A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My Bike Path in the News



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old July 31st 18, 08:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 2018-07-30 21:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could
make that case easily.

Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png


I wasn't really doubting the direction of migration. I was just noting that
the guy who claimed the smart ones are moving was not among those moving.


Smart people look at the big picture. Moving is a major hassle whether
it's 100 miles or 6000 miles. I have done both.

If I'd be in the prime of my earning years I'd be long gone, probably in
Southern Utah. Now that I am gradually retiring many of the leftist
roadblocks no longer apply to us. So why would we give up a nice group
of neighbors, friends, church congregation, mountain bike trails and so
forth if the downsides of living in a leftist state have become less
influential on us? That's what smart people think through before making
such a decision.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #62  
Old July 31st 18, 09:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default My Bike Path in the News

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The sale
price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow which is
related to building quality only to the extent that it increases
rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't need a new
roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will
produce, ...



Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes up for
all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the market move up
in price.


That's where you go wrong. So, lets say construction costs are the same in Tulsa and Folsom. Why would you build a $5M 50 unit low-rise complex in Tulsa when you could build a $5M 50 unit in Folsom and get triple the rent. Even if the complex cost $6M in Folsom because of the solar hit, you're still earning more than you would in Tulsa -- land of cheap construction.

The difference in construction cost is far outweighed by the market rents, potential for appreciation and the natural increase in rates with a rising local economy. Gentrification is a gold mine. Smart money goes to Folsom even though construction costs are higher.

Rental rates are based on supply and demand and not cost of construction -- until those costs get so high that market rental rates don't produce an acceptable ROI. Then you don't get new construction, and there is potentially a supply shortage -- assuming there is a demand. Then rents go up, and then the new developers come.

Hey, speaking of demand, you could buy an apartment building in Jeffrey City, Wyoming, for probably nothing. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/...ity-ghost-town https://trib.com/news/state-and-regi...bcf887a.html#1 Or you could build! Imagine saving all those construction costs in Jeffrey City -- hell, you could build the place out of uranium and asbestos scraps. Skip the solar. Put in granite counter-tops and rent it for . . . nothing! But at least it was cheap to build because none of those liberal commie pinkos were making you put in solar panels.

BTW, I rode through Jeffrey City on my bike in '81 as it was becoming a ghost town. It's right on the Trans Am trail. The help at the market openly derided all the bicyclists who were presumed liberal environmentalists -- basically the town's only revenue stream after the uranium mines went kaput. It made absolutely no sense to me. They should have been sucking up and selling glowing souvenirs.

-- Jay Beattie.



  #63  
Old July 31st 18, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 2018-07-31 13:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The
sale price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow
which is related to building quality only to the extent that it
increases rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't
need a new roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will
produce, ...



Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes up
for all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the market
move up in price.


That's where you go wrong.



Nope. The housing shortage is getting worse here and all those mandates,
permit fees, et cetera is what developers say is driving that.


So, lets say construction costs are the
same in Tulsa and Folsom. Why would you build a $5M 50 unit low-rise
complex in Tulsa when you could build a $5M 50 unit in Folsom and get
triple the rent. Even if the complex cost $6M in Folsom because of
the solar hit, you're still earning more than you would in Tulsa --
land of cheap construction.


That investor would neither got to Tulsa nor to Folsom. He'd go to
Rochester, NY or Memphis, TN where rental returns are currently best.


The difference in construction cost is far outweighed by the market
rents, potential for appreciation and the natural increase in rates
with a rising local economy. Gentrification is a gold mine. Smart
money goes to Folsom even though construction costs are higher.

Rental rates are based on supply and demand and not cost of
construction -- until those costs get so high that market rental
rates don't produce an acceptable ROI.



That is what I am saying all the time. Not enough ROI - no new
construction. Until rents consequently rise, then there wil be new
construction.


... Then you don't get new
construction, and there is potentially a supply shortage -- assuming
there is a demand. Then rents go up, and then the new developers
come.


When rents go up enough to make a good ROI outlook apear solid enough
there will be new construction. Else not.


Hey, speaking of demand, you could buy an apartment building in
Jeffrey City, Wyoming, for probably nothing.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/...ity-ghost-town
https://trib.com/news/state-and-regi...bcf887a.html#1
Or you could build! Imagine saving all those construction costs in
Jeffrey City -- hell, you could build the place out of uranium and
asbestos scraps. Skip the solar. Put in granite counter-tops and
rent it for . . . nothing! But at least it was cheap to build
because none of those liberal commie pinkos were making you put in
solar panels.


Ghost towns are everywhere. Heck, much of Detroit is a ghost town.

https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/u...2612770257.jpg

If I had my druthers I'd rather move and invest in Southern Utah:

https://i1.wp.com/www.traipsingabout...ize=1030%2C773

My dream of a low maintenance back yard is a rock, some bare dirt, a
cactus and maybe one manzanita bush. You can buy big homes there for
less than half the Californian prices:

https://activerain.com/blogsview/224...e-in-back-yard

Heck, I could have one whole big room just for my brewery and the bikes
would have their own garage. We'd look for a house sans pool though
which would cost even less.

Where we live not it's nice though. This week I'll be riding he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvI1W7kmc4o

It still has the buildings of an old Western movie set there, "Love
Comes Softly". Not very schmaltzy and a pretty good family movie. I
recognize almost all areas they show because I've ridden there.


BTW, I rode through Jeffrey City on my bike in '81 as it was becoming
a ghost town. It's right on the Trans Am trail. The help at the
market openly derided all the bicyclists who were presumed liberal
environmentalists -- basically the town's only revenue stream after
the uranium mines went kaput. It made absolutely no sense to me.
They should have been sucking up and selling glowing souvenirs.


Or attract some other business. Some people aren't very smart.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #64  
Old August 1st 18, 03:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 7/31/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 21:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could
make that case easily.

Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png


I wasn't really doubting the direction of migration. I was just noting
that
the guy who claimed the smart ones are moving was not among those moving.


Smart people look at the big picture. Moving is a major hassle whether
it's 100 miles or 6000 miles. I have done both.

If I'd be in the prime of my earning years I'd be long gone, probably in
Southern Utah. Now that I am gradually retiring many of the leftist
roadblocks no longer apply to us. So why would we give up a nice group
of neighbors, friends, church congregation, mountain bike trails and so
forth if the downsides of living in a leftist state have become less
influential on us? That's what smart people think through before making
such a decision.


Hmm. Maybe it's just the ones who can't come up with excuses that are
moving to Texas?

Seems you should have qualified your "smart ones" remark.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #65  
Old August 1st 18, 04:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 2018-07-31 19:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 21:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could
make that case easily.

Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png


I wasn't really doubting the direction of migration. I was just
noting that
the guy who claimed the smart ones are moving was not among those
moving.


Smart people look at the big picture. Moving is a major hassle whether
it's 100 miles or 6000 miles. I have done both.

If I'd be in the prime of my earning years I'd be long gone, probably
in Southern Utah. Now that I am gradually retiring many of the leftist
roadblocks no longer apply to us. So why would we give up a nice group
of neighbors, friends, church congregation, mountain bike trails and
so forth if the downsides of living in a leftist state have become
less influential on us? That's what smart people think through before
making such a decision.


Hmm. Maybe it's just the ones who can't come up with excuses that are
moving to Texas?

Seems you should have qualified your "smart ones" remark.


You won't understand this.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #66  
Old August 1st 18, 05:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 7/31/2018 2:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-31 13:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The
sale price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow
which is related to building quality only to the extent that it
increases rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't
need a new roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will
produce, ...


Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes up
for all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the market
move up in price.


That's where you go wrong.



Nope. The housing shortage is getting worse here and all those mandates,
permit fees, et cetera is what developers say is driving that.


That's what developers say, but it isn't necessarily true. In reality
the fees are far too low. They don't cover the cost of adding water
infrastructure, they don't cover the costs of new schools or expanding
existing schools, they don't cover the costs of adding or widening roads
to accommodate additional traffic, they don't cover the cost of more
parks, etc.. All of those costs are externalized onto existing property
owners or the costs are covered by increased fees and other taxes.

In the Bay Area, there was a recent fee/tax increase that passed (or
didn't pass depending on who you believe) that raises bridge tolls by $3
(actually more), to fund transportation projects unrelated to the
bridges. This is currently being challenged in court because technically
while votes on increased fees can pass with a simple majority, there
must be a nexus between the "fee" and what the money is spent on. Since
there is not such a nexus in this case, a 2/3 majority is required,
according to the plaintiffs. The defendants are saying 'well if we buy
more BART cars with this money then less people will drive over the
bridges and hence there will be less congestion on the bridges," a real
stretch but who knows what the courts will say.

I was just at a meeting last Saturday where a developer was pitching a
new development and the subject of solar came up. On a townhouse that
will sell for probably $1.8 million, the cost of putting solar on the
roof, at the time of construction, is lost in the noise. It would be
about $2500 per unit if put in when the building is going up, but if
each owner added solar on their own, and the building wasn't prepped for
it, it would cost them at least $15K (after tax credits) for a
relatively small, high-quality system with noncrystalline panels. The
societal benefits of more solar on homes are so compelling that the
state has a responsibility to act in the best interest of its citizens.

Last night, at our City Council, we discussed putting on the ballot, a
proposal to eliminate our per-square-foot based business license tax and
to replace it with a per-employee based business tax (in California,
this sort of change needs to go to voters). Some small companies would
pay less under this change, most would see no increase or a minimal
increase, but a very big fruit company in town would pay much more. We
decided to not put in on the 2018 ballot, and come back in 2020 with a
more complete proposal. This apparently was such big news that three TV
stations showed up with satellite vans. I hope they didn't get my bald
spot on camera.

The problem cities are having is that companies are cramming far more
workers into a building than in the past (used to be around 300 square
feet per worker, now many tech companies are at less than 100 square
feet per worker, as they've moved from offices, to smaller and smaller
cubicles, to open offices, and now to big shared desks. This is
aggravating housing issues and transportation issues. Mountain View has
put such a business license tax change on the November 2018 ballot, with
the agreement of their largest employer, Google. Many cities already do
base their business license tax on number of employees rather than
square feet of buildings. We agreed to put off until 2020
  #67  
Old August 1st 18, 06:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default My Bike Path in the News

Tim McNamara, -That was refreshing.
  #68  
Old August 1st 18, 06:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default My Bike Path in the News

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:49:04 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-31 13:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The
sale price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow
which is related to building quality only to the extent that it
increases rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't
need a new roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will
produce, ...


Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes up
for all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the market
move up in price.


That's where you go wrong.



Nope. The housing shortage is getting worse here and all those mandates,
permit fees, et cetera is what developers say is driving that.


So, lets say construction costs are the
same in Tulsa and Folsom. Why would you build a $5M 50 unit low-rise
complex in Tulsa when you could build a $5M 50 unit in Folsom and get
triple the rent. Even if the complex cost $6M in Folsom because of
the solar hit, you're still earning more than you would in Tulsa --
land of cheap construction.


That investor would neither got to Tulsa nor to Folsom. He'd go to
Rochester, NY or Memphis, TN where rental returns are currently best.


The difference in construction cost is far outweighed by the market
rents, potential for appreciation and the natural increase in rates
with a rising local economy. Gentrification is a gold mine. Smart
money goes to Folsom even though construction costs are higher.

Rental rates are based on supply and demand and not cost of
construction -- until those costs get so high that market rental
rates don't produce an acceptable ROI.



That is what I am saying all the time. Not enough ROI - no new
construction. Until rents consequently rise, then there wil be new
construction.


What I think is more worthy of complaint in California are development fees, which dwarf the cost of solar, particularly for an individual home in Fleamont!

"Of the cities studied, Fremont proved the most expensive on a per-unit basis: 'Development fees for multifamily housing range from a low of $12,000 per unit in Los Angeles to $75,000 per unit in Fremont. Fees for single family housing range from $21 ,000 per home in Sacramento to $157,000 per home in Fremont, over five times as much.'”

https://sf.curbed.com/2018/3/22/1715...ees-oakland-sf

Again, those fees are not recouped over time like solar. OTOH, there are costs associated with development that should be recouped by cities and counties who have to build schools, roads, etc. to serve new citizens. But I would think that $157K a pop for a home in Fremont would cover those costs and then some. I could see that shutting down new home construction along with high labor and materials cost.

snip
Where we live not it's nice though. This week I'll be riding he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvI1W7kmc4o


I'm trying to get my son interested in a Bridge of the Gods ride on Saturday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr_cSccFePg The far side of the bridge is Washington. One of my favorite spots on the Washington side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjvEsJvQe5w You go east on the Washington side because it has a great shoulder on the eastbound lane and then west on the Oregon side. Some hipsters did a vlog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkouuwDDpaQ&t=167s West side starts at 3:10. The road was still closed at the falls a couple of weeks ago because of the fire, and I have to see if that has opened -- otherwise I have to ride a stretch of HWY 84, which sucks.. Good shoulder, just noisy.

-- Jay Beattie.


  #69  
Old August 1st 18, 10:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 8/1/2018 10:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Again, those fees are not recouped over time like solar. OTOH, there are costs associated with development that should be recouped by cities and counties who have to build schools, roads, etc. to serve new citizens. But I would think that $157K a pop for a home in Fremont would cover those costs and then some. I could see that shutting down new home construction along with high labor and materials cost.


And you would be wrong. Fremont probably has the most new home
construction of any south bay city. Part of the reason is the new Warm
Springs BART station in southern Fremont. Part of the reason is the
proximity to the Dumbarton Bridge with Facebook on the other side.

When you're building million dollar condos or two million dollar houses,
those fees are just part of the cost of doing business.
  #70  
Old August 2nd 18, 12:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default My Bike Path in the News

On 2018-08-01 10:38, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:49:04 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-31 13:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house.
The sale price of a building is determined based on its net
cash flow which is related to building quality only to the
extent that it increases rents and decreases expense, e.g.
new building doesn't need a new roof, immediate maintenance,
etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it
will produce, ...


Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes
up for all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the
market move up in price.

That's where you go wrong.



Nope. The housing shortage is getting worse here and all those
mandates, permit fees, et cetera is what developers say is driving
that.


So, lets say construction costs are the
same in Tulsa and Folsom. Why would you build a $5M 50 unit
low-rise complex in Tulsa when you could build a $5M 50 unit in
Folsom and get triple the rent. Even if the complex cost $6M in
Folsom because of the solar hit, you're still earning more than
you would in Tulsa -- land of cheap construction.


That investor would neither got to Tulsa nor to Folsom. He'd go to
Rochester, NY or Memphis, TN where rental returns are currently
best.


The difference in construction cost is far outweighed by the
market rents, potential for appreciation and the natural increase
in rates with a rising local economy. Gentrification is a gold
mine. Smart money goes to Folsom even though construction costs
are higher.

Rental rates are based on supply and demand and not cost of
construction -- until those costs get so high that market rental
rates don't produce an acceptable ROI.



That is what I am saying all the time. Not enough ROI - no new
construction. Until rents consequently rise, then there wil be new
construction.


What I think is more worthy of complaint in California are
development fees, which dwarf the cost of solar, particularly for an
individual home in Fleamont!

"Of the cities studied, Fremont proved the most expensive on a
per-unit basis: 'Development fees for multifamily housing range from
a low of $12,000 per unit in Los Angeles to $75,000 per unit in
Fremont. Fees for single family housing range from $21 ,000 per home
in Sacramento to $157,000 per home in Fremont, over five times as
much.'”

https://sf.curbed.com/2018/3/22/1715...ees-oakland-sf

Again, those fees are not recouped over time like solar. OTOH, there
are costs associated with development that should be recouped by
cities and counties who have to build schools, roads, etc. to serve
new citizens. But I would think that $157K a pop for a home in
Fremont would cover those costs and then some. I could see that
shutting down new home construction along with high labor and
materials cost.


Fees are a serious problem here but everything you add makes things
worse. $21k fees plus $10k for solar is $31k. That's obviously worse
than $21k.


snip
Where we live not it's nice though. This week I'll be riding he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvI1W7kmc4o


I'm trying to get my son interested in a Bridge of the Gods ride on
Saturday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr_cSccFePg The far side of
the bridge is Washington. One of my favorite spots on the Washington
side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjvEsJvQe5w You go east on the
Washington side because it has a great shoulder on the eastbound lane
and then west on the Oregon side. Some hipsters did a vlog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkouuwDDpaQ&t=167s West side starts
at 3:10. The road was still closed at the falls a couple of weeks
ago because of the fire, and I have to see if that has opened --
otherwise I have to ride a stretch of HWY 84, which sucks. Good
shoulder, just noisy.


Not my kind of riding, I do not like roads. My kind of riding is this, I
just came back from there a few minutes ago, drenched in sweat but happy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH--6YiJcwU

The MTB is all grimy and dusty now. I crashed only ones in a sharp turn
but it was a slow crash, no big deal.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bicycle kiddy path news AMuzi Techniques 4 December 13th 16 01:20 AM
LA bike path news AMuzi Techniques 14 September 12th 16 11:33 PM
Cincinnati Bike Path News Garrison Hilliard Rides 1 July 28th 14 08:36 PM
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles Light of Aria[_2_] UK 59 March 9th 09 07:17 PM
Some GOOD news about a cycle path for a change! John Burns UK 6 October 18th 05 02:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.