25 Top Earning Towns

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Z

zovall_IHB

New member
I didn't notice anything in Southern California on this list:


<a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0707/gallery.BPTL_highest_income.moneymag/index.html" target="_blank"> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0707/gallery.BPTL_highest_income.moneymag/index.html</a>
 
<p>I am familiar with many of these neighborhoods. They are all old money. The local planning and zoning prohibit apartments and commercial properties. Most of the neighborhoods are over 130 years old and are extremely exclusive. Many CEOs live there and there are no renters there to drag down the income scale. The key indicator is the low population in these communities. Everyone is a doctor, CEO, or business owner. The price of the mansions pretty much shut out the low income earners.</p>

<p>Yes, Irvine also has very high income earners but there are more low income earners than high therefore the income average is at the mid 80k. Due to the higher population in Irvine it is difficult for the small group of high income earners to raise the average income. The varieties of housing available allow for a multitude of income levels to exist in Irvine.</p>
 
<p>According to tax returns, Newport Coast beats the highest income on that list of high income places by more than $100k:</p>

<p>http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/article_1556472.php</p>
 
Newport Coast unfortunately is not a city. It is a marketing community name registered and trademarked by the Irvine Company. It is under the jurisdiction in County of Orange. The list Zovall provided are incorporated cities which have their own city hall and governing body. Names like Newport Ridge, Shady Canyon, Crystal Cove, Woodbury, Northpark, Oak Creek, Pacific Ridge and Turtle Ridge will not appear on official road map and government approved geological surveys.
 
Actually, bkshpor, that's not true -- the list in that Money mag survey contains towns that are unincorporated, like Blackhawk Camino Tassajara, which is an unincorporated area near Danville. If you read the survey methodology, they derive the towns with the highest incomes from their list of the "Best Places to Live." The first step they use to determine the "Best Places to Live" is to "Start with places that have populations above 7,500 and under 50,000." That's probably the real reason that no Southern California communities appear on the list.
 
<p>Marty,</p>

<p>You are right. I did not see Blackhawk. Alamo is a city and most of the others listed are cities also. The custom homes behind the gate of Blackhawk are just awful. Many sport celebrities live there and money sure does not buy good taste. The cows on Camino Tassajara are disappearing quickly. Have you seen Shapell's latest Alamo Creek communities just outside the gate of Blackhawk?</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>I check the status of Blackhawk and it is listed as a city or town officially with its own postal zone and sharing its governmental facility with Danville</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hometownlocator.com/CountySearch.cfm?County=Contra%20Costa&StateCode=CA&SCFIPS=06013">http://www.hometownlocator.com/CountySearch.cfm?County=Contra%20Costa&StateCode=CA&SCFIPS=06013</a></p>

<p>The only village from TIC recognized officially as a town is Newport Coast. It now has its own postal zip as well. It is odd why Newport Coast is not listed since its population is below 50,000.</p>

<p> </p>
 
I haven't been up to Blackhawk in years, but I do like the area. If the commute to SF wasn't so bad I'd consider living up there. A friend of mine lives in Blackhawk Country Club and showed me John Madden's house and a couple of homes of the Niners -- very ostentatious. Wish I lived on a golf course like they have up there.
 
I would suspect that population size has something to do with the absence of Orange County towns.





None of the places on the list have populations over 30K, and most are under 10K. This is why, for instance, Manhattan isn't on the list...





-OCR
 
No Manhattan is not on the list because its median income is not really that high. Even 10021 on the upper east side has a median household income of $149,367 in 1999. By comparison in the same year 90210 in Beverly Hills was $155,586. Both numbers are from the census so should be reasonably accurate. I went to the same high school as one of the towns on that list. bkshopr is correct these are areas that like San Marino restrict apartment communities. Also of note to me it looks like all of these areas have very high house price/income ratios. So I am pretty sure all will be affected by this housing crash.
 
<p> </p>

<p>Bishie,</p>

<p>Your comment is good. I agree with you. Both Beverly Hills and Manhattan both are notorious having the reputation of high income but in fact not true. Due to the media coverage of places where there are high spending the impression is that people makes a lot of money. Many are spending beyond their means. Another example is South Coast Plaza Straddles between Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. Both towns have a lower average income due to the hispanic populations. Most of the shoppers are from other wealthy communities and foreigners. I was there on Saturday and I witness young shoppers are spending like crazy. The shoppers were mostly Asians and Caucasians. They were at the Hermes and Vuitton store buying bags like their daddy owns the place. </p>

<p>This case also holds for Manhattan and Beverly Hills. The wealthy small towns’ exclusivity does not promote the equal opportunity housings. They do not need to be politically correct like many larger cities with government bureaucracy. By eliminating the working class these small towns continue to flourish in their rural colonial aristocratic tradition even Gucci and Armani both have to add crown molding in their stores, shedding their urban image, just to appeal to the this buyer segment.</p>
 
<p>>>They do not need to be politically correct like many larger cities with government bureaucracy. <<</p>

<p>Actually, CA has a requirement that each city have a certain amount of low and moderate income housing, and it's mandatory if you create a redevelopment district and float any redevelopment bonds. La Quinta got busted by the state a few years back because they were looking to "trade" a nearby community (Indio?) cash for that city fulfilling La Quinta's low/mod housing requirements in addition to its own. </p>

<p>Irvine fulfills the requirement a couple of ways: the tucked away mobile home parks, and over-55 low/mod condo and apartment projects. Irvine also requires that some apartment units be set aside for low/mod housing. I don't recall if there is any program for purchasing units, but organizations such as the <a href="http://www.jamboreehousing.com/">Jamboree Housing Corporation</a> are also working on low/mod.</p>

<p>In the past, some posters have expressed displeasure (putting it mildly) at the low/mod programs. As we saw with another poster, low/mod could be an income of $85K. In fact, most of these programs wind up including police officers, teachers, government attorneys, and people that one would generally not consider unsavory.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>I don't see any evidence of that, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.</p>

<p>For Orange County, buying resale, and 1-2 persons in the home, low income is 68.3k and moderate is 98.7k. Nice... I was "low income" for years and didn't even know it. Where I came from, "low income" was someone earning less than 25k or so. It's also interesting that the county median is considered "low income."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homeownership/information/borrower-requirements.htm">Linky</a>.</p>
 
The issue regarding Bridge Housing (A company specializes in affordable homes with small profit margins) or Habitat for humanity (a non profit organization who requires the homeowners to participate in a sweat equity program). Both are well known organizations that have projects in master planned communities. Big cities mandate affordable units provided prior to project approval. The VOC have met the criteria by setting aside the units at the least desirable locations as the affordable units. Even though the units are identical to the highly priced units the units often have a much cheaper specification level in interior finishes and appliances. Builders could not afford to pay the architect to do a set of plans just for several dedicated inferior units. The easiest way is to cheapen up the spec level to lower cost.



Many residents do not like to presence of the affordable units in close proximity fearing the “low income” residents will invite crime and park their and their friends’ old cars along the street thus presenting a bad imagery for the neighborhood. Planners tried to blend the affordable units in the midst of the regular unit and hopefully buyers will forget the affordable units so not to discriminate against the low income home owners. It is really sad to see the low income qualifiers have been teachers, firemen and law enforcement personnel. The really low income earners are not really being considered.



Savvy planners from TIC carefully orchestrated an entire affordable project to be set aside to satisfy the governmental affordable requirement. Rather than just a few units in every project an entire project was set aside to meet the city wide accumulative sum. Access and visibility also was also strategically routed to minimize overlapping the route of the market rate products as to secure the high quality branding of a neighborhood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top