Ride an SUB not an SUV

nash wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" wrote:
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Baka" wrote in message

. ..



Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the
soccer
mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to
run
to the store for a pack of smokes, or some **** paper or other silly
little errand. People are slow learners.
Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on
a
$500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
Yeah,
And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.
Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
$100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
they are with 10 acres or more.

I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.

We have not had those kind of prices for 40 years. You are lucky.
one million does not seem to go very far these days
forget about retiring too.


Amen.
Silicon valley fixer uppers start at about $750,000 and nice houses in
good neighborhoods are well over a million. $40,000 to $80,000? Where?
Not anywhere in California. When I retire it is not going to be in
California for damn sure. Too expensive and they tax everything.
Bill Baka

In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend
more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance,
etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

You're wrong. Until recently, the issue is that banks would loan money
on
suburban houses but not on city houses.

Now that's a load of horsecrap.

Until relatively recently, neither FHA nor VA would loan money to buy a
house in any "inner-city" neighborhood. They would only finance suburban
houses. That's historical fact you can look up.

That claim is also false, though not as false as your earlier claim.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article 6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
trips.
The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.
half a point each.
X plus gas = X minus gas + Y

Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.

Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?

See, now you're changing the subject. I wouldn't consider a 45 mile
driver to be a "little trip".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

George Conklin wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend
more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance,
etc.
Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.
You're wrong. Until recently, the issue is that banks would loan money
on
suburban houses but not on city houses.
Now that's a load of horsecrap.

Being able to eliminate one car
saves a family $6,000 per year - which adds up quickly.
On my TWO cars last year, I spent less than that. Considerably less.


Baxter always posts the same lie. Even with mass transit to go to work, you
have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars to
go shopping and for inter-city travel.


Let me clarify. I live in California where gas is now over $3.00 a
gallon for junk unleaded. If a husband and wife both have new SUVs they
have just spent about $50,000, minimum. Now figure about $200 a month
for full coverage insurance and 900 miles a week at maybe 20 MPG. That's
about 45 gallons a week just to commute times $3, or $135 a week just
for gas, not counting those little shopping trips.
$700/month new SUV payments.
$200/month insurance, mandatory with a loan.
$540/month for gasoline to get to and from work.
$1,440/month just to support the SUV habit, plus town trips.
That is now over $17,000/year for the car habit.
Add that to the payments on an overpriced, pre-fab, built by Mexicans,
junk McHouse and it does not make any sense.
If I have to commute (and I avoid that as much as possible) then I will
buy a $1,000 junker and drive it until the doors fall off. If people
aren't impressed with my ride then too F***ing bad.
Stranger still is that some of these new house, just married with 2.5
kids, couples actually buy riding lawn mowers to show off on. Guess
which ones go into foreclosure first? I could (really!) mow the lawns
faster with a me powered push mower. It works great on tiny lots if you
run and get those blades really spinning and the grass doesn't have a
chance. Great workout on 100 degree days.
Bill Baka

In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

The root problem is density. Most travel is the daily commute, getting
one person between home and work with a small amount of cargo. Most
cars fit 4 people comfortably with a trunk for a large amount of cargo.
Then to every "person pod" like that you add an oversized engine and a
tank for fuel to power it over very long distances. On top of it all,
you expect the sole occupant to pay attention and control the whole
contraption at high speeds in an open area with a lot of other such
objects.

What is so specifically *good* about cars?

They take you from where you are to where you want to be when you want
to go. Your trip is in a reasonably comfortable and safe environment,
and it is typically as fast as or faster than any alternative.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" wrote in message
nk.net...



Baxter always posts the same lie. Even with mass transit to go to work,
you
have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars
to
go shopping and for inter-city travel.

Average family has more than one car. If they live in the city where
transit is available they can easily get by with just one.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dane Buson" wrote in message
...
In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin wrote:
"di" wrote in message

It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
we
still are free to do that.

Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
way.

Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.

When knowledgeable people talk about the end of _cheap_ oil, rightarts hear
"end of oil".

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"di" wrote in message
...


Yes, but with the law of supply & demand, you still have the freedom to
choose what you drive, it you are willing to pay the price or suffer from
a
reduced amount of fuel. What some of these people are talking about is
they will decide what you drive.

The people who make the cars will decide that - and have been doing that for
decades.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"george conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doc O'Leary" wrote in message
...

The root problem is density.

More density =... and slower commutes.

But also -shorter- commutes -- which often take LESS time.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

Until relatively recently, neither FHA nor VA would loan money to buy a
house in any "inner-city" neighborhood. They would only finance suburban
houses. That's historical fact you can look up.

That claim is also false, though not as false as your earlier claim.

In addition to these references, do a web search on the practice of
"redlining".

------------
1934: As a result, Congress passed the FHA (Federal Housing Administration)
Act which provided financing that made it less expensive for people to buy a
new home in subdivisions over renting one in the city. The catch?
Municipalities had to offer subdivision (ie sprawl) zoning to get the
financing. Oh yes, and non-whites could not apply. Hard to believe, but
true.
http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/000188.html

Increasingly, federal policies are viewed as playing a critical role in the
creation of urban
sprawl and of racial segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas; see, for
example, Nivola (2000).
This causative role of the federal government is seen most clearly in past
policies, such as federal
support for interstate construction and FHA housing loans in the 1950s.
These two policies
interacted to facilitate the movement of whites to new suburban enclaves
while denying home-
ownership opportunities to minorities. But while this historical role is now
readily
acknowledged, the continuing role of federal policy in the ongoing processes
of urban sprawl
and in evolving patterns of racial separation and integration has received
little attention and is
not well understood. This paper takes up this challenge by analyzing
patterns in a place which is
considered both a capital of sprawl and a bastion of racial tension. We
argue that both
historically and now, federal policies have interacted with housing market
forces to exacerbate
the racial separation, income segmentation, and urban sprawl that have come
to define this
region’s growth.
http://www.economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers02/02-11.pdf