Back on the Front Porch in Long Beach after a very enjoyable week in the Valley of the Sun. The most noticeable difference between Scottsdale, a bump of about a quarter million residences sitting in the Phoenix area, and Long Beach, a bigger bump of about half a million residents, is the newness. New roads, new schools, new car dealers, new malls and “centres,” new resorts, new golf courses and of course almost all of this built for and because of thousands of new houses.
Long Beach has—well, let’s say mature—Long Beach has mature housing stock and no real room to build new housing stock—single family residence housing stock that is there thanks to plenty of upward room for more condos and skyhigh residences. In this, our community is like most of coastal Southern California reaching well inland; established neighborhoods with little to no room for major home builders like Kaufmann and Broad or Lanier to build five-hundred home tracts with four different models all in the same color, with no yards. With no room to build hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of new homes our existing neighborhoods have been more influenced by demand than supply in establishing values. In areas like Scottsdale, and Temecula, Riverside, Lancaster—where there have been thousands of new homes built in the past decade—values have been impacted by the constant supply of new housing stock as tracts have been completed and sold out.
Because of the significant number of new homes built and put on the market in Scottsdale, and many other communities in the United States, they are many more adversely impacted by the current housing and credit market conditions than in Long Beach. While Long Beach is affected by an increase in foreclosures and declining values in most neighborhoods, as a whole the city is in much better shape than many areas of the country, and state, because our city consists overwhelmingly of a static, mature supply of single family residences.
Driving around Scottsdale this past week, and Colorado Springs earlier in the summer which also has seen numerous “Target Towns” as one of our friend calls the ready made communities, some areas seem to have a “For Sale” or “Bank Owned” sign in front of every home. Riding through the Sonoran Desert, our wrangler-guide Jeff was telling of the rapid expansion into the desert the past ten years as home builders created community after community. Advertising “New Models As Low As…” above signs that stated “Low Interest and No Down Payment…” builders quickly sold our their stock to new home buyers. Today many of those home buyers are out of their homes and back renting the apartments or houses they were renting two, three or even five years ago.
In the meantime the home builders and new taxes from the home sales paid for rapid growth and development of infrastructure that will last for decades—ready for when the housing market rebounds and new residents move into their ready made neighborhoods. Meanwhile back at the Front Porch in Long Beach, while we benefit from mature neighborhoods and long term homeowners entering or in retirement living next door to new homeowners with young families, we face deteriorating or dilapidated infrastructure that will have to be rebuilt and paid for in the coming decades—whether the housing market turns or not.
Long Beach squandered long term stable neighborhoods with steadily increasing tax bases and let infrastructure crumble while maintaining a much better than the national average for foreclosures—my estimate; Scottsdale quickly built out and improved its infrastructure taking advantage of homeowners who no longer own homes and whose homes sit vacant. Which community is better off?
Reading our local Press-Telegram on line last week I was reading an article on Bonnie Lowenthal in which many areas where the state needs to expand programs—from public transportation to education to small business development—are mentioned by Lowenthal. When asked “So does this mean higher taxes would be needed for Lowenthal’s priorities, and would she support such a move?” Lowenthal replied, “I don’t know.”
On April 2nd I posted Lowenthal’s responses to an E-Interview I conducted with Lowenthal and her GOP opponent, Gabriella Holt (Lowenthal’s responses here and Holt’s responses here). At the time, Sacramento was almost four months into budget debates—and had another six to go—and I asked both candidates if they felt the severe budget deficit being faced in Sacramento was too little revenue or too much spending. Lowenthal’s answer: Too little revenue.
If Lowenthal, who feels our state does not collect enough in taxes from its citizens and businesses, plans on expanding programs in many areas she should present how to pay for increasing the size of the government to accommodate those programs when it cannot even cover the cost of the programs as they exist today. For Lowenthal to say in April that our state’s budget problem is “too little revenue”, i.e. not enough taxes; and then say in October “I don’t know” when asked if higher taxes are needed to support her agenda if elected needs a more detailed response. For someone who has been in public office as long as she has to answer “I don’t know” is not enough.
Arnie is shopping the Federal Government for $7 Billion because the credit markets are not only tightening the qualification guidelines for Joe Six-Pack and Jane Hockey-Mom trying to buy a house, but also on state governments that are issuing bonds to fill the holes in their budgets because they cannot be fiscally responsible. I hope those who have been critical of the $700 Billion bailout-rescue-saving-grace plan this past week are equally critical, if not more so, of our Governor’s request.
Nothing makes you feel 46 and out of shape like straddling Dolly, who is half draft horse and as wide as two bar stools across the saddle, for an hour in the desert. I walked like Festus from “Gunsmoke” the rest of the day. Dolly, and the aforementioned Jeff, took us through some beautiful desert and reaffirmed in me the incredible beauty our country is blessed with in all fifty states, if you take the time to get on the ground and look around.
On Friday I entered on my mortgage blog that were I in Congress these past few weeks, I would have vociferously argued against any bailout plan, rescue plan or whatever name anyone wanted to give the $700 billion use of funds for the shoring up of credit markets unless some personnel moves were part of the plan. When the Federal Government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac their CEOs, rightly, were pushed out of office as part of the move. The same occurred with AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch and other companies and banks that were taken over with by the government or other private businesses. My requirement for supporting any plan would have been that Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd—who for the past several years were the Chairs of the committees in the House and Senate respectively that had the oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—would lose those positions. If the heads of the companies at least somewhat responsible for the mess we are in had to lose their jobs as part of the government committing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to try to solve the crisis, I think it should follow that the two members of Congress most responsible should as well. And that goes for their Republican counterparts who are senior members of those same committees.
Anyone else a little upset that since taking control of Congress in 2006 the Democrats have held more hearings trying to play “gotcha” with Karl Rove and the Bush Administration than they did on how to better regulate what was then a growing housing bubble and increasing imbalance of mortgage and credit markets that every paper in the country was braying about? For two years House and Senate Democratic leadership has fed their Bush Derangement Syndrome and spent millions on investigations and hearings and what have we learned? Hey, we get it, you don’t like the guy and neither do most of the people reading this, but shouldn’t you have spent a little more time fulfilling your duties and less time on vengeance? Is this what we have to look forward to when the Democrats sweep Congressional races as expected in November?
Speaking of “as expected” much is being made of the polls that show Obama having opened up a gap on McCain. Aren’t these the same polls that had first Gore in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004 with pretty large leads through October in both those years? Anyone else think that perhaps their samples are a bit skewed to the left as seen by their inability to come close to predicting the outcome of most close elections the past decade?
Anyone wondering why the Los Angeles Times is losing subscribers and advertisers and having to lay off hundreds of workers every year need look no further than the issue dropped on my Front Porch this morning. The most electrifying individual to hit our national political scene was in the LAT’s backyard yesterday and they covered the event as if Sarah Palin gave a speech in Cedar Rapids. While our own Press-Telegram gave the local event front page coverage, the LAT decided to give Obama and his troubles with voters Appalachia front page status and relegate a local event featuring the polarizing Palin page 13 status. Whatever your obvious politics, at least recognize news. Page 13? Really? Some good journalism there, don’t cha know.
One last point before I get off the rocker and start grilling some moose burgers. If I want to eat moose burgers, or tofu burgers, or pastrami burgers at my local restaurant that is my choice, not the state’s. Once again some legislator who cares more about government intervention into “protecting” me instead of fixing roads, enabling better delivery of funds to hospitals, encouraging more businesses to create more good jobs has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that meddles where government does not belong. Sen. Alex Padilla from L.A., who gets my vote for most intrusive politician, introduced the bill that requires chain restaurants to disclose the calories of all their menu items, and our “Mr. Universe” Governor signed it. Padilla says, “It’s tough to eat better without information to make the best decisions.” People eating in Jack In The Box or McDonalds or Burger King already made a bad decision, your law is going to make it better? Fat people are generally fat because they consistently make bad decisions, I should know as I am putting an extra 20 or 30 pounds on a horse like Dolly because I make my own bad decisions. Putting caloric values on the Carl’s menu is going to make the fat guy in front of me choose the Angus Burger instead of the Double Bacon Western Cheeseburger to go with his extra large fries and 64 ounce Orange Crush? The obese mom in the Tahoe in front of me at McDonald’s is going to get the chicken wraps for her three equally obese kids instead of the $1 double cheeseburgers because, “OH MY GOD! I never knew the chicken wraps had fewer calories!”?
Look, I know all about calories, carbohydrates, fat and other nutritional information—and at this point so does almost everyone else in this country, if they don’t they are either ignorant, stupid or a bit of both. I also know that the less I eat the less I weigh, and so does everyone else. I also know that the more I exercise the better health I will have and less husky I will be. Everyone knows this, but fat people make stupid decisions when it comes to eating and exercise. Don’t believe me? Stand at the check out at Ralph’s or Stater Brothers or Vons and look in the carts of the people checking out. Fat people will have fatty foods, sodas, cookies and frozen pizzas—no fruits and vegetables. Healthy looking people will have fresh meats, fish, vegetables and fruits. Go to the movies. The lady with the triple wide seat will be pumping the fake butter into her 124 ounce popcorn, the skinny lady smuggled in her own carrots. Decisions have consequences, make bad food decisions and the consequences are you, and probably your kids, will be fat. Posting how many calories are in a Whopper Junior won’t change the universal law of cause and effect—but our politicians will think it will so will cause businesses in our state to spend millions of dollars to tell people the choice of bad decisions they have to make.
Our illustrious politicians can pass a bill to try to get people already making bad decisions more informed about the bad decision they are about to make anyway in a week—showing our nation’s obese are not the only one’s making bad decisions with regularity; but for something that really matters, like being fiscally responsible, they take almost a year and still make bad decisions. Maybe instead of posting calorie counts at fast food restaurants we should post IQ points on politicians—Alex Padilla, Los Angeles (D-84).
Have a great week!
Your thoughts welcome, click here to email me or on “Leave A Comment” below for public response.
