Cal DL Coach Tony Tuioti Reportedly Nebraska-bound

calumnus said:

---

95bears said:

---

How we're ever going to compete vis-a-vis the powerhouses that are in affordable areas is beyond me.

We're at a 3X cost of living disadvantage compared to somewhere like Lincoln, NE.

Cost of living comparison for Berkeley vs Lincoln

This is before factoring in the income tax differences, with California having the most oppressive income and misc. taxes and enforcement in the country.

---

To deal with even more ridiculous housing costs, Stanford built housing for their coaches. The university owns land, maybe a donor could build some homes on land the university owns that could be rented at below market rates to coaches? Maybe in Strawbery Canyon? Maybe near Lawrence Berkeley Labs or Lawrence Hall of Science? Or along the Bay? It is too bad they let Panoramic Hill get away.

---

Attn mods, this is not about Prop 13!

Good idea, but if the University were going to build subsidized housing for employees, wouldn't the first few hundred go to rising stars on the faculty (who probably get paid less than football assistants)? Okay, you mentioned "donor-built", but if you're looking for a new way to increase the rift between athletics and the faculty, this could be it. I don't have any figures, but I'm sure we lose faculty every year due to the high cost of buying a home here.

I'd love to see more affordable homes for BOTH groups. Of course, I'd love to see more affordable homes for public school teachers, too. I suppose the solution is more housing for all.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

95bears said:

---

How we're ever going to compete vis-a-vis the powerhouses that are in affordable areas is beyond me.

We're at a 3X cost of living disadvantage compared to somewhere like Lincoln, NE.

Cost of living comparison for Berkeley vs Lincoln

This is before factoring in the income tax differences, with California having the most oppressive income and misc. taxes and enforcement in the country.

---

To deal with even more ridiculous housing costs, Stanford built housing for their coaches. The university owns land, maybe a donor could build some homes on land the university owns that could be rented at below market rates to coaches? Maybe in Strawbery Canyon? Maybe near Lawrence Berkeley Labs or Lawrence Hall of Science? Or along the Bay? It is too bad they let Panoramic Hill get away.

---

Attn mods, this is not about Prop 13!

Good idea, but if the University were going to build subsidized housing for employees, wouldn't the first few hundred go to rising stars on the faculty (who probably get paid less than football assistants)? Okay, you mentioned "donor-built", but if you're looking for a new way to increase the rift between athletics and the faculty, this could be it. I don't have any figures, but I'm sure we lose faculty every year due to the high cost of buying a home here.

I'd love to see more affordable homes for BOTH groups. Of course, I'd love to see more affordable homes for public school teachers, too. I suppose the solution is more housing for all.

---

I guess I didn't include it in my post, but yes, my idea is it should also be faculty housing. That is what Panoramic Hill was originally.

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

philbert said:

---

CA is 16th lowest in effective tax rates according to this: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/

Shocking to me...

---

This is no surprise to me. Prop 13 is the reason. It has been great for all homeowners in the state.

---

This is the biggest bunch of hooey I've read in a long time. It is good for some homeowners. People of your generation basically enacted an entitlement - one that is not means tested but instead based on the wealthy keeping their homes until they are at least old enough to transfer their tax basis to a new home or a family member (i.e., game the system). The rest of us (your children and grandchildren, if you have them) subsidize that entitlement with higher taxes that we pay, simply because we were born later. Why should you get a discount on what you pay for fire, schools, and other basic services?

Many of the people with low taxes live in communities where government built infrastructure prior to Prop 13. Prop 13 ended that and now new homes are for the most part constructed in areas where the government pays nothing for infrastructure, schools, fire departments, etc. Instead, homeowners pay mello-roos - an additional tax of around .75-1%.

The purpose behind prop 13 was noble; to ensure that people were not taxed out of their homes by rapidly increasing assessed values. But capping the maximum annual increase at 1% has distorted that goal to the point where people are not paying their fair share for basic services. And in many if not most cases, these are the people who can better afford to pay than new first time home buyers (i.e., older people who have accumulated wealth and/or are higher earners). Add to that the loopholes that have been added that have no bearing on the original purpose (e.g., parent to child, parent to grandchild exemptions and property tax transfers) and no you've created a generational entitlement.

I have no doubt you like your government handout. But don't pretend it is good for everyone.

---

The parties that primarily benefit from Prop 13 are corporations. They spent millions to insure that Prop 13 would pass. It was sold to the public as a way to protect elderly individuals.
Every time some one proposes repealing Prop 13 the corporations come back with the bogus argument. We must protect elderly home owners.
There is a move afoot to amend Prop 13 by having it apply only to individuals. But the corporations say "we can't have that". We must leave Prop 13 as it is.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

philbert said:

---

CA is 16th lowest in effective tax rates according to this: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/

Shocking to me...

---

This is no surprise to me. Prop 13 is the reason. It has been great for all homeowners in the state.

---

This is the biggest bunch of hooey I've read in a long time. It is good for some homeowners. People of your generation basically enacted an entitlement - one that is not means tested but instead based on the wealthy keeping their homes until they are at least old enough to transfer their tax basis to a new home or a family member (i.e., game the system). The rest of us (your children and grandchildren, if you have them) subsidize that entitlement with higher taxes that we pay, simply because we were born later. Why should you get a discount on what you pay for fire, schools, and other basic services?

Many of the people with low taxes live in communities where government built infrastructure prior to Prop 13. Prop 13 ended that and now new homes are for the most part constructed in areas where the government pays nothing for infrastructure, schools, fire departments, etc. Instead, homeowners pay mello-roos - an additional tax of around .75-1%.

The purpose behind prop 13 was noble; to ensure that people were not taxed out of their homes by rapidly increasing assessed values. But capping the maximum annual increase at 1% has distorted that goal to the point where people are not paying their fair share for basic services. And in many if not most cases, these are the people who can better afford to pay than new first time home buyers (i.e., older people who have accumulated wealth and/or are higher earners). Add to that the loopholes that have been added that have no bearing on the original purpose (e.g., parent to child, parent to grandchild exemptions and property tax transfers) and no you've created a generational entitlement.

I have no doubt you like your government handout. But don't pretend it is good for everyone.

---

The parties that primarily benefit from Prop 13 are corporations. They spent millions to insure that Prop 13 would pass. It was sold to the public as a way to protect elderly individuals.
Every time some one proposes repealing Prop 13 the corporations come back with the bogus argument. We must protect elderly home owners.
There is a move afoot to amend Prop 13 by having it apply only to individuals. But the corporations say "we can't have that". We must leave Prop 13 as it is.

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

---

Due to auto makers building cars to meet California's higher emission standards and reduced coal burning in power plants.

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

---

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/publications/50-years-of-progress

BearGreg said:

---

The Prop 13 discussion is really interesting for Off Topic. Let's keep it to Cal Sports here.

---

+1. If there wasn't an OT board available, perhaps one could forgive these thrilling and enlightening posts about Prop 13. Certainly Prop 13 has never been discussed at all nor written about in every media outlet known to mankind. But there is an OT Board, Praise Oski. Thank you BearGreg. Why not just move this thread over to the OT board, where it belongs?

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

---

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/publications/50-years-of-progress

---

My point is still true. The air is cleaner in Utah today than it was 40 years ago, in spite of the population increase.

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

---

Due to auto makers building cars to meet California's higher emission standards and reduced coal burning in power plants.

---

Partially true (the part about coal burning power plants).

Golden One said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Guessing you want to increase the tax burden for them and chase them out of the state....At some point when is enough enough! My son is working in Utah. Gas/Gallon is $1.96 there.....over here $3.25....what is the reason for that difference?

---

You can blame that price difference on the California legislature. They have required that all gasoline sold in California meet much more restrictive specifications in order to reduce emissions. That required major refinery modifications and severely limited the number of refineries that can manufacture gasoline to meet those specs. Thus, the supply/demand balance is much tighter in California than in other states, where demand can be met from sources anywhere in the U.S. and, in fact, the world. Add to that the higher state taxes on gasoline (excise and sales taxes) and you have the price difference you noted.

---

Or you can thank the Legislature for taking action against air pollution. The air in CA is significantly cleaner than it was 40 years ago.

---

The air is cleaner in Utah than it was 40 years ago also.

---

Due to auto makers building cars to meet California's higher emission standards and reduced coal burning in power plants.

---

Partially true (the part about coal burning power plants).

---

Utah still gets 70% (as of 2017) of its electricity from burning coal, but it was 82% just in 2007.