After a devastating explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1917 killed more than 1,500 people and left thousands homeless, residents of Massachusetts sent hundreds of thousands of dollars of aid to the survivors, including large amounts of furniture, says the disaster historian and New York University professor Jacob Remes. But the distribution of that aid came with certain expectations: âThe attitude was very strongly that disaster relief should restore the status quo, so if you were poor before the disaster you should stay poor and if you were rich before the disaster, you should stay rich.â This translated directly into the quality of material aid provided: âPeople who were working class or poor got used furniture, and the people who were rich got new furniture. Very often what we are doing when we are building back from a disaster is trying the preserve the unequal status quo.â
That's what they did with compensation for victims of 9/11. The traiders etc. got a ton of taxpayer money, the cleaners not a lot.
After a devastating explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1917 killed more than 1,500 people and left thousands homeless, residents of Massachusetts sent hundreds of thousands of dollars of aid to the survivors, including large amounts of furniture, says the disaster historian and New York University professor Jacob Remes. But the distribution of that aid came with certain expectations: âThe attitude was very strongly that disaster relief should restore the status quo, so if you were poor before the disaster you should stay poor and if you were rich before the disaster, you should stay rich.â This translated directly into the quality of material aid provided: âPeople who were working class or poor got used furniture, and the people who were rich got new furniture. Very often what we are doing when we are building back from a disaster is trying the preserve the unequal status quo.â
If you look at FEMA funding from 2017-2019 (periods that have wrapped), and allocate the spend by resident, you get the following:
State
FEMA $/Resident
.Louisiana
2,721
.Hawaii
1,551
.Florida
953
.Alaska
687
.Texas
639
.Arkansas
530
.Vermont
525
.Nebraska
454
.Iowa
447
.South Dakota
385
.Kentucky
362
.North Carolina
334
.Mississippi
293
.West Virginia
278
.California
230
.Oregon
223
.Alabama
222
.Oklahoma
209
.Kansas
206
.South Carolina
206
.New Mexico
184
.North Dakota
182
.Missouri
173
.Georgia
163
.Michigan
123
.Montana
122
.Maine
115
Something I havenât seen mentioned yet (sorry if I missed it) is that the amount of money going to Louisiana is huge - and compare its cost of housing/living with areas like CA and thereâs an even greater disparity in who takes what from the pool of dough. The COL of $92 in Louisiana matches with $134 in CA. https://worldpopulationreview.... So the cost in LA being smaller means that itâs taking even more in help from states that provide it, but fortunately you get more bang for the buck.
So the value of these properties is the mean average for the state which is what your statement about the percentage of the total housing stock suggests.
I suggest otherwise that these particular properties far exceed the average mean price of a house in California. And these are not just homes, these are also commercial real estate properties which have an even higher value and value to the tax base.
Where did you get your numbers ?
If you had not brought up the budget of California I would not have responded to it. And how do you not talk about a budget deficit when you bring up the subject of the budget ?
Your oars do not seem to be in the water. Just sayin'.
Let's stick to the math I used before... (12,000 / 7,500,000) * 100 â 0.16%
12,000 is the reported number of destroyed buildings. Not all houses, but let's assume they are.
I estimated single family units in CA at 7.5M, that's low based on 2020 data
The mean value of those homes isn't the metric for revenue, it's purchase price. Value has accelerated greater there than in the rest of the state, but the rule exists for everyone so let's just leave you your "value" assumption and move on....
Let's assume the taxable base of the homes destroyed is 5X the average in the state. That would make their percentage of the state revenue 0.8% (0.16 X5).
CA's RE tax revenue from private property is $90B. If all of the revenue went away for the 12,000 properties, it would equal $720M ($90B x 0.8). That's not the case, and any percentage of that number, while significant, isn't THE REASON that Newsome or others would create policy.
You are grasping at every possible conspiratorial straw to try and "prove" for some reason that California is managed by idiots. The rules weren't enacted by Newsome, they are a product of the famous "Prop" system that I've heard about forever even though none of them have ever affected me.
The point of all of this is to say.... stop tossing partisan bullshit about mismanagement every chance you get as some sort of litmus test / circumstantial proof that you, Trump, and the Republicans are right that the country needs to be destroyed from the inside. Any of the solutions to these problems are expenses you wouldn't pay for anyway, so suggesting mismanagement as the cause is opportunistic for situations that are unavoidable because of both parties. If you're not sure, let's discuss the Texas electrical grid and their willingness to "plan ahead" and "invest in safety".
I didn't bring up the budget, you did and I just responded. Never was my point, it was yours. I only mentioned that Newsome was blocking the legitimate sale of property and his motivation for it. It is also to keep people from cashing out and moving taking their taxable income part out of the tax base with them. Newsome is desperate to keep people from leaving with the annual loss around 700,000 people per year. That is a boat load of taxable income going bye, bye. He has been trying hard to get an exit tax imposed as a penalty for leaving. So far he has failed to get that done. You're playing checkers.
I appreciate that on Fox news and your online sources facts are inconvenient, but to paraphrase our discussion. - you suggest that Newsome is making policy to protect real estate tax revenue. - I respond, pointing out the stupidity of an argument over 0.16% of housing stock, and the resultant impact on RE taxes - You point out there is an accumulated deficit (with links even) - I respond by questioning your newfound concern for CA deficits while supporting the guy who created more national debt than anyone, a mark he's sure to enhance soon - you respond that I brought up the budget. Yet another example of your fact avoidance strategy: never answer a question or respond to a statement... you just throw out another one. The problem with my playing checkers is that you go from playing tic-tac-toe to hopscotch to connect 4 with every answer.
So the value of these properties is the mean average for the state which is what your statement about the percentage of the total housing stock suggests.
I suggest otherwise that these particular properties far exceed the average mean price of a house in California. And these are not just homes, these are also commercial real estate properties which have an even higher value and value to the tax base.
Where did you get your numbers ?
If you had not brought up the budget of California I would not have responded to it. And how do you not talk about a budget deficit when you bring up the subject of the budget ?
Your oars do not seem to be in the water. Just sayin'.
