) at home.

Does this mean I am going to hell?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Nope. Purgatory perhaps, but definnitely not hell. That is reserved for today's self-indulgent youth who both amuse us and scare us with their antics.

[lensue]

>Does this mean I am going to hell?<

Lindsey, well I hope not but if that's the case you'll be seeing me there too! She's lucky it got reduced to 23 days as far as I'm concerned! [g]

[Judy G. Russell]

Does this mean I am going to hell?Yup. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Why, after all, she had a Serious Medical Problem (defined, apparently, as not liking jail food) and couldn't handle the stresses and strains of jail. So out of all the people at the jail, the Sheriff just happened to choose her for home release -- and I'm sure he would have done the same if she'd been poor, unknown and black. So you just take that cynicism of yours and... and... and party!!!

[earler]

The one who should be in jail is her mother for having brought up paris to be a slut and idiot at the same time. Mind you, the father is perhaps even stupider than his daughter.

[Lindsey]

The one who should be in jail is her mother for having brought up paris to be a slut and idiot at the same time. Mind you, the father is perhaps even stupider than his daughter.
For sure her mother appears to be a real piece of work. I haven't seen anything in the news about her father, but certainly Paris herself provides no evidence that either parent had intelligence genes to contribute. (Apparently, she herself never finished high school.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Why, after all, she had a Serious Medical Problem (defined, apparently, as not liking jail food) and couldn't handle the stresses and strains of jail.
I know, I'm such a meanie. I can't even work up any sympathy that the poor girl was only given three blankets, and had to use one of them as a pillow. (Never mind that regular inmates apparently only get one blanket and no pillow -- and I doubt inmates at Guantanamo get any blanket at all, let alone a pillow.)

I'm sure the LA County jail is not a pleasant experience, even in the celebrity wing. But as the Southside, VA, family of a friend of mine is prone to say: When you make your bed hard, you just have to turn over more often.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm sure the LA County jail is not a pleasant experience, even in the celebrity wing. But as the Southside, VA, family of a friend of mine is prone to say: When you make your bed hard, you just have to turn over more often.And the first thing you have to do is recognize that you made your own bed hard. Nobody twisted her arm and forced her to drive on a suspended license...

[Lindsey]

And the first thing you have to do is recognize that you made your own bed hard. Nobody twisted her arm and forced her to drive on a suspended license...
Twice! Not once, but twice!! And it's not like she couldn't have afforded a driver to take her wherever she wanted to go. And of course, it's not just that she was driving on a suspended license; she was doing something that prompted the police to pull her over each time. The last time, it was because she was speeding and driving without her lights, even though it was 11:00 at night. And even though she was supposed to have completed an alcohol-education class by February 12, by mid-April she had not even enrolled. So all the whining about "This is so unfair -- I did everything I was supposed to do!" isn't exactly the case. She was thumbing her nose at the judge, and judges don't take too kindly to that.

--Lindsey

[Pats]

There are some people who say she is being given much more severe punishment than most people would be for such "minor" violations. That really gets my goat.

Blowing off probation not once but twice is in effect saying to the court "I would rather be in jail than abide by the limitations imposed on me for probation."

But aside from that: Drunk driving is not a minor violation. DRUNK DRIVERS KILL PEOPLE!!!!!

That ditzy airhead is just lucky she didn't have an accident then (as were the people on the road around her at the time).

Pats

[Lindsey]

Pats, I agree with everything you have said, 100 percent. Somebody quoted on a NY Times editorial blog Friday claimed that a violation of probation was just a "technical" violation, and that it didn't merit jail time. But my take is the same as yours: drunk driving is a potentially deadly offense, not a trivial one, and while a first offense might not merit jail time, a first offense followed by repeated traffic violations, violations of probation, and driving on a suspended license certainly does. I don't know of any court that would tolerate being blown off like that.

Certainly in Virginia, DWI and driving on a suspended license are considered serious offenses:

Virginia Driving on a Revoked or Suspended License is one of the most serious traffic offenses one can be charged with in Virginia second only to Virginia DUI/DWI with a high blood alcohol content. This charge carries a real probability of jail time and most judges in northern Virginia will ask the defendant to secure an attorney if the defendant is unrepresented on the first court appearance.

The maximum penalty for a first offense is a jail sentence of 6 months, a $1,000 fine, and a license suspension for the same period for which it had been previously suspended (or up to 90 days if the suspension was indefinite). (http://www.vatrafficlaw.com/nool.html)

Little Miss Hilton could have avoided jail if she had just made an effort to keep her nose clean for the next three years.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

So all the whining about "This is so unfair -- I did everything I was supposed to do!" isn't exactly the case. She was thumbing her nose at the judge, and judges don't take too kindly to that.But the rules aren't supposed to apply if you're cute and rich, doncha know...

[Judy G. Russell]

Drunk driving is not a minor violation. DRUNK DRIVERS KILL PEOPLE!!!!!

That ditzy airhead is just lucky she didn't have an accident then (as were the people on the road around her at the time).More importantly, it isn't an accident if you kill somebody when you're driving drunk. It's murder. And the punishment should be in proportion to the risk.

[Lindsey]

But the rules aren't supposed to apply if you're cute and rich, doncha know...
That's obviously the way that Paris sees it!

Since I have never been either, I don't have too much sympathy for that philosophy!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't have too much sympathy for that philosophy!She is now apparently telling anyone who'll listen that she's through doing dumb things. I'd rather she just did that and shut up about it. I'd also rather the media stopped paying attention to her. I mean, for heaven's sake, when did the likes of Paris Hilton get to be news above the fold in The Grey Lady???

[Lindsey]

She is now apparently telling anyone who'll listen that she's through doing dumb things.
Well, as a Down's-syndrome neighbor of a friend of mine used to say, "We'll see."

I'd rather she just did that and shut up about it. I'd also rather the media stopped paying attention to her. I mean, for heaven's sake, when did the likes of Paris Hilton get to be news above the fold in The Grey Lady???
Ain't that the truth. You should have seen me trying to explain to my mother why this Paris Hilton was all over the news shows.

"Who is she, why is she in the news?"

She's a celebrity.

"Yes, but, why? What does she do?"

Why? Because her last name is Hilton. And what she does is, she goes to parties and gets drunk and does outrageous things. And she hangs out with other celebrities who misbehave.

Mom just looked puzzled.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Mom just looked puzzled.Your Mother is a wise woman.

[Mike]

Wanda Sykes had some hilarious comments.

"She's rich. How do you screw up being rich!?"

[Judy G. Russell]

"She's rich. How do you screw up being rich!?"Give me a chance! I'll do better being rich! Really I will!

[Mike]

You and me, too, Sister.

[Judy G. Russell]

You and me, too, Sister.I used to have a t-shirt that said: "God, please let me prove to You that winning the lottery won't spoil me!"

[Mike]

And I don't even care about winning the big megalottery. All I want is the basic $7M lottery that will give me more over the next 26 years than I could earn if I were working.

[Judy G. Russell]

And I don't even care about winning the big megalottery. All I want is the basic $7M lottery that will give me more over the next 26 years than I could earn if I were working.My needs are even more modest. I'd be perfectly happy with any lottery that dumped $1 million after taxes into my investment accounts.

[Mike]

I'd be perfectly happy with any lottery that dumped $1 million after taxes into my investment accounts.
But you're a year or two closer to retirement, so your needs are more modest. And you're not on the line to make payments for new home purchase that you can't afford.

[Judy G. Russell]

But you're a year or two closer to retirement, so your needs are more modest. Other way around. The closer you are to retirement in years, the more you need to sock away because you have a shorter time frame for interest to be effective in increasing the nest egg.

And you're not on the line to make payments for new home purchase that you can't afford.That is a true fact. I was very lucky: I bought my house before prices went way up, I did a 15 year mortgage so I only have a couple more years to pay. Even with the home improvement loan, the house will be completely paid off before I retire.

[Mike]

Other way around. The closer you are to retirement in years, the more you need to sock away because you have a shorter time frame for interest to be effective in increasing the nest egg.
I'll rephrase. <g> Since you're slightly closer to retirement, the additional savings you need are less than what I might need, given how much more prices, especially health insurance, likely will increase in the intervening timeframe.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'll rephrase. <g> Since you're slightly closer to retirement, the additional savings you need are less than what I might need, given how much more prices, especially health insurance, likely will increase in the intervening timeframe.You might be right, but you also have time working on your side in terms of compounding of interest.

[Mike]

You might be right, but you also have time working on your side in terms of compounding of interest.
Not when my partner keeps spending our money on real estate!

[Judy G. Russell]

Not when my partner keeps spending our money on real estate!At least not in a declining real estate market!

[Mike]

At least not in a declining real estate market!
The expectation is that the market will be rising again by the point where we'll need the money. Actually, the house we're buying should always continue to gain value, given its uniqueness.

[Judy G. Russell]

The expectation is that the market will be rising again by the point where we'll need the money. Actually, the house we're buying should always continue to gain value, given its uniqueness.Excellent. I'm hoping things go back up by the time I sell here, in another seven years or so!

[Mike]

Excellent. I'm hoping things go back up by the time I sell here, in another seven years or so!
We're figuring about 10 years, but if we remain in good health, we might actually take advantage of the state program that allows people over 55 to defer property taxes until the house is sold and stay there for a bit longer, particularly if our rental properties (into one of which we plan to move when we do retire) continue to have good tenants paying decent rent.

[Judy G. Russell]

We're figuring about 10 years, but if we remain in good health, we might actually take advantage of the state program that allows people over 55 to defer property taxes until the house is sold and stay there for a bit longer, particularly if our rental properties (into one of which we plan to move when we do retire) continue to have good tenants paying decent rent.That's a great program for folks over 55... but I'm not so sure it's a good idea for any state! Yeah, you get the lump sum later... but it makes it harder to plan, I would think.

[Mike]

That's a great program for folks over 55... but I'm not so sure it's a good idea for any state! Yeah, you get the lump sum later... but it makes it harder to plan, I would think.
I suspect the state does FVM calculations and plans from there. I don't know how many people take advantage of the program, but I can't believe it's anything but a small minority.

[Judy G. Russell]

I suspect the state does FVM calculations and plans from there. I don't know how many people take advantage of the program, but I can't believe it's anything but a small minority.I suppose there are enough people over 55 who think "I have to leave my estate to the kids" and so don't want to postpone anything -- but for me... heck, I'd take advantage of it in a heartbeat, especially if the taxes were high.

[sidney]

I'd take advantage of it in a heartbeat, especially if the taxes were high.

Interesting trade-off -- It's like getting an interest free loan on the property taxes, which would make it a no-brainer to pay current taxes in future inflated dollars -- except that property taxes are deductible from Federal income tax.

Here in New Zealand the personal tax laws are so simple that most people do not have to file each year. The money that was deducted from wages and interest on bank accounts during the year is considered to be what you owe. The downside of the simplicity is that there are not deductions for the many things that in the US are used to implement government policy, such as favoring the purchase of owner-use residential homes by making mortgage interest deductible.

As usual easy fiscal fixes result in unintended consequences. Almost everyone has on paper a small business and/or family trust that officially owns their house and car to allow them to take advantage of tax deductions. That negates the advantages of a simpler tax system without giving the government the ability to manipulate incentives in the personal tax system to further social policies.

[Judy G. Russell]

Interesting trade-off -- It's like getting an interest free loan on the property taxes, which would make it a no-brainer to pay current taxes in future inflated dollars -- except that property taxes are deductible from Federal income tax.But deductions get phased out if you get hit with the alternate minimum tax or whatever that nasty thing is called...

Here in New Zealand the personal tax laws are so simple that most people do not have to file each year. The money that was deducted from wages and interest on bank accounts during the year is considered to be what you owe. The downside of the simplicity is that there are not deductions for the many things that in the US are used to implement government policy, such as favoring the purchase of owner-use residential homes by making mortgage interest deductible. As usual easy fiscal fixes result in unintended consequences. Almost everyone has on paper a small business and/or family trust that officially owns their house and car to allow them to take advantage of tax deductions. That negates the advantages of a simpler tax system without giving the government the ability to manipulate incentives in the personal tax system to further social policies.There are surely pluses and minuses to all of the different systems, and what you get in one benefit you give up in another detriment.

[Mike]

I'd take advantage of it in a heartbeat, especially if the taxes were high.
High taxes in the SF Bay Area? Shirley, you jest!

[Mike]

Interesting trade-off -- It's like getting an interest free loan on the property taxes, which would make it a no-brainer to pay current taxes in future inflated dollars -- except that property taxes are deductible from Federal income tax.
It's not quite interest-free, and the household income must be below a certain level (that means almost anyone who is eligible can't deduct the property taxes anyway). The program description (http://www.sco.ca.gov/col/taxinfo/ptp/geninfo/description.shtml) is on the State's web site.

[Judy G. Russell]

High taxes in the SF Bay Area? Shirley, you jest!What are taxes like there? (There are areas of NJ -- not where I live, thank heavens! -- where taxes on a fairly ordinary three-bedroom home can run between $10-20,000 a year.)

[Mike]

What are taxes like there? (There are areas of NJ -- not where I live, thank heavens! -- where taxes on a fairly ordinary three-bedroom home can run between $10-20,000 a year.)
Remember that CA has Prop 13, that sets the property tax valuation on the purchase price of the house (unless the house has had substantial improvement--another reason why most jurisdictions require permits for any work that can be considered "improvement"), and restricts increases to 2% of the value in any year. Also, if property values have declined, as determined by average home sale prices, then the assessed valuation will decline; if property values climb again, the upper limit is still the purchase price plus 2% per year.

The actual property tax is 1% of the value. Thus, a home purchased for $500K will see a tax bill of $5K.

However, there are a variety of levies and assessments for local purposes, that can add approximately 0.10 to 0.45% to the bill. Some of them are ad valorem, while others are fixed assessments--such as a lighting district.

Our places in Sacramento are taxed at 1.14%, while our place in Oakland has a rate of 1.33%. The new house, if we get it, will have a rate of 1.23%, which is close to the median for the Bay Area.

Since the value on which we are taxed is the purchase price, the only time the tax changes is when the rate changes, or voters approve a levy or assessment. So, our taxes do go up, but they're pretty much predictable. The big bonus from Prop 13 is that a homeowner won't see his/her property taxes skyrocketing as the houses around him/her are sold.

[Judy G. Russell]

The actual property tax is 1% of the value. Thus, a home purchased for $500K will see a tax bill of $5K.That's not bad at all.

The big bonus from Prop 13 is that a homeowner won't see his/her property taxes skyrocketing as the houses around him/her are sold.I have very mixed feelings about this. As someone who tends to buy and stay put, I like it. On the other hand, if I were a newcomer, I'd very much dislike paying a disproportionate share of the operating expenses just because I was a newcomer.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

That's not bad at all.
Saint Louis (City) works out to about 1.33%.

[sidney]

if I were a newcomer, I'd very much dislike paying a disproportionate share of the operating expenses just because I was a newcomer.

The newcomers are not just newcomers. They are the rich dot-bombers (or movie types in Southern California) who are driving up the prices and making it difficult for people who want to continue to live where they are. People could not afford to keep their homes as the values skyrocketed when taxes were based solely on market value. The rationale is that when you decide to spend the money on a house you know exactly what you are getting into regarding property taxes and it is your choice whether it is worth it.

On the other hand, Prop 13, combined with the practice of funding local government and especially schools from property taxes, had a devastating effect on the California public school system and on other local infrastructure. The people most helped by Prop 13 don't have school age kids and don't seem to care where the schools get their money as long as it isn't from their pockets. I don't mean to generalize over all retirees, but somehow the majority votes have not been favorable to the maintenance of an excellent school system.

Rising taxes in a community with quickly rising property values is not an easy problem to solve. I have seen the different devastating effects both from ignoring the problem and from trying to solve it with something like Prop 13.

[Judy G. Russell]

Saint Louis (City) works out to about 1.33%.That's roughly the same here in my town, but we have a nicely balanced economy: some heavy industry and some retail to balance the residential. And we don't have one of the very big cities here in this county to drive up costs. But there are areas in Bergen and Essex Counties where the real numbers are just appalling: $20,000 a year taxes and up.

[Judy G. Russell]

On the other hand, Prop 13, combined with the practice of funding local government and especially schools from property taxes, had a devastating effect on the California public school system and on other local infrastructure. The people most helped by Prop 13 don't have school age kids and don't seem to care where the schools get their money as long as it isn't from their pockets. I don't mean to generalize over all retirees, but somehow the majority votes have not been favorable to the maintenance of an excellent school system.The same has historically been true here in NJ, where school budgets get voted on at the polls. In one school district in Ocean County, a school budget providing for a new high school was routinely passed at 11 of 12 polling districts, and voted down by a huge margin in the 12th: Holiday City at Berkeley, a/k/a a big senior citizen community. The kids ended up on triple sessions until the State stepped in and, under the guise of the State constitutional requirement of a "thorough and efficient education," ordered them to build the new high school.

I sympathize with those whose taxes are escalating with the rising home prices. But the real point is, how much does it cost to run the government? Divide that by the taxpayers, and divide it equitably, and I'm happy. The fact that there are some homes are being resold for big numbers doesn't change the number of taxpayers is roughly the same and the costs of government are going up by the inflation rate (if cost controls are in place). If you have, say, 10,000 homeowners and need $25 million to run the government, then you need to collect roughly $2500 per homeowner. That doesn't change just because home values go up!

[sidney]

divide it equitably, and I'm happy

That's the problem, what is "equitable"? If relatively rich people have moved in, paying much more for their properties, and so there is a mix of new money and lower or fixed income long-time residents, where do the taxes come from to pay for the increased costs of government that are due to inflation and perhaps due to the more expensive tastes of the newer prosperous residents or due to an increased population density or larger school-age population? So do you try to get more money from the people who have more money? That sounds like an income tax, but often local government is not funded by income taxes, only property taxes. A property tax seems like it would be equitable -- Let people pay for local infrastructure based on the proportion of the local property that they own -- But in practice that falls apart in a quickly rising market. That $2500 per person does not fall equally on the new millionaire who has just bought some land and built a mansion and on the retiree who had never paid more than $500 in the past 40 years in the family home.

I see it as similar to the situation that companies find themselves in when the world changes out from under their business. While I can easily say that buggy whip manufacturers do not have any particular right to be kept in business once automobiles become popular, I am not so ready to say that people should have to leave their family homes when the nouveau riche decide that they like the neighborhood.

[Lindsey]

I am not so ready to say that people should have to leave their family homes when the nouveau riche decide that they like the neighborhood.
Barbara Ehrenreich has a short piece (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/ehrenreich) on the Nation web site about the problem on the increasing gentrification of the country's beautiful places.

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

That's roughly the same here in my town, but we have a nicely balanced economy: some heavy industry and some retail to balance the residential. And we don't have one of the very big cities here in this county to drive up costs. But there are areas in Bergen and Essex Counties where the real numbers are just appalling: $20,000 a year taxes and up.We live in a small city (about 50,000), with lots of retail development (used to be farming and industrial). Unfortunately, they give away a lot to attract developers, so the burden on homeowners is fairly high.

This year we were re-evaluated. The grand list doubled, and the mill rate declined but not by half, which sparked a furor. The town decided to phase in the increase, resulting in an average increase of $400 per taxpayer. In our case, the difference was double that (and large land-owners, businesses, etc. must eat a much higher increase than that), so I guess some homeowners must have virtually no increase at all.

But this is still very difficult for long-time residents in relatively inexpensive homes. And this is a town where many families are represented by three generations — very loyal residents, for the most part.

I haven’t exactly worked out how this phase-in works for the town, but it certainly seems like a fiddle to me. Our valuation was first announced to be 203% over last year, then adjusted (through no effort of ours) to 182%. (The law says the assessed price is to be 70% of market value, even though that is hardly a firm number, especially right now.) Hard to predict the mill rate if they had not decided to use the phase-in, but that would probably have bumped up our taxes to 150% or higher. Instead, they are only 107.5%.

The towns have a lot of responsibilities: schools, library, waste disposal, other services, local roads, beaches, river management (two rivers), etc. They are also hit with unfunded mandates from both state and federal governments. And there is great inequality in education from town to town — this one is fair and probably getting better. Places like Greenwich and Westport offer educations comparable to some private schools. The schools in Hartford and some other old industrial cities are in terrible shape. (Bridgeport seems to be improving, though it has always been on that list.)

Add to that: New college graduates, the next generation of managers, cannot afford to live here because of the cost of living. The average citizen age has been rising annually for at least three or four years. So has the average household income — sure, the older population is probably at peak earning level, and this is a rich state.

But averages being what they are, these figures mask a lot of hardship. And it all seems generally unstable.

Sorry; this is too long. I just got the tax bill so this stuff has been on my mind.

[ktinkel]

Barbara Ehrenreich has a short piece (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/ehrenreich) on the Nation web site about the problem on the increasing gentrification of the country's beautiful places.Good article.

Of course, you do not need to be in Telluride to see these changes.

When we moved to Westport in 1982, it had a real main street: little grocery, ordinary coffee shop, hardware store, two local bookstores (one painted peppermint pink), Chinese sit-down restaurant, a real office supply store, etc. Now that street is all “mall” stores: Brooks Bros., Williams-Sonoma, Barney’s, two Gaps, etc., with all the charm and accessibility that homogenous development can provide.

These stores are also in real malls nearby — it is not as if they brought useful new amenities to residents.

While we lived there, Phil Donohue and Marla Thomas paid $7 million for a waterfront lot (a new high), then tore down an early Philip Johnson house on the property because it spoiled their view. (Typical New England mentality: only colonial properties are given historic protection.) Other newcomers, whose properties used to allow passers-by a lovely view of the sound, have fenced and gated their waterfront “estates” — driving by these is somewhat like driving in a tunnel. There might as well not be any water there at all.

Ah, well.

[Judy G. Russell]

That's the problem, what is "equitable"? If relatively rich people have moved in, paying much more for their properties, and so there is a mix of new money and lower or fixed income long-time residents, where do the taxes come from to pay for the increased costs of government that are due to inflation and perhaps due to the more expensive tastes of the newer prosperous residents or due to an increased population density or larger school-age population? A property tax is always inherently regressive if you simply divide it up among the number of taxpayers, and inflation hits everybody not just the newcomers. But you're right that there are costs that may be associated exclusively with the newcomers (infrastructure in particular) and those can be assessed against the newcomers. But if it's real overall fairness (and a progressive structure) that you're looking for, an income tax is certainly better.

[Judy G. Russell]

This year we were re-evaluated. The grand list doubled, and the mill rate declined but not by half, which sparked a furor. The town decided to phase in the increase, resulting in an average increase of $400 per taxpayer. In our case, the difference was double that (and large land-owners, businesses, etc. must eat a much higher increase than that), so I guess some homeowners must have virtually no increase at all....I would personally fight every inch of those increases, through your local authority and on to the courts if need be. I don't mind paying my fair share, but I sure as hell want to know why I'm getting hit with more (and someone else less).

... averages being what they are, these figures mask a lot of hardship. And it all seems generally unstable.I tend to think a lot of the northeast (and much of the fast growing south and west) is unstable in general. I have no idea where this is all going to end up.

[Judy G. Russell]

Other newcomers, whose properties used to allow passers-by a lovely view of the sound, have fenced and gated their waterfront “estates” — driving by these is somewhat like driving in a tunnel. There might as well not be any water there at all. Ah, well.Just goes to show that the towns can't stand up to these sorts of pressures, the way they should and could if they had the backbone (and the money!). Local zoning laws could prevent much of that, but it's hard for the locals to withstand the pressure of the high-priced lawyers brought in by these monied folks. Ah, well, indeed.

[ktinkel]

I would personally fight every inch of those increases …As a principle, I suppose so would I. Practically speaking, we are on the water, and although that in and of itself raises the value of our property, at least they do not have a separate rate for waterfront properties (as they have for our friends who live near Newport, R.I.) But we are thinking of selling, and I suspect my opinion will change once I see what we can get for our house!

I tend to think a lot of the northeast (and much of the fast growing south and west) is unstable in general. I have no idea where this is all going to end up.Me, neither. Is anyone thinking about it? Where is Malthus when we need him?

[ktinkel]

Just goes to show that the towns can't stand up to these sorts of pressures, the way they should and could if they had the backbone (and the money!). Local zoning laws could prevent much of that, but it's hard for the locals to withstand the pressure of the high-priced lawyers brought in by these monied folks. Ah, well, indeed.Not just that: The P&Z (Planning & Zoning) boards are usually stacked with developers and contractors, whose interest it is to loosen regulations. They have both the time and incentive to serve.

[Judy G. Russell]

Not just that: The P&Z (Planning & Zoning) boards are usually stacked with developers and contractors, whose interest it is to loosen regulations. They have both the time and incentive to serve.And if they're not developers or contractors, they're (gasp) lawyers.

[Judy G. Russell]

I suspect my opinion will change once I see what we can get for our house!Heck no! Sales value and tax value are always two different animals! Fight that taxman!

Me, neither. Is anyone thinking about it? Where is Malthus when we need him?Six feet under?

[Lindsey]

Other newcomers, whose properties used to allow passers-by a lovely view of the sound, have fenced and gated their waterfront “estates” — driving by these is somewhat like driving in a tunnel.
I think that is so wrong. They may own the property; they shouldn't be allowed to own the view from places that are not their property, any more than an owner of property with a stream running through it owns all rights to the water to the detriment of people living downstream.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

On the other hand, if I were a newcomer, I'd very much dislike paying a disproportionate share of the operating expenses just because I was a newcomer.
What Sidney said. A new homebuyer who has done his research will know how much to budget for property tax. If it weren't for so many people trying to flow into congested areas, then the home values/prices wouldn't be rising so quickly.

Yeah, Prop 13 had some unintended consequences. But as I get closer to retirement and that fixed income, I see the need for it.

[Judy G. Russell]

as I get closer to retirement and that fixed income, I see the need for it.Yeah, it's funny how our attitudes about things change as we get older. I remember when I used to think 50-year-olds were old.

[Mike]

I remember when I used to think 50-year-olds were old.
Heh, I remember when I thought all celebrities were old people. Now more than half of them are younger than I am!

[Judy G. Russell]

Heh, I remember when I thought all celebrities were old people. Now more than half of them are younger than I am!More than half in my case! I don't mind so much the ones who could be my children, but the ones who could be my grandchildren...

[Mike]

...grandchildren...
I'm in the same situation!

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm in the same situation!And you're younger than I am, pal!

[Mike]

And you're younger than I am, pal!
Not as young as I act, or want to be...

[Judy G. Russell]

Not as young as I act, or want to be...We all have that problem. There most assuredly is a disconnect between the person I believe I am in my head and the person I see in the mirror.

[Mike]

There most assuredly is a disconnect between the person I believe I am in my head and the person I see in the mirror.
And the person that others see? <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

And the person that others see? <g>I suspect that we all think people see the person we imagine ourselves to be. (Somehow that leads into the "make me the person my dog thinks I am" quote...)

[Mike]

I suspect that we all think people see the person we imagine ourselves to be. (Somehow that leads into the "make me the person my dog thinks I am" quote...)
But which of those persons do the others really see? <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

But which of those persons do the others really see? <g>I don't wanna know and I ain't gonna ask.