From 6/23/17, Beacon Economics/Summer 2017, "U.S., California Economies Largely Unaffected by National Poitical Turmoil."
| Huge almost zero economic growth! |
"The political theatre that continues to play out in Washington has had
‘very little’ effect on the economy, so far. While policy uncertainty
remains one of the greatest potential hazards to current economic
growth, to date, it has not disrupted the upward trajectory of either
the U.S. or California economies.
The latest edition of Beaconomics has the U.S. economy lining
up for another year of growth in the 2% to 2.3% range – a moderate
level, but somewhat faster than last year and with little sign that the
expansion will be ending any time soon. In California..."
Related articles. Continued moderate growth. The balance/US Economy/Kimberly Amadeo, 6/14/17, "US Economic Outlook: For 2017 and Beyond." "The U.S. economic outlook is healthy according to the key economic indicators. The most critical indicator is gross domestic product, which measures the nation's production output. The GDP growth rate is expected to remain between the 2 percent to 3 percent ideal range. Unemployment is forecast to continue at the natural rate. There isn't too much inflation or deflation. That's a Goldilocks economy. President Trump
promised to increase economic growth to 4 percent. That's actually
faster than is healthy. Growth at that pace leads to an overconfident irrational exuberance. That creates a boom that least to a damaging bust." Related, political inflation. change. Business Insider/Markets/Bob Bryan, 6/2/17, "Trump says the US economy is 'absolutely tremendous" - but it still looks like the 'mess' he says he inherited from Obama."...."On Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the May jobs report, one of the most important indicators of whether the economy is growing "very, very rapidly," and it was decidedly lackluster. .... Trump likes to say he "inherited a mess"
when he took office, but four months into his presidency and despite
his proclamations of rapid improvement, the economy still looks similar
to the way it did before Trump won."
Note graphics. Flag by Alvaro Dominguez from New York Times/Lynn Vavreck, 4/2/16,"American Anger: It's Not the Economy. It's the Other Party." Fragmented Trump from VICE/Matt Phillips, 6/21/17, "Economy seem to be losing faith that the economy will see a 'Trump bump'."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
28 comments:
All the fears that a Trump Presidency would result in a California disaster have been proven mistaken.The stock market keeps going up.Real estate is booming all over except Pacifica ,which flounders in no growth.Trade is increasing,not decreasing.Like Trump said," it will be so good".
10:35
Give it time, give it time. Pacifica real estate has been booming? Do you live in an ugly shingled moonshine shack?
Get off your computer and drive around, take a look or two at asking prices.
Pacifica is a beach town with beautiful scenery at every turn. It rubs shoulders with San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Wine Country and plentiful ocean wildlife. In spite of all of this dreamy amenity we have the most depressed prices of any coastal town in California. We are barely able to top high crime east bay city prices.
The NOBY's are real proud of this because "they've got theirs". Meanwhile we all suffer and are forced to pay for their selfish lifestyle. The NOBY's continue to squash every opportunity to develop a thriving financial tax base making us totally reliant on property taxes generated by stilted and in some cases declining property values.
Keener, Martian and Digre have no idea of how to run a city. They are ruining our town while they pander to a loud-mouthed minority of faux-enviro manipulators..... and we're all forced to subsidize this idiocy. Get rid of them!!!!!
Pacifica is a beach town that doesn't take advantage of being a beach town
The faux-enviro gang in charge has no idea what a beach town is nor do they care.
They only want to "screw everyone else cuz they've got theirs".
These evil bastards gotta go.
8:25
The evil bastards have had control for 40 years.
That explains why Pacifica is sooooo fucked up.
The NO-Nothings will be forced to confront the harsh realities of a $1.5 million dollar deficit next year. Saying NO to everything doesn't bring in the revenue, my fellow forest elves, and you'll soon find that your agenda is going to have to be a bit more...um..."robust" than planned retreat and pot in order to pay the bills coming due!
Bring in the county now before this gets any worse.
Plus they want to add a $500,000 - $1,000,000 rent control bureaucracy to the bottom line.
This is incompetency to unprecedented levels.
The County doesn't want Pacifica due to the amount of debt.
The rent control measure would be entirely paid for by a fee on renters.
Bullshit! It's an optional fee and it wont come close to paying for the bureaucracy and litigation it creates. Let's see some numbers. How many households (not individuals) would be living in rent controlled units. What is the proposed voluntary fee. How many people are expected to pay the additional monthly fee. What are you going to do if no one agrees to pay it? This is more akin to the Trump Care fraud being foisted upon America.
Bullshit on your bullshit 3:10. The fees are not optional or voluntary. The ordinance says what the fee will be and that it will be cost neutral to the city. If the fees don't cover the costs, the fee amount will be increased. Read the ordinance before you start spouting misinformation.
so in other words Rent Control will increase the rent in order to pay for a bureaucracy that is supposed to control the rent. Brilliant!
Based on other cities it is anticipated that the fee will be about $18 a month per unit. Think of it as renter's insurance - $18 a month to ensure you don't get a sudden $600 a month increase, as many renters have recently received, seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
To review, the measure would be cost neutral to the city and payed for entirely by affected renters.
6:45am
"the measure would be cost neutral to the city and payed for entirely by affected renters".
The NOBY's only want to make it safe for frogs and snakes.
Mary Anne Nihart was beaten by a superior candidate in a legitimate election.
Sea Level Rise is going to inundate everything west of Highway One.
Rent Control is better than building affordable housing.
Our environment is our economy.
Trump only wants to Make America Great Again.
Got it?
6:45 your random list of non-sequiturs in no way refutes the fact that the ballot measure is revenue neutral. But I guess after your falsehoods have been fact checked non-sequiturs are all you have left.
Just because it says so doesn't make it so Anonymous 2:20. The cost in the ordinance is estimate to be 700,000 to 800,000. Plus there is 200,000 being set aside for "possible" litigation, then we have three to seven people to run this bureaucracy. And Tenants are going to pay 18 dollars a month and this will make it cost neutral!!! Right. Quite smoking that "legal" weed which is also going to make the city just tons of money and do some simple math. This is a massive boondoggle. What a sad joke on the renters and all the other people of Pacifica.
The California Apartment Association has indicated it will no longer file frivolous lawsuits against rent control (yes, frivolous, those lawsuits have never prevailed yet).
As the measure is written, it must be cost neutral, and as I said earlier, the $18 a month estimate is based on the established track record of other cities with similar measures.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Lawsuits-end-could-spur-other-cities-to-try-11130614.php
Why don't you quote where the California Apartment Association has stated that they are filing frivolous lawsuits. Not a statement by the by the pro-rent control representatives that the lawsuits were frivolous. That is always what the opposition will say. This is another "fake news" statement.
Just 800,000 divided by $18 = 44,444 units to cover that. Math doesn't lie. We do not have that many units to charge. 800,000 is the Base amount of the cost. this is not taking into effect the 200,000 ( another minimum) for the expected lawsuits to be filed, which is another very small estimate.
Established track record of other cities with similar measures!!!! Show us some. Have you seen the cost of rent control in Berkeley and San Francisco?
Pacifica's economics will be destroyed by the cost of this bad legislation. Helping people with their rental issues and costs need to be handled in a way that truly helps them. Not one that enriches attorneys at the expense of the public, tenants and property owners.
Although I agree with your stance on the issue, your math does lie!
The $800,000 is per year and the $18 is per month, so you need to divide the 44,444 by 12 to make it accurate. That gives you 3,703 units, which still seems high. And, as you say, that doesn't take any litigation costs into effect.
I don't think there's any question that if this crazy and needless ordinance gets implemented, it's going to hit the already struggling city budget quite hard.
"CAA shifts focus of rent control fight, suspends legal challenges to ballot measures."
https://caanet.org/caa-shifts-focus-rent-control-fight-suspends-legal-challenges-ballot-measures/
The ordinance requires that the Rental Housing Commission be cost neutral to the city. The initial fee is $19/month, but it will be adjusted as necessary to ensure full funding. Read the ordinance, not misinformation.
The California Apartment Association has indicated it will no longer file frivolous lawsuits against rent control (yes, frivolous, those lawsuits have never prevailed yet).
this post is total bs
you didn't even read the article you linked, did you?
Yes but one of those attorneys is Deirdre Martian's friend. Remember when she tried to tie the hands of our city attorney insisting that this is the only person she was allowed to confer with regarding RENT CONTROL language.
Fortunately we have Mayor O'Neill who represents ALL of Pacifica who put the kibosh on that attempted crooked stunt by the Dragon Lady.
Hello, class. Your teacher is back. Here is today's math problem:
Regardless of whether the $18/month/unit will cover the administrative costs of implementation, the city will have to front the money and then attempt to recoup it later. Where is the magic pot of money Pacifica will use to get the $800,000 needed to launch the rent control program? (please remember to factor the projected FY2018 $1,600,000 deficit into your calculations)
Extra credit: Using the Red-Legged Frog theorem, explain how refusing to build new housing helps people attain housing.
I can't figure out who is more dishonest, compromised and beholding to crazy outside forces. John, Deirdre and Sue D or The Donald and his sinister family.
All of these people have to go before we get to the "point of no return".
What a bunch of aimless ranting. As usual nothing constructive is put forth on FixPacifica.
Post a Comment