Riverside County Migration Patterns show plenty of income coming and going


$92,559 is highest annual income moving to Riverside County. Where’s it coming from?

Contra Costa County provided Riverside with 136 new taxpayers — with an average 1.72 dependents — who had an average federal taxable income of $92,559.

PUBLISHED: May 10, 2017 at 12:01 am | UPDATED: May 11, 2017 at 9:15 am

Riverside County migration patterns show plenty of income coming and going.

IRS filing data for 2015, the latest figures available, details how many taxpayers came from, or relocated to, Riverside County and what level of adjusted gross income was on the move.

Where were the big dollars moving? Contra Costa County provided Riverside with 136 new taxpayers — with an average 1.72 dependents — who had an average federal taxable income of $92,559. That’s the county that sent Riverside the highest per-filer average incomes in 2015.

Here are the other counties with the highest-paid taxpayers who came to or left Riverside County.

Coming to Riverside from …

  • Santa Clara County: 204 filers with an average 1.88 dependents and income of $83,137
  • New York County (Manhattan) : 176 filers with 1.64 dependents and income of $79,455
  • Snohomish (Washington) County : 166 filers with 1.81 dependents and income of $78,163
  • King County (Seattle): 190 filers with 1.78 dependents and income of $66,842

Compare that wealth to typical inbound movers. Countywide, 38,159 filers came here from around the state and nation with an average 2.09 dependents and income of $49,256.

Leaving Riverside to …

Contra Costa County : 153 filers moved with an average 1.88 dependents and income of $86,948.
Pierce County (Tacoma): 133 filers with 2.04 dependents and income of $58,677.
Orange County: 4,653 filers with 1.95 dependents and income of $57,920.
Alameda County: 212 filers with 1.50 dependents and income of $57,363.
San Bernardino County: 7,032 filers with 2.15 dependents and income of $54,611.

Across Riverside County, 35,353 filers left with an average 2 dependents and income of $50,222.

When you look at income migration on a state-by-state basis, IRS data show California gaining the largest per-filer average incomes in 2015 from Connecticut at $127,017; District of Columbia at $102,704 and New York at $102,681. The largest departing incomes went to Florida ($113,488); Delaware ($105,090) and Vermont ($102,621).

Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore Best for Recent Grads


Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore Best for Recent Grads

For recent college graduates, Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh are some of the country’s best places to live, according to new Trulia research released on Wednesday. Trulia used real estate listings on its site, as well as job postings on Indeed.com, to determine the “sweet spots” that offer both good jobs (ones appropriate for recent graduates) and in-budget housing (properties that a recent graduate could presumably afford).

About 6 percent of young college graduates moved locations for a new job last year—more than four times the amount of all adults in general.

“These educated young adults are particularly prone to move for a job or a job search,” Trulia reported. “Whereas just 1.4 percent of all adults moved in the past year to take or look for a new job, 6.2 percent of young college grads did.”

Ultimately, Trulia found, the markets with the most job opportunities and the highest earning potential are the most out-of-budget for recent graduates. These areas include Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Houston, New York, and San Jose, California. Still, there are some metros that are affordable and offer a decent job market for a young grad.

“The bad news is that the local markets with the most opportunities for young grads are among the least affordable,” Trulia reported. “The good news is that some lower-cost markets also offer numerous opportunities for recent grads, though not as many as the priciest markets. While there’s no place that offers the magic combination of extensive job opportunities and easily affordable housing (and if that place existed, it probably wouldn’t stay affordable for long), we found six metros where you can spend a bit less on housing without giving up too much on the job options.”

Detroit came in at No. 3 in terms of living affordability, while nearly 42 percent of listings in Dayton, Ohio, meet the typical new grad’s budget. In Seattle, Trulia revealed, nearly 24 percent of all job listings are appropriate for new graduates, while Baltimore has a strong job market and Hartford, Connecticut, offers great median income.

Pittsburgh offers the best of both worlds, according to Trulia. It ranks No. 17 in affordability and No. 37 for jobs.

Where To Invest In Housing In 2017

~ click on the link below for the complete article you can click through from Forbes ~<img height=”1″ width=”1″ style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1494993704116832&ev=PageView&noscript=1″ />

Where To Invest In Housing In 2017

<img height=”1″ width=”1″ style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1494993704116832&ev=PageView&noscript=1″ />

Whether looking for a place to live or a property to rent out for yield, every home buyer wants to make a smart investment. To find out where you can do just that in 2017 Forbes teamed up with Local Market Monitor, a North Carolina-based company that tracks more than 300 housing markets. Below you’ll find 20 markets where population, jobs and home prices are growing. Florida and Texas dominate, but solid markets can be found across the United States. For every city on the list, Local Market Monitor expects home prices to grow by at least 17% by 2020.

The 25 Suburbs Where Millennials Are Moving

~ Riverside #1 FTW!! Heck yeah. Love my city 😉 ~

The 25 Suburbs Where Millennials Are Moving

Thousands of millennials are moving to the suburbs of Riverside, Calif., San Antonio, Texas and Orlando, Fla. The burbs of those three metro areas saw the greatest growth in the number of adults aged 25 to 34 between 2010 and 2015, according to data from the Urban Land Institute provided to TIME.

“Riverside is a long way from Austin, Portland or Seattle in terms of coolness, but a lot of those things that make those cities attractive to the millennials — craft breweries, independent stores and restaurants — they’re now springing up here,” says local real estate developer Randall Lewis. “Historically, this is a marketplace people would come to for housing affordability, but now that a lot of millennials are postponing the buying decision, there’s a strong apartment market out here.”

The apartment growth in the Riverside metro area reflects a broader trend — researchers found “urban” areas outside of cities and “suburban” areas within cities when analyzing population density. In part thanks to those new living options, many suburban areas are gaining millennials. Of the 50 metro areas the Urban Land Institute analyzed, the vast majority saw an increase in suburban millennials from 2010 to 2015, while just seven saw a decline.

Hover or tap circles on the map below to see the population change for that suburb.


Millenial pop. increase

Total pop. increase








Millennial Population Change


Rank Metro Area Millennial Change 2010-2015 (%) Millennial Change 2010-2015 (#)
1 Riverside, CA 16.2% 83,843
2 San Antonio, TX 14.4% 32,267
3 Orlando, FL 13.9% 32,763
4 Virginia Beach, VA 12.8% 22,542
5 San Diego, CA 12.0% 47,279
6 Miami, FL 11.3% 67,274
7 Baltimore, MD 10.3% 24,270
8 Houston, TX 10.3% 81,644
9 Buffalo, NY 10.3% 9,866
10 Sacramento, CA 10.1% 23,572
11 Phoenix, AZ 9.3% 44,943
12 Oklahoma, OK 9.1% 12,973
13 New Orleans, LA 9.1% 10,219
14 Jacksonville, FL 8.7% 13,840
15 Los Angeles, CA 8.1% 120,934
16 Tampa, FL 7.7% 22,355
17 Las Vegas, NV 6.9% 14,866
18 Austin, TX 6.9% 14,011
19 Providence, RI 6.0% 7,794
20 Washington, DC 5.9% 31,862
21 Dallas, TX 5.8% 46,325
22 Salt Lake, UT 5.7% 8,357
23 Philadelphia, PA 5.5% 29,922
24 Richmond, VA 5.4% 6,143
25 New York, NY 4.9% 71,803
Source: Urban Land Institute

Some areas, like Riverside, saw millennial growth in the city and suburbs alike. But other regions, like Orlando Fla., gained millennials in the suburbs, while losing them in the city.

Nationally, nearly 73% of 25-to 34-year-olds lived in the suburbs in 2015, and 21% lived in cities — a ratio that is unchanged from 2010. That challenges the notion that cities are all millennial magnets. But there has been an increase in the number of young adults in urban areas, largely due to a rise in births 25 years ago, says Dowell Myers, professor of demography and urban planning at University of Southern California.

“Between 1978 and 1990, there was a 32% increase in births, so now there are 32% more young adults in the city,” explains Myers. “That upswing has led people to think that there’s a real change in taste, when there’s just a lot more young people born 25 years ago.” He believes American cities have reached “peak millennial,” with the largest millennial birth cohort passing age 25 in 2015, and smaller cohorts to follow. That demographic shift likewise explains the millennial boom in the suburbs.


Reforming land use regulations

~ I hope you enjoy the below article. As it pertains to building affordable real estate in many parts of the country, I find it interesting. I hope you do as well. ~


Reforming land use regulations

Arguably, land use controls have a more widespread impact on the lives of ordinary Americans than any other regulation. These controls, typically imposed by localities, make housing more expensive and restrict the growth of America’s most successful metropolitan areas. These regulations have accreted over time with virtually no cost-benefit analysis. Restricting growth is often locally popular.  Promoting affordability is hardly a financially attractive aim for someone who owns a home.  Yet the maze of local land use controls imposes costs on outsiders, and on the American economy as a whole.

New York City enacted its pioneering zoning code in 1916. The Supreme Court only established the constitutionality of Euclidean zoning, which restricts neighborhoods to single uses, in 1926. Yet, these restrictions didn’t meaningfully prevent new building in much of America until the 1970s. Abundant new construction, not just in Texas but also in New York, Los Angeles and greater San Francisco, ensured that as late as 1970, prices remained close to the physical costs of construction in much of America.

Yet starting in the 1960s, a property rights revolution occurred in the U.S. Backed by environmentalist rhetoric in the suburbs and preservationist priorities in the cities, American localities increasingly restricted the rights of property owners to build. We changed from a country in which landowners had relatively unfettered freedom to add density to a country in which veto rights over new projects are shared by a dizzying array of abutters and stakeholders. Consequently, we now build far less in the most successful, best educated parts of the country, and housing prices in these areas are far higher than construction costs or prices elsewhere.

Affordability and Construction Costs

 In ordinary conversation, people usually just discuss nominal housing prices.   Housing advocates often discuss affordability, which is defined by linking the cost of living to incomes. But the regulatory approach on housing should compare housing prices to the Minimum Profitable Construction Cost, or MPPC. An unfettered construction market won’t magically reduce the price of purchasing lumber or plumbing. The best price outcome possible, without subsidies, is that prices hew more closely to the physical cost of building.

In a recent paper with Joseph Gyourko, we characterize the distribution of  prices relative to Minimum Profitable Construction Costs across the U.S.   These costs are based on R.S. Means, which estimates building costs and sells these estimates to the construction industry. We base our estimates on an “economy” quality home, and assume that builders in an unregulated market should expect to earn 17 percent over this purely physical cost of construction, which would have to cover other soft costs of construction including land assembly.

We then compare these construction costs with the distribution of self-assessed housing values in the American Housing Survey. The distribution of price to MPPC ratios shows a nation of extremes.  Fully, 40 percent of the American Housing Survey homes are valued at 75 percent or less of their Minimum Profitable Production Cost. This finding is not that surprising. Most homes are old and we are comparing them to the cost of building new housing. Most used cars also sell for much less than the price of building a new car. Another 33 percent of homes are valued at between 75 percent and 125 percent of construction costs.

Other data seems to support that most American homes do not seem to have been valued for much more than replacement costs in 2013 view. In 2014, seventy percent of the metropolitan areas covered by the National Association of Realtors had median sales prices below $200,000, and these typically reflect somewhat newer, nicer homes. We also found that 85 percent of the metropolitan areas in our sample had median price to MPPC ratios that were below 125 percent. Price growth has been steady since 2013, which is unfortunately, the last year for which we have both R.S. Means and American Housing Survey data, but the basic point that much of America remains quite affordable is still true today.

But most productive parts of America are unaffordable. The National Association of Realtors data shows median sales prices over $1,000,000 in the San Jose metropolitan area and over $500,000 in Los Angeles. One tenth of American homes in 2013 were valued at more than double Minimum Profitable Production Costs, and assuredly the share is much higher today. In 2005, at the height of the boom, almost 30 percent of American homes were valued at more than twice production costs.  Our painful housing bust eliminated some of the affordability problem in our most expensive areas, but that problem has returned.

America’s affordability problem is local, not national, but that doesn’t mean that land use regulations don’t have national implications. Historically, when parts of America experienced outsized economic success, they built enormous amounts of housing. New housing allowed thousands of Americans to participate in the productivity of that locality. Between 1880 and 1910, bustling Chicago’s population grew by an average of 56,000 each year. Today, San Francisco is one of the great capitals of the information age, yet from 1980 to 2010, that city’s population grew by only 4200 people per year.

Land use controls that limit the growth of such successful cities mean that Americans increasingly live in places that make it easy to build, not in places with higher levels of productivity.

Land use controls that limit the growth of such successful cities mean that Americans increasingly live in places that make it easy to build, not in places with higher levels of productivity. Hsieh and Moretti (2015) have estimated that “lowering regulatory constraints” in areas like New York and Silicon Valley would “increase U.S. GDP by 9.5%.” Whether these exact figures are correct, they provide a basis for the claim that America’s most important, and potentially costly, regulations are land use controls.

Supply, Geography and Regulation

 How do we know that high housing costs have anything to do with artificial restrictions on supply? Perhaps the most compelling argument uses the tools of Economics 101. If demand alone drove prices, then we should expect to see places that have high costs also have high levels of construction.

The reverse is true.  Places that are expensive don’t build a lot and places that build a lot aren’t expensive. San Francisco and urban Honolulu have the highest ratios of prices to construction costs in our data, and these areas permitted little housing between 2000 and 2013. In our sample, Las Vegas was the biggest builder and it emerged from the crisis with home values far below construction costs.

The primary alternative to the view that regulation is responsible for limiting supply and boosting prices is that some areas have a natural shortage of land.

Albert Saiz’s (2011) work on geography and housing supply shows that where geography, like water and hills, constrains building, prices are higher.   He also finds that measures of housing regulation predict less building and higher prices.

But lack of land can’t be the whole story. Many expensive parts of America, like Middlesex County Massachusetts, have modest density levels and low levels of construction. Other areas, like Harris County, Texas, have higher density levels, higher construction rates and lower prices. Across Massachusetts towns, Glaeser and Ward (2009) found that there was more construction in places, like Chelsea and Revere, with higher initial density levels and modest prices.

If land scarcity was the whole story, then we should expect houses on large lots to be extremely expensive in America’s high priced metropolitan areas. Yet typically, the willingness to pay for an extra acre of land is low, even in high cost areas. We should also expect apartments to cost roughly the cost of adding an extra story to a high-rise building, since growing up doesn’t require more land. Typically, Manhattan apartments are sold for far more than the engineering cost of growing up, which implies the power of regulatory constraints (Glaeser, Gyourko and Saks, 2005).

Naturally, there are also a host of papers, including Glaeser and Ward (2009), showing the correlation between different types of rules and either reductions in new construction or increases in prices or both. The problem with empirical work any particular land use control is that there are so many ways to say no to new construction. Since the rules usually go together, it is almost impossible to identify the impact of any particular land use control. Moreover, eliminating one rule is unlikely to make much difference, since anti-growth communities would easily find ways to block construction in other ways.

Public Policy and Land Use Regulations

Land use controls may be benign even if they restrict growth and increase prices. Their proponents argue that they prevent environmental damage and reduce the downsides of local growth to the community. Theoretically, it is at least conceivable that America’s web of locally-constructed zoning codes have worked out to be a finely tuned system that functions like a perfect Pigouvian tax internalizing all the offsetting externalities of all new construction.

Yet such a view seems untenable. Getting the right national policy requires comparing the social costs of building in one location versus the costs of building elsewhere. Few localities seriously consider the negative impact that restricting buying will have on non-residents of their town. No locality considers the impact that their local rules may induce more building elsewhere.

California builders have faced an onerous Environment Impact Review process since the 1972 Friends of Mammoth Case. When environmental rules prevent building in highly productive, highly restricted coastal California, homes get built elsewhere, like Las Vegas and Houston. Carbon emissions per household are lower in coastal California than elsewhere in the country, primarily because of a benign Mediterranean climate (Glaeser and Kahn, 2010). California’s land use restrictions don’t eliminate new construction, they merely move it elsewhere, so it isn’t enough to have a purely local perspective. In California’s case, preventing local construction for environmental reasons only ends up increasing carbon emissions by pushing building to less salubrious climes.

Empirically, there is also little evidence that these land use controls correct for real externalities. For example, if people really value the lower density levels that land use controls create, then we should expect to see much higher prices in communities with lower density levels, holding distance to the city center fixed. We do not (Glaeser and War, 2010). Our attempt to assess the total externalities generated by building in Manhattan found that they were tiny relative to the implicit tax on building created by land use controls (Glaeser, Gyourko and Saks, 2005).

Reforming Land Use Controls

Reforming land use controls is so difficult, because they are generated at such a low level of government. Washington didn’t make these rules, and constitutionally, H.U.D. doesn’t have the authority to rewrite them. Most localities like the rules that they have, so there is little chance of regulatory reform from either the top down or the bottom up.

The right strategy is to start in the middle. States do have the ability to rewrite local land use powers, and state leaders are more likely to perceive the downsides of over regulating new construction. Some state policies, like Masschusetts Chapter 40B, 40R and 40S, explicitly attempt to check local land use controls. In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court fought against restrictive local zoning rules in the Mount Laurel decision.

If states do want to reform local land use controls, they might start with a serious cost benefit analysis and then require localities to refrain from any new regulations without first performing cost-benefit analyses of their own. Once the state has decided that current rules are too restrictive, there are two plausible models.

The first, more powerful model is to override local land use controls entirely if a community has prices that are too high and permits too little. Massachusetts Chapter 40B provides a model, where builders can bypass local rules if a community doesn’t have enough affordable housing. This bypass is effective, but it is also unpopular.

A somewhat softer approach is to provide stronger incentives for permitting building, which is the model provided by Massachusetts Chapter 40R and 40S and the Mount Laurel decision. In this model, high price communities that permit too little new construction would pay a transfer to the state that would be transferred to communities that build more. This process is more politically palatable, but also less sure to yield immediate impact.

Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking.

Mom comes up with a brilliant way to split bedroom into 2 without building a wall

~ so innovative! Click on link below to see full video. Also IKEA FTW ~

Mom comes up with a brilliant way to split bedroom into 2 without building a wall


As anyone who grew up in a household full of siblings can tell you, the prospect of not having enough space to stretch out and enjoy your childhood is a very difficult one. We all need to have enough space to spread our wings and learn more about ourselves as kids, but unfortunately, pesky siblings tend to get in the way of our good times.

Even something as simple as having a chair where you can sit by yourself and have a moment of peace and quiet is incredibly crucial to a child’s development. This creative mother was faced with a major dilemma when it came to creating space for her daughters and her solution is definitely one that needs to be shared with a wider audience.

This mother/blogger goes by the name of Clutter Bug and she loves to offer helpful tips to parents who are in need of them on her website. When her children started to lose their minds and began to bicker constantly about their shared bedroom, she came up with a solution that is highly inventive.

Would you believe that she was able to divide one spacious bedroom into two….without having to call a contractor and undergo any sort of renovation?

Parents would do well to take a lesson from this video and learn more about how they can renovate their homes more easily. There is no reason why you should ever have to shell out for an expensive contractor when there are a wide range of simple methods for fixing the problem.

If you would like to find out more about this mother’s renovation idea and how it can be implemented in your home, it is time to check out this amazing video, so that you can learn everything that you need to know.



People Try Living In A Tiny House


People Try Living In A Tiny House

If you are ever wanting to downsize and get a #tinyhouse I think this  Buzzfeed video is a great little insight!

~ Enjoy ~

%d bloggers like this: