California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers(realclearinvestigations.com)
realclearinvestigations.com
California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/04/13/californias_vanished_dream_by_the_numbers_826300.html
162 comments
Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.
I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.
Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down.
Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down.
Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
>Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down.
You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.
You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.
I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more.
Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".
Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".
Zoning usually gets decided on on a very local level. The people who show up to community meetings tend to be older, white home owners who don't want the value of their home to go down. Fear of "undesirables" of course also likely plays a role and when I've heard it in person, even that gets wrapped in fear of that bringing down home values and schools.
Perhaps more white owners show up in majority white neighborhoods, but what evidence is there that white owners disproportionately show up to these meetings? I assume you can provide it based on this comment.
Do they own valuable homes or do they own valuable land? I can see the land value increasing because it is now rezone-able and you can build multiple units worth on it.
Cities don't vote, people do.
I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here.
I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that would make that worse.
I get I represent NIMBY-ism, but these tradeoffs are real. I often see people strawman them like there are easy/obvious solutions to shared problems. There aren't.
I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here.
I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that would make that worse.
I get I represent NIMBY-ism, but these tradeoffs are real. I often see people strawman them like there are easy/obvious solutions to shared problems. There aren't.
This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning.
Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going to get results.
But given that the zoning impacts have just as big an impact on the low-paid worker who has to commute hours to the local hospital to work, it is entirely reasonable to allow those impacted parties a vote by moving zoning away from total local control up to a larger level. Recent legislative steps in CA are a move in the right direction, but need to go much farther to create more meaningful changes.
Basically, if you want a quiet neighborhood with large plots of land, you should be required to bear the full cost of that, rather than voting to externalize the majority of those costs across the larger population.
Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going to get results.
But given that the zoning impacts have just as big an impact on the low-paid worker who has to commute hours to the local hospital to work, it is entirely reasonable to allow those impacted parties a vote by moving zoning away from total local control up to a larger level. Recent legislative steps in CA are a move in the right direction, but need to go much farther to create more meaningful changes.
Basically, if you want a quiet neighborhood with large plots of land, you should be required to bear the full cost of that, rather than voting to externalize the majority of those costs across the larger population.
FWIW, I am happy to pay a premium for the living situation I want. I do that today across high housing costs / taxes / cost of local goods/services. I'd happily support paying for other externalities (e.g. carbon taxes).
The premium would be really large though. The difference is only in degree between current zoning and something like "I have a nice view from my window and therefore my neighbors should not be allowed to build up the 2nd floor or plant trees in a way that would block it, and nobody should be allowed to build tall buildings in downtown between me and the mountains". The current zoning just happens to be status quo. Both unreasonably restrict what others can do with their property, and the only fair way to really "pay the premium" to enforce either is to buy the land (or at least, pay some large fraction of market rent, to offset the loss that owner incurs by not e.g. building and renting out more units). Well that or NIMBYism, which is a nicer name for regulatory capture, i.e. corruption.
The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not.
I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.
I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.
It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million.
Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does.
At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further. The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont.
Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does.
At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further. The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont.
Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay.
> make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further
It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong.
> The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont
I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?
> make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further
It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong.
> The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont
I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?
Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million.
Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600
If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible.
No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.
Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600
If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible.
No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.
I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price during the insane bidding process.
> If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible
Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed?
> Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600
90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area.
[1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...
> If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible
Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed?
> Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600
90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area.
[1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...
http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc...
The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.
Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA
The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach.
The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.
The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.
Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA
The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach.
The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.
> The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.
That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home.
> Here are some current prices
What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end up the same as more expensive SFHs. To boot, most of them are really small - everything over 1500 sqft is over 1.3M which is ridiculous. So no, that's not really more affordable. Density doesn't mean everyone lives in a shoebox, it means building taller so the same land can fit 5x more people.
> The 760 one seems within reach
Again, if a 800sqft apartment that looks like it was built 70 years ago is all that's within reach of an 80th percentile household then you need to re-evaluate housing policy.
> The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto
No, it's only similar in places with similarly dysfunctional real estate markets and NIMBYism as CA. Toronto and Vancouver famously have terrible SFH zoning policies. When you look at places like Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Chicago, etc. they are nowhere near the levels seen in CA.
> If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move
Or I can keep voting against NIMBYs and vote for densifying the Bay.
That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home.
> Here are some current prices
What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end up the same as more expensive SFHs. To boot, most of them are really small - everything over 1500 sqft is over 1.3M which is ridiculous. So no, that's not really more affordable. Density doesn't mean everyone lives in a shoebox, it means building taller so the same land can fit 5x more people.
> The 760 one seems within reach
Again, if a 800sqft apartment that looks like it was built 70 years ago is all that's within reach of an 80th percentile household then you need to re-evaluate housing policy.
> The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto
No, it's only similar in places with similarly dysfunctional real estate markets and NIMBYism as CA. Toronto and Vancouver famously have terrible SFH zoning policies. When you look at places like Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Chicago, etc. they are nowhere near the levels seen in CA.
> If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move
Or I can keep voting against NIMBYs and vote for densifying the Bay.
Density means accepting smaller. If you are expecting New York style tall buildings in a prime earthquake risk area you won't.
Austin and Atlanta have smaller population densities compared to SF. SF is double Austin.
An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented. New condos can have 500sqft and still go for 800k in dense cities.
Austin and Atlanta have smaller population densities compared to SF. SF is double Austin.
An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented. New condos can have 500sqft and still go for 800k in dense cities.
Downtown SF manages to have tall buildings. And there are a ton of 5+1 or 6+1 units going up, which in itself will 3-4x density from height and from smaller setbacks.
> Density means accepting smaller
Strongly disagree. You can still have 1200+sqft apartments. Most of the 2 and 3bd luxury apartments near me are around 1000-1100 sqft.
> An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented.
Not sure what kind of apartment you're renting... (or maybe you're out of touch with the market?) 500sqft is a studio and you're not fitting much more than a bed and desk in there. You have to remember that square footage includes things like bathroom, closet, washer/dryer if they're in unit, etc. And that realtors exaggerate so in practice an apartment advertised as 500 sqft is more like 350.
Please just take a look at Zillow/Redfin for one moment and tell me where you see 500sqft condos that look like actual condos rather than studios.
> Density means accepting smaller
Strongly disagree. You can still have 1200+sqft apartments. Most of the 2 and 3bd luxury apartments near me are around 1000-1100 sqft.
> An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented.
Not sure what kind of apartment you're renting... (or maybe you're out of touch with the market?) 500sqft is a studio and you're not fitting much more than a bed and desk in there. You have to remember that square footage includes things like bathroom, closet, washer/dryer if they're in unit, etc. And that realtors exaggerate so in practice an apartment advertised as 500 sqft is more like 350.
Please just take a look at Zillow/Redfin for one moment and tell me where you see 500sqft condos that look like actual condos rather than studios.
Without knowing them exactly I imagine property owners actually do have rights in this situation. Where does the right “to housing that doesn’t cost 90% of their monthly income” come from?
It's a tough problem to solve when you need to house 70,000 people per square mile (similar to Manhattan) in order to not leave people on the street, but also not allow more than 6,000 people (San Francisco) per square mile.
> my neighborhood is quiet
I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) which excludes most of the noise from the interiors.
> not crowded
By what metric? I can walk my dog outside easily, travel easily in the train to manhattan, and get reservations to any restaurant on the day in Hoboken. I don't think most places are as crazy crowded as Manhattan (Brooklyn, Queen and Bronx are much lower density) where the dynamics are different because work and tourism.
Are most single family zoned places in California work building heavy areas and touristy destinations?
> easy parking.
I can find parking for ~200$ per month here. So it is kind of expensive, i'll give you that.
I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) which excludes most of the noise from the interiors.
> not crowded
By what metric? I can walk my dog outside easily, travel easily in the train to manhattan, and get reservations to any restaurant on the day in Hoboken. I don't think most places are as crazy crowded as Manhattan (Brooklyn, Queen and Bronx are much lower density) where the dynamics are different because work and tourism.
Are most single family zoned places in California work building heavy areas and touristy destinations?
> easy parking.
I can find parking for ~200$ per month here. So it is kind of expensive, i'll give you that.
I think my use of "quiet" and "crowd" was not very clear. For me quiet is the absence of hustle and bustle.
When I down my street, I'll see at most 1-2 people out and about. To me, that's a more relaxing environment than even the best urban environments where I'll see dozens of people.
Unless I live next to a major road/highway, the occasional car noise is less bothersome to me personally than noise from people. To me car noise feels like white background noise, but voices trigger some active part of my brain.
I'm not arguing that's a completely rational way to feel / belief, but it totally how I feel.
When I down my street, I'll see at most 1-2 people out and about. To me, that's a more relaxing environment than even the best urban environments where I'll see dozens of people.
Unless I live next to a major road/highway, the occasional car noise is less bothersome to me personally than noise from people. To me car noise feels like white background noise, but voices trigger some active part of my brain.
I'm not arguing that's a completely rational way to feel / belief, but it totally how I feel.
sofixa(4)
> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.
People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes.
> Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of [realistic American] zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks.
People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes.
> Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of [realistic American] zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks.
>People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes.
Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way.
>You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks.
The current restrictions that have created suburbia are already yield expensive, cookie cutter and flimsy housing, so even if your arguments were taken at face value (Which I disagree with), nothing changes for the worse.
Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way.
>You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks.
The current restrictions that have created suburbia are already yield expensive, cookie cutter and flimsy housing, so even if your arguments were taken at face value (Which I disagree with), nothing changes for the worse.
> The current restrictions that have created suburbia are already yield expensive, cookie cutter and flimsy housing, so even if your arguments were taken at face value (Which I disagree with), nothing changes for the worse.
I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is denser housing would get us "a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan..." It's false advertising.
The only thing you'll get with density is density.
I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is denser housing would get us "a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan..." It's false advertising.
The only thing you'll get with density is density.
> Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way.
That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.
That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.
>That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.
You bought a single family home and all surrounding single family homes around it? If that's the case, no one is asking you to change anything. They're literally your backyards and you can choose to not build any further. If your neighbors don't want to build more units, they should be free not to as well.
What needs to change is neighbors restricting housing units on property they do not own. No one is advocating for completely abolishing all zoning, but the current approach isn't working as housing prices skyrocket everywhere that housing production can't keep up — often because of zoning restrictions.
You bought a single family home and all surrounding single family homes around it? If that's the case, no one is asking you to change anything. They're literally your backyards and you can choose to not build any further. If your neighbors don't want to build more units, they should be free not to as well.
What needs to change is neighbors restricting housing units on property they do not own. No one is advocating for completely abolishing all zoning, but the current approach isn't working as housing prices skyrocket everywhere that housing production can't keep up — often because of zoning restrictions.
> >People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes.
> Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way.
And when they do (as an upstream commenter has done), they're attacked by the good people who blame single-family houses for what's wrong with California.
This thread is an example.
And when they do (as an upstream commenter has done), they're attacked by the good people who blame single-family houses for what's wrong with California.
This thread is an example.
Ah yes, the famously laissez faire zoning policies in cities like Paris, Copenhagen, and Milan...
You don't get beautiful walkable cities if you let people just do whatever they want wherever they want. If you do that you get Houston Texas.
You don't get beautiful walkable cities if you let people just do whatever they want wherever they want. If you do that you get Houston Texas.
Agreed, if you look at Alameda, CA it is a town with many beautiful victorian homes. In the 70s and 80s they were tearing them down as fast as they could and building ugly apartment buildings in their place. Then they changed the laws so you couldn't tear down the old homes and now many of them are restored to their beautiful original state.
> People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes.
People like living in walkable neighborhoods with public transportation more, as proven by housing prices, but those are mostly illegal to build.
Also I think that society is now much more complex than the single family American dream of the past. And the US should wake up to the reality that in their society the poor are subsidizing the rich in almost everything, especially in housing.
People like living in walkable neighborhoods with public transportation more, as proven by housing prices, but those are mostly illegal to build.
Also I think that society is now much more complex than the single family American dream of the past. And the US should wake up to the reality that in their society the poor are subsidizing the rich in almost everything, especially in housing.
[deleted]
>You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings.
Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning?
Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning?
> Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning?
I'm claiming modern construction isn't very beautiful. If you drop single family zoning for something denser, you're not going to get something like those beautiful cities that were cited above. It's false advertising to suggest that denser zoning would give us another Paris (at least not the parts people are referring to when they bring it up). You'd get McMansion Hell, 4-Plex Edition or The Concrete Hulks of Shanghai (e.g. https://aurelien-marechal.com/block#1).
I suppose you could have a zoning code that mandated "building them like they used to," but that would be too expensive.
I'm claiming modern construction isn't very beautiful. If you drop single family zoning for something denser, you're not going to get something like those beautiful cities that were cited above. It's false advertising to suggest that denser zoning would give us another Paris (at least not the parts people are referring to when they bring it up). You'd get McMansion Hell, 4-Plex Edition or The Concrete Hulks of Shanghai (e.g. https://aurelien-marechal.com/block#1).
I suppose you could have a zoning code that mandated "building them like they used to," but that would be too expensive.
There are many examples in the world of successful new city developments. I used to live near Java Island in Amsterdam, a newly developed neighborhood which is very densely populated (60.000 people per square mile) and quite popular. There are modern versions of traditional canal houses, which most people think look very nice. It is not inexpensive anymore, however.
I think in the US there are some comparable developments, where they also try building walkable neighborhoods with high density, having shops and restaurants mixed in. But that is still very rare in the US.
I think in the US there are some comparable developments, where they also try building walkable neighborhoods with high density, having shops and restaurants mixed in. But that is still very rare in the US.
Ah, like that. Cities like Paris do still look like that because of such zoning laws, so it's not exactly impossible. IMO modern construction can be beautiful too, it's cheap (be it old or new) construction that's ugly.
It won't matter, apartments in Manhattan and London are not necessarily cheaper than single house in LA. Zoning is a way to make more property tax and will have nothing to do with low income affordable housing in the expensive area. It's the demand and supply, so long as there are enough wealth pour in the district the price will keep hiking.
Hint: wealth gap is your answer.
Hint: wealth gap is your answer.
SB-9 / "ADUs Everywhere!" passed last year at the state level effectively makes all property legally 2-3 unit.
Some people really want to live in lower-density suburban environments, though. I can't say I blame them, because the absolutely overwhelming majority of apartments/condos are strictly inferior in a number of ways. Sound transparency through walls / floors alone is a significant issue. Smells and ventilation too. And it's nice to have outside space you have access to / control over. Sure, units could be built to standards that mitigate those problems... but that costs money.
> It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
More "costly" than illegal, if the LA neighborhoods I'm familiar with are any indication -- there's plenty of 3 story urban buildings with parking underneath (including one I recently moved out of), but of course that's a whole "floor" that could have been housing units, and the owner wants to recoup that with higher rents. $4250/mo for 2 bd last I checked.
Some people really want to live in lower-density suburban environments, though. I can't say I blame them, because the absolutely overwhelming majority of apartments/condos are strictly inferior in a number of ways. Sound transparency through walls / floors alone is a significant issue. Smells and ventilation too. And it's nice to have outside space you have access to / control over. Sure, units could be built to standards that mitigate those problems... but that costs money.
> It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
More "costly" than illegal, if the LA neighborhoods I'm familiar with are any indication -- there's plenty of 3 story urban buildings with parking underneath (including one I recently moved out of), but of course that's a whole "floor" that could have been housing units, and the owner wants to recoup that with higher rents. $4250/mo for 2 bd last I checked.
> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.
Give it time. The state government is hobbled and regional fiefdoms have far too much sway. That's slowly changing.
The state is in the middle of planning the long-term Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Regions across the state are responsible for coughing up realistic plans to meet the growth targets. If they don't come up with realistic plans to meet those targets, not only can they lose their precious single family home zoning, they can lose their zoning privileges entirely. There are even plans in the works for local governments to have state oversight officials appointed for them to completely take over their housing policy. Get your popcorn.
Give it time. The state government is hobbled and regional fiefdoms have far too much sway. That's slowly changing.
The state is in the middle of planning the long-term Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Regions across the state are responsible for coughing up realistic plans to meet the growth targets. If they don't come up with realistic plans to meet those targets, not only can they lose their precious single family home zoning, they can lose their zoning privileges entirely. There are even plans in the works for local governments to have state oversight officials appointed for them to completely take over their housing policy. Get your popcorn.
> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.
It has. California has passed SB9. It allows up to four units to be built on a current single unit lot.
https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9
https://www.homestead.is/helping-homeowners-understand-sb9
It has. California has passed SB9. It allows up to four units to be built on a current single unit lot.
https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9
https://www.homestead.is/helping-homeowners-understand-sb9
The article does suggest that housing density doesn't really solve the problem and that we should be more OK with letting "urban sprawl" happen.
Personally, I think we need both. Let the urban areas increasingly densify and let the people who want larger single family homes move into those types of developments that are farther out of the city centers.
Some people just don't want to live in apartment buildings, and as someone with a young child, I much prefer having my own home with a yard and parking space and garage for projects than living in an apartment building and parking on the street or in a garage. But when I was younger I wanted to be closer to restaurants and the like.
CA should invest heavily in opening up more land for housing developments and equipping them with schools and shopping close by, with transit for commuters, while prioritizing density projects in the urban centers.
Personally, I think we need both. Let the urban areas increasingly densify and let the people who want larger single family homes move into those types of developments that are farther out of the city centers.
Some people just don't want to live in apartment buildings, and as someone with a young child, I much prefer having my own home with a yard and parking space and garage for projects than living in an apartment building and parking on the street or in a garage. But when I was younger I wanted to be closer to restaurants and the like.
CA should invest heavily in opening up more land for housing developments and equipping them with schools and shopping close by, with transit for commuters, while prioritizing density projects in the urban centers.
Hopefully working from home is here to stay and gets wide spread adoption. Then we won't need to increase city density again and again. Smaller new towns with single family homes and nearby schools and shops, maybe a community co-working centre. If the population doesn't need to commute for work then the housing doesn't need to be in the city. Lots of smaller towns.
Replace some of that water intensive agriculture with small towns for people to live in.
Replace some of that water intensive agriculture with small towns for people to live in.
[deleted]
Build cheaper housing farther outside of town where the land is cheaper and provide a bullet train to transport people into the expensive land areas. It might take time for the train to be built, but these areas have had decades to solve the problem while frittering away trying to build a few, token, and small small low cost housing projects. There really is no other solution for many areas like San Fran and New York … the land is simply not there and displacement of current landowners is expensive, impractical, and ineffective.
They need to bite the bullet … train … or some other effectively fast transport.
They need to bite the bullet … train … or some other effectively fast transport.
A funny, yet very well researched video on that exact same topic of Zoning nonsense. Entertaining AND informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc
Unlike most places in the rest of world, California has plenty land space, there is no reason to think of California like Hong Kong, Tokyo or Mumbai, that'd be ridiculous.
Obviously housing cost is the tips of iceberg, and the result of state policy, resemblance to the development path often seen in middle and south America.
Obviously housing cost is the tips of iceberg, and the result of state policy, resemblance to the development path often seen in middle and south America.
Keeps out undesirables.
Yes, "undesirables", like young adults (millennials, ugh) trying to afford enough space to do society degrading things like building a home office or gasp starting a family.
/s lest someone Poe's Law on this.
/s lest someone Poe's Law on this.
The article starts out talking about homelessness, high housing prices, and people leaving the state in droves, but then pivots to pinning the high energy rates on green energy initiatives.
California has such a huge housing deficit at this point that people really have no option except to move out. The point where they are losing the population equivalent of 3 mid size cities every year while still maintaining a housing crisis.
California has such a huge housing deficit at this point that people really have no option except to move out. The point where they are losing the population equivalent of 3 mid size cities every year while still maintaining a housing crisis.
> has such a huge housing deficit
And, that housing deficit probably won't be filled with anything affordable. Starting 2023, title 24 requires solar panels that cover the full annual energy usage of the home, along with battery storage. But, guess that's a drop in the bucket for CA housing prices.
And, that housing deficit probably won't be filled with anything affordable. Starting 2023, title 24 requires solar panels that cover the full annual energy usage of the home, along with battery storage. But, guess that's a drop in the bucket for CA housing prices.
That only applies to "low rise" buildings, which would never solve the housing crisis anyway. The only direction for Californians to build is up unless they move away from the coast or adopt a subterranean lifestyle.
I've also wondered if the high amount of income disparity in California is at least partially explained by the high amount of cost of living disparity in California.
There is a high amount of population that lives in agricultural areas like the Central Valley where the cost of living is drastically lower than the very population dense cities.
If you compare the people there to the relatively smaller number of high income earners who live in the excessively high cost cities of Los Angelos, San Francisco, etc. then on a graph its going to look unfair.
Even though the house in the Central Valley might actually be much bigger and nicer if you are ok living in the suburbs/ex-urbs.
There is a high amount of population that lives in agricultural areas like the Central Valley where the cost of living is drastically lower than the very population dense cities.
If you compare the people there to the relatively smaller number of high income earners who live in the excessively high cost cities of Los Angelos, San Francisco, etc. then on a graph its going to look unfair.
Even though the house in the Central Valley might actually be much bigger and nicer if you are ok living in the suburbs/ex-urbs.
Homeless being caused by a lack of homes doesn't really will out. The people camping on the side of the road don't have a downpayment and good paying job who could afford a house if only they existed because zoning is bad.
The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed.
Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p...
So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year.
https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/
Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.
The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed.
Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p...
So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year.
https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/
Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.
How is this possible?
"more than 80 percent of California jobs paid under the median income"
I can see under the mean or average, but median? How can 80% be below the median when the definition of median is 50% are below this value?
"more than 80 percent of California jobs paid under the median income"
I can see under the mean or average, but median? How can 80% be below the median when the definition of median is 50% are below this value?
It's a weird point phrased poorly, seems they're referencing the chart at the bottom of page 11 here:
https://www.chapman.edu/communication/_files/beyond-feudalis...
Which is saying that 80% of new jobs were created at wage levels below the median level. E.g. they are looking at ~1.8 million jobs added from 2008-2018 and comparing it to the median wage in 2018 out of the ~19 million people working in California.
https://www.chapman.edu/communication/_files/beyond-feudalis...
Which is saying that 80% of new jobs were created at wage levels below the median level. E.g. they are looking at ~1.8 million jobs added from 2008-2018 and comparing it to the median wage in 2018 out of the ~19 million people working in California.
Additionally, the source material specifies average for the chart, not median, although median is specified in some textual components as well.
Not to make this a political issue, but the number of uneducated immigrants in southern california is staggering. Add those to the regular number of workers below the median income, and this number is very easy to arrive at.
OK, but GP has a point. If you're going to add the immigrants to "the number of workers below the median income", but you're not going to add them to the calculation of the median, then you get a garbage number.
It has a purpose, but the writer needs to be clear which groups are being compared. Saying that 80% of group's A value X fell under the median of group's B value of X can be a useful number for some analysis, even when group B is a subset of group A. The author must be clear which group they are using where, as any confusion between group A and group B should be considered an error in the analysis.
How can you arrive at a median that is not the median?
It means a significant portion income isn't coming from wages (e.g. from benefits, investments, living off of wealth, parents, etc).
EDIT: nvm, mikeymouse's comment explains it.
EDIT: nvm, mikeymouse's comment explains it.
Maybe "median income" here does not mean "median income from jobs"?
Maybe that is the median of all states? (I did not read the whole article.)
[deleted]
The median income is based on multiple income sources, including having more than one job.
Maybe many people are working multiple jobs?
So your jobs each pay X, but your income is 2X.
So your jobs each pay X, but your income is 2X.
No doubt California has many problems but describing these as if they're isolated to California or merely the result of local political actions is disingenuous (but is what you expect from this right wing site shopping right wing talking points). The US overall has a problem with rising poverty and wages not keeping up with the cost of living.
The US overall has a problem home-as-investment standing in the way of actually providing people housing. These manifest differently in different places. Texas doesn't have California's outrageous housing costs but Texas has people in jail for not being able to pay medical bills when they get sick - both are manifestations of distorted costs of various items (coming ultimately from the Fed inflating the dollar and related factors).
The US overall has a problem home-as-investment standing in the way of actually providing people housing. These manifest differently in different places. Texas doesn't have California's outrageous housing costs but Texas has people in jail for not being able to pay medical bills when they get sick - both are manifestations of distorted costs of various items (coming ultimately from the Fed inflating the dollar and related factors).
California is also a state that will throw you in jail for certain types of debt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison#Modern_debto...
This applies to legal fines. Doesn’t sound like it applies to medical debt:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1205.html
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1205.html
[deleted]
I do not understand this fucked up policy at all. If a person has no money let them go free and garnish reasonable part of their wages when they work. Otherwise fuck off please, do not be a Nazi, stop punishing poverty.
I do think its a bit of a popular <insert popular brand name effect>. It gets page views. Kind of like when people complain about Apple/Android. Sure they could improve but they are popular for a reason.
Its my belief that any state that gets to this level of population density will have these issues.
Its my belief that any state that gets to this level of population density will have these issues.
Why even bother mentioning electricity prices except to score cheap points about "green" policies? Energy costs are insignificant compared to housing. Everything is insignificant compared to housing.
California could double electricity prices if they could cut real estate costs and everyone would come out ahead... except all the old homeowners who are grandfathered in under prop 13 and show up to oppose every new development at the local town hall.
California could double electricity prices if they could cut real estate costs and everyone would come out ahead... except all the old homeowners who are grandfathered in under prop 13 and show up to oppose every new development at the local town hall.
Well, if California's not caring about the poor, then the poor are in trouble. All those red states CERTAINLY aren't going to give a sh*t about them...
> the average income of the top one percent of households in the city averages $3.6 million
Great example of why average is a terrible measure, as the top one percent will include multi-billionaires and centi-millionaires.
Great example of why average is a terrible measure, as the top one percent will include multi-billionaires and centi-millionaires.
For context: the top 5% of income starts at about $200k, and top 1% of income starts at about $500k nationwide.
This seems more like a political diatribe than an informative look at cost of living and wages in California.
This reminds me of a quote from Dune.
"My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation."
The column contains dozens upon dozens of hard numbers, most with links to sites that can back them up. Maybe you don't like the political implications, but - as my daughter might say - that's a you problem. It doesn't mean the column is any less factual or more political than it should be.
"My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation."
The column contains dozens upon dozens of hard numbers, most with links to sites that can back them up. Maybe you don't like the political implications, but - as my daughter might say - that's a you problem. It doesn't mean the column is any less factual or more political than it should be.
It can be a political piece and have some factual information at the same time. I could not get through it, not because of any implications but because of the way its written.
> San Francisco, meanwhile, suffers the highest property crime rate in the country. Businesses like Walgreens have shut down numerous Bay Area locations due to “rampant burglaries.”
Hasn't the "we're shutting down this Walgreens because of rampant burglaries" been repeatedly debunked?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-shoplifting-forcing-wal...
Hasn't the "we're shutting down this Walgreens because of rampant burglaries" been repeatedly debunked?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-shoplifting-forcing-wal...
Funny that you read that article as “debunking”. All I see is a bunch of opinions (mostly partisan) and guesses, with the company itself not releasing any details. What are you reading that I’m not?
Here is a more nuanced, data-oriented analysis which concludes that Walgreens probably left SF for normal corporate planning reasons: https://applieddivinitystudies.com/sf-crime-2/
> Overall, it doesn’t look like Walgreens’ 2021 closure rate requires explanation beyond pandemic effects, their own 2019 cost management program, and broader economic trends. Additionally, it appears their 2020 closure rate was below, or at best on par with, their 2019 closure rate, indicating that the new DA, who took office at the start of 2020, did not accelerate the decline of Walgreens in San Francisco.
> Overall, it doesn’t look like Walgreens’ 2021 closure rate requires explanation beyond pandemic effects, their own 2019 cost management program, and broader economic trends. Additionally, it appears their 2020 closure rate was below, or at best on par with, their 2019 closure rate, indicating that the new DA, who took office at the start of 2020, did not accelerate the decline of Walgreens in San Francisco.
I also find it amusing that in this scenario, we are supposed to assume that crime statistics provided by the police are 100% accurate. Aren't we usually meant to believe that the police are the bad guys who lie about everything?
There's video footage of mass burglaries. I don't know what more proof you want.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
A: There is no evidence of X.
B: Did you look for evidence of X?
A: There is no reason to look for evidence of X when there is no evidence of X.
B: There have been as-yet unsubstantiated reports and claims about X.
A: These claims of X have been debunked.
B: How were these claims debunked?
A: They are unlikely.
B: How did you come to that conclusion?
A: There is no evidence of X, therefore they cannot have been likely. If X were likely, there would be evidence of X.
B: How would you determine if there was evidence of X?
A: If there were substantial reason to investigate X, it would have been investigated. There is no substantial reason to investigate X since there is no evidence of X.
B: If a third party provided some evidence of X, would that not be substantial reason to further investigate if there is more evidence of X?
A: There is no reason to investigate for evidence of X, since third party evidence of X is not believable.
B: What would make evidence of X believable?
A: If there was evidence of X, it would have been reported.
B: But the evidence of X was reported!
A: The reports of X are unfounded, since there is no evidence of X.
I strongly urge you to just stand in an SF Walgreens and watch how many people walk out the door with stolen goods. None of those incidents are reported, the security guards don't even bother getting up.
And why are people so staunchly in denial about crime in Seattle/San Francisco? Why do they seem to feel personally attacked?
Because a lot of the burglars are black, which means doing anything about it will be seen as racist. SF no longer release tapes of crimes that happen on public transit for the same reason.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...
Why is it about one's skin color? I thought we were past this.
We were, but society has resurrected it for cynical political reasons.
It often provides evidence that the politics they believe in doesn't have a solution to their community's problems thus it becomes personal. Crime is the most basic indicator of failures in policy.
San Francisco is not in the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US. Yet article after article is written about crime in SF. I haven't seen anyone deny there is crime in SF. More just tired of the outsized attention it gets compared to more dangerous cities. I don't see article after article complaining about the DA of Baton Rouge or how Memphis's crime is out of control.
A lot of us are transplants from the midwest/south/east coast and feel the effects of property crime are blown wildly out of proportion. But its different for everybody. I would rather lose a catalytic converter than a friend! https://vanlifewanderer.com/2021/12/03/cities-with-highest-m...
Moral narcissism.
People developed a sense of moral superiority over anyone that disagrees with their policy. So when the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming shows their policies failed, they can't bring themselves to admit being wrong.
People developed a sense of moral superiority over anyone that disagrees with their policy. So when the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming shows their policies failed, they can't bring themselves to admit being wrong.
Crime reduces property value. If your main investment is your home, you are incentivized to pretend it's not an issue.
No, it was not debunked. These things actually happened and the reasoning for closure was as stated. A fair number of progressive people were unhappy about that and tried to write rebuttals, but they were wrong.
Among myriad of issues, one is that the tax rates for the very rich are not high enough.
And the absolute parrallel there is - people probably wouldn't feel their money is being spent effectively.
I really do feel that rich Californians would accept higher taxes if the money was really well spent.
Impossible to talk about is the 'low end' - where you have (and bringing in) people in very, very low skilled and economic classes even on a global scale, who really can't 'participate' in the regular economy to legitimize a solid minimum wage.
And so you get 1M people working 'under the table' where the supply/demand bears a low price.
It might be heartless to hear, but consider that it may be far more efficient to have US companies invest in developing Mexico, and have those people have wage jobs there that provide them a modicum of dignity - as opposed to coming to Cali and being jammed into the 'bottom'.
The 'cartels' (very complicated issue) is an example of how, systematically everything gets oppressed.
Cali has never been about 'equality' (i.e. communitarian, hard work, self discipline, charitable giving, good governance, responsible social spending, community cohesion aka Sweden) more like the 'dreamy feeling of equality' where if everyone just 'pursues their thing and acts kind it will all work out'.
Throw in a national crisis in healthcare and housing and you have your mess.
It takes everything: taxes need to be a bit more for the rich, schools need to be a bit rigorous, parents need to parent, the border needs to be responsibly managed, need to have intervention in healthcare pricing, police need to act fairly and appropriately, city councils need to stop being corrupt, DA needs to stop being populist, don't elect a 'pretty playboy' to lead government instead elect rationalists who are competent and can lead, we cannot allow petty crime to go unheeded, we cannot allow absolute poverty to go unheeded, we cannot allow corporate corruption to go unheeded, we cannot allow government inefficiency to go unheeded. People need to stop being dreamy and delusional and ideological on all fronts. 'TED Talk' thinking does not solve any problems, it misleads us to thinking there is an idea, or a technology that can change - I say rubbish, we need to be responsible and conscientious on all fronts, that's what makes civilization.
And the absolute parrallel there is - people probably wouldn't feel their money is being spent effectively.
I really do feel that rich Californians would accept higher taxes if the money was really well spent.
Impossible to talk about is the 'low end' - where you have (and bringing in) people in very, very low skilled and economic classes even on a global scale, who really can't 'participate' in the regular economy to legitimize a solid minimum wage.
And so you get 1M people working 'under the table' where the supply/demand bears a low price.
It might be heartless to hear, but consider that it may be far more efficient to have US companies invest in developing Mexico, and have those people have wage jobs there that provide them a modicum of dignity - as opposed to coming to Cali and being jammed into the 'bottom'.
The 'cartels' (very complicated issue) is an example of how, systematically everything gets oppressed.
Cali has never been about 'equality' (i.e. communitarian, hard work, self discipline, charitable giving, good governance, responsible social spending, community cohesion aka Sweden) more like the 'dreamy feeling of equality' where if everyone just 'pursues their thing and acts kind it will all work out'.
Throw in a national crisis in healthcare and housing and you have your mess.
It takes everything: taxes need to be a bit more for the rich, schools need to be a bit rigorous, parents need to parent, the border needs to be responsibly managed, need to have intervention in healthcare pricing, police need to act fairly and appropriately, city councils need to stop being corrupt, DA needs to stop being populist, don't elect a 'pretty playboy' to lead government instead elect rationalists who are competent and can lead, we cannot allow petty crime to go unheeded, we cannot allow absolute poverty to go unheeded, we cannot allow corporate corruption to go unheeded, we cannot allow government inefficiency to go unheeded. People need to stop being dreamy and delusional and ideological on all fronts. 'TED Talk' thinking does not solve any problems, it misleads us to thinking there is an idea, or a technology that can change - I say rubbish, we need to be responsible and conscientious on all fronts, that's what makes civilization.
California politicians need to break away from the hold of the progressive left. All I see in the bay area are politicians arguing over who is more progressive rather than anyone actually suggesting how they will practically and concretely solve the problems that are so obviously in front of us. But even just acknowledging that there is a problem seems to be impossible for any politicians here. Without any actual challenge from the right, politicians will just keep moving to the left, even when that doesn't really mean anything other than how you virtue signal to certain causes.
Just because you don't kowtow to the woke ideology, doesn't mean you can't be on the left and push for improving your state and locality in a practical way and until we get some politicians that actually stand up and say we're going to actually fix some of this, then we aren't going to have any meaningful improvements.
Just because you don't kowtow to the woke ideology, doesn't mean you can't be on the left and push for improving your state and locality in a practical way and until we get some politicians that actually stand up and say we're going to actually fix some of this, then we aren't going to have any meaningful improvements.
Yes, that's becoming clear, but it's only one of many issues.
And FYI 'the right' has been equally compromised by a populist fringe that has no interest in legitimacy either.
I grew up in Mississauga, ON, Canada, somehow the city was able to integrate people from anywhere on the planet, give them a sound place to live, some kind of job, low crime, safety, healthcare etc.. It's not the most glorious place, and I have no reason to ever want to live there, but for 95% of the people who ever did live there, they came from utter dysfunction (i.e. cold war E. Europe and later E/S Asia) - and 'it works'.
It's the 'opposite' of California in that it's utterly a un-aspirational place, but people have jobs, homes, food, education, healthcare, dignity etc..
The city has the same mayor for like 30 years, ruthlessly pragmatic. Kind of everyone's gradma. Nobody would mess with her or bother trying to run against her.
California needs a Hazel McCallion [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion
And FYI 'the right' has been equally compromised by a populist fringe that has no interest in legitimacy either.
I grew up in Mississauga, ON, Canada, somehow the city was able to integrate people from anywhere on the planet, give them a sound place to live, some kind of job, low crime, safety, healthcare etc.. It's not the most glorious place, and I have no reason to ever want to live there, but for 95% of the people who ever did live there, they came from utter dysfunction (i.e. cold war E. Europe and later E/S Asia) - and 'it works'.
It's the 'opposite' of California in that it's utterly a un-aspirational place, but people have jobs, homes, food, education, healthcare, dignity etc..
The city has the same mayor for like 30 years, ruthlessly pragmatic. Kind of everyone's gradma. Nobody would mess with her or bother trying to run against her.
California needs a Hazel McCallion [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion
California doesn't have problems with their Russian and Asian immigrants either. The amount of problems areas have with immigration very strongly depends on the education level of those immigrants, Canada mostly takes in highly educated people so doesn't face many issues, California on the other hand have over 2 million undocumented immigrants who are significantly less educated than the average immigrant in Canada.
I'm genuinely confused at what reasoning you are using to conclude this since CA already has the highest income taxes in the nation by a large margin. ...And they have higher taxes in a lot of other categories as well.
This just seems like the same progressive denial and pipedream which has led to the very bloated bureaucracy and regulatory environment to the detriment of CA which we are presently discussing.
This just seems like the same progressive denial and pipedream which has led to the very bloated bureaucracy and regulatory environment to the detriment of CA which we are presently discussing.
More tax dollars won't change anything. The state government already has more money than it needs. It just doesn't spend it well. If we give the government more money, it won't spend that money well either.
More money could facilitate universal healthcare of some kind.
And yes, fully agree, there are efficiency problems, which is kind of my point.
It bothers me a lot how so few YC startups are trying to solve economic asymmetrical issues in Healthcare.
And yes, fully agree, there are efficiency problems, which is kind of my point.
It bothers me a lot how so few YC startups are trying to solve economic asymmetrical issues in Healthcare.
> Among myriad of issues, one is that the tax rates for the very rich are not high enough.
I'm curious-- why is this your conclusion?
California has a $40-70B surplus. California's got one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.
I'm curious-- why is this your conclusion?
California has a $40-70B surplus. California's got one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.
california is among the highest state tax rates in the country...
> california is among the highest state tax rates in the country...
Yes, but it's not even enough to offset the maximum federal tax subsidy to the top from the preferential treatment of long-term capital gains (that is, the federal top LTCG rate plus the top California income tax rate is less than the top, or even second, and almost third, federal income tax rate alone—and that's not even considering the additional federal taxes on labor income.)
Yes, but it's not even enough to offset the maximum federal tax subsidy to the top from the preferential treatment of long-term capital gains (that is, the federal top LTCG rate plus the top California income tax rate is less than the top, or even second, and almost third, federal income tax rate alone—and that's not even considering the additional federal taxes on labor income.)
USA generally has lower tax burden than other nations, but I don't think taxes on the bottom 90% need to change so much, the issue is in the massive surplus of those earning capital gains.
Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that.
i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade.
... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.
Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that.
i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade.
... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.
> Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains
Capital gains are income (just income that is federally taxed at a lower rate than “regular” income which, due to payroll taxes, is in turn taxes a lower rate than labor income.)
Because investors > people getting money from random sources > workers.
Capital gains are income (just income that is federally taxed at a lower rate than “regular” income which, due to payroll taxes, is in turn taxes a lower rate than labor income.)
Because investors > people getting money from random sources > workers.
Capital gains are traditionally taxed at a lower rate due to the risk involved.
Businesses can carry over losses and get a tax shield from it, individuals cannot.
One solution to the problem may be to make it so that if individuals want to claim capital gains, they have to do it in a separate account - maybe something that every bank can offer as easily as a chequing account. And allow gains looses to be rolled over or something like that - but while taxing at a higher rate.
It'd be a neat idea to simplify the system and get institutional buy in so that everyone just has simple accounts: current, retirement, cap gains, and transactions on them are recorded in a way that taxes can be filed just with that data alone.
Businesses can carry over losses and get a tax shield from it, individuals cannot.
One solution to the problem may be to make it so that if individuals want to claim capital gains, they have to do it in a separate account - maybe something that every bank can offer as easily as a chequing account. And allow gains looses to be rolled over or something like that - but while taxing at a higher rate.
It'd be a neat idea to simplify the system and get institutional buy in so that everyone just has simple accounts: current, retirement, cap gains, and transactions on them are recorded in a way that taxes can be filed just with that data alone.
California taxes capital gains as a source of income without the IRS’s differentiation between long-term or short-term gains so they are one and the same to California.
I don’t recognize the California described in this article and I live in Los Angeles. It seems like a politically motivated attack on liberalism using California as a proxy for the Democratic Party.
I grew up in San Diego (and my parents still lived there until they retired last year) and it sounds about on the mark to me.
Or maybe you are a non-average beneficiary of the system and don't recognize the problems and dangers of a one-party state. Would not be the first time.
> It seems like a politically motivated attack on liberalism using California as a proxy for the Democratic Party.
That is exactly what it is, which should surprise no one considering the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#Rightward_tu...
That is exactly what it is, which should surprise no one considering the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#Rightward_tu...
Here is some cherry on top. This treatment of people looks like it belongs to China:
https://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/01/25/anti-homeless-law...
>"Kimberly Sandoval holds a ticket in her hand in disbelief. Her infraction: being in possession of spare bicycle parts."
>"She has also been ticketed for being in possession of a tent, a lawn chair and a Bluetooth speaker—all items newly banned at the Civic Center under an ordinance passed by the City of Santa Ana late last year."
>"Also prohibited under the new law: shopping carts, pallets, golf clubs, hockey sticks, screwdrivers, solar panels, mattresses, carpets, anything that can be used as a temporary toilet or as an outdoor shower, and storing or sorting recyclable materials."
>"In addition, the ordinance established a new permitting process for charity and social service organizations that offer food or medical services to the Civic Center’s homeless population, a move that residents and providers say has led to a steep drop off in aid."
https://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/01/25/anti-homeless-law...
>"Kimberly Sandoval holds a ticket in her hand in disbelief. Her infraction: being in possession of spare bicycle parts."
>"She has also been ticketed for being in possession of a tent, a lawn chair and a Bluetooth speaker—all items newly banned at the Civic Center under an ordinance passed by the City of Santa Ana late last year."
>"Also prohibited under the new law: shopping carts, pallets, golf clubs, hockey sticks, screwdrivers, solar panels, mattresses, carpets, anything that can be used as a temporary toilet or as an outdoor shower, and storing or sorting recyclable materials."
>"In addition, the ordinance established a new permitting process for charity and social service organizations that offer food or medical services to the Civic Center’s homeless population, a move that residents and providers say has led to a steep drop off in aid."
Orange County treats homeless people particularly poorly. They want to force the homeless out of their county by outlawing them.
Notable: Santa Ana (and the rest of Orange County) is substantially more conservative than many people realize.
Municipalities are in an arms race to criminalize homelessness to push the issue to another city (defacto being Los Angeles).
I don't believe that's the case for Santa Ana. The demographics aren't like the rest of Orange County.
Read: 'slightly less liberal'
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/california/santa_ana
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/california/santa_ana
AFAIK, they tend to vote Dem in presidential elections but locally swing strongly conservative. For example: Mask mandates and vaccine requirements.
>"substantially more conservative"
This just warms the cockles of my heart /s
This just warms the cockles of my heart /s
The thing I want to look into that this article points out is how the thesis of "building dense housing is good / reduces housing costs" is panning out. Article seems to be saying that it isn't - here in CA, and elsewhere in the world - and TBH, that makes some sense to me, now.
"There keep being more people in the world, and they keep wanting to live in the same places" isn't resolvable by making those places able to handle more people - it's resolved by making more of those places. Seems to me, anyway, but I haven't exactly done any actual research on this.
(Although you do need enough housing in those places, or you haven't actually created more of the desirable housing, just made the existing housing more desirable, and there's lots of those existing places that definitely do need more housing.)
"There keep being more people in the world, and they keep wanting to live in the same places" isn't resolvable by making those places able to handle more people - it's resolved by making more of those places. Seems to me, anyway, but I haven't exactly done any actual research on this.
(Although you do need enough housing in those places, or you haven't actually created more of the desirable housing, just made the existing housing more desirable, and there's lots of those existing places that definitely do need more housing.)
This is a partisan rag - so take this for what it is.
Why are there so many "California/San Francisco is horrible" articles? As if every state didn't have different sets of issues. To me it looks like conservative bias in our media since all I hear these days is how everything is liberals fault.
SF isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous cities. Yet article after article about how it is falling apart. Where are all the articles about St Louis or Jackson Mississippi?
We expect St Louis to be falling apart. We don't expect San Francisco to be.
But I don't agree with the GP either. "Conservative bias in our media"? Either you're to the left of CNN (in which case you're far from the median, and so in a bad position to judge), or you're looking at a very skewed subset of the media.
Personally, I think it's a backlash. I think the liberals have been loudly triumphalist since... maybe the beginning of Obama's presidency? Somewhere in there. There's been this aura of "We're going to re-order the country to our approach, and we're going to fix all the problems." And they did re-order it, not completely, but to a large degree.
So when that fails to produce the paradise that was promised, people point out that the liberal agenda, in a place where they were pretty free to carry it out, failed to produce what the liberals claimed it would.
There's no shortage of articles pointing out that the conservative agenda, in places where they were free to carry it out, also failed to produce. But those articles get less traction, I suspect because people find "conservative agenda fails to produce" to be less surprising than "liberal agenda fails to produce". (Or maybe just because "the conservative agenda will produce" lately has been less widely trumpeted than "the liberal agenda will produce".)
But I don't agree with the GP either. "Conservative bias in our media"? Either you're to the left of CNN (in which case you're far from the median, and so in a bad position to judge), or you're looking at a very skewed subset of the media.
Personally, I think it's a backlash. I think the liberals have been loudly triumphalist since... maybe the beginning of Obama's presidency? Somewhere in there. There's been this aura of "We're going to re-order the country to our approach, and we're going to fix all the problems." And they did re-order it, not completely, but to a large degree.
So when that fails to produce the paradise that was promised, people point out that the liberal agenda, in a place where they were pretty free to carry it out, failed to produce what the liberals claimed it would.
There's no shortage of articles pointing out that the conservative agenda, in places where they were free to carry it out, also failed to produce. But those articles get less traction, I suspect because people find "conservative agenda fails to produce" to be less surprising than "liberal agenda fails to produce". (Or maybe just because "the conservative agenda will produce" lately has been less widely trumpeted than "the liberal agenda will produce".)
Maybe the media I read is skewed. It is mostly what I link to from HN.
I lived in Sf about a decade back. There were a steady stream of articles even way back then about how San Francisco was falling apart. Like yeah the Tenderloin is a ghetto and there are not enough public bathrooms. But the rest of the city is pretty safe. The biggest problem by far were the housing prices which is why I moved out. A decade later the Tenderloin is still a ghetto, still not enough bathrooms, and the housing prices are still too damn high. And there are still articles about how it is on the verge of collapse.
I lived in Sf about a decade back. There were a steady stream of articles even way back then about how San Francisco was falling apart. Like yeah the Tenderloin is a ghetto and there are not enough public bathrooms. But the rest of the city is pretty safe. The biggest problem by far were the housing prices which is why I moved out. A decade later the Tenderloin is still a ghetto, still not enough bathrooms, and the housing prices are still too damn high. And there are still articles about how it is on the verge of collapse.
I have no idea if CNN is left-biased since I never watch it, but nobody else does either. Cable news is dominated by blatantly right-leaning Fox News.
The fact that "media is liberal" is taken everywhere as such an obvious unchallengable truism, no proof required, is to me proof of the opposite, conservative bias dominates our political discourse. I honestly feel like all I hear are conservative talking points, like cancel culture, critical race theory, trans stuff all the time, anti masks, SF is horrible, etc.
The fact that "media is liberal" is taken everywhere as such an obvious unchallengable truism, no proof required, is to me proof of the opposite, conservative bias dominates our political discourse. I honestly feel like all I hear are conservative talking points, like cancel culture, critical race theory, trans stuff all the time, anti masks, SF is horrible, etc.
I can't speak to the other articles you're talking about, but this piece is coming from a strongly biased source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#Rightward_tu...
Things (housing, schools, cost of living) are so expensive that also "tech" workers at so called FAANG are leaving California to work in new campuses that big tech are opening in other (for now still cheaper) places in US and
abroad.
California has become a little island for reach people and NIMBY. No way to build a future and a family unless multi-multi millionaire.
Also, building a startup in California does not make any sense any more. Cost of hiring is too high.
California has become a little island for reach people and NIMBY. No way to build a future and a family unless multi-multi millionaire.
Also, building a startup in California does not make any sense any more. Cost of hiring is too high.
The realclear group seems to have a certain slant.
And given that California has Silicon Valley, and also the Central Valley that's full of farm-oriented immigrants, of course you're going to have this gigantic disparity in wages. Pick up Silicon Valley and put it in Iowa, or Alabama, or Mississippi, or North Dakota, what would happen then?
Have other states stop shipping the destitute to California. What would happen then?
Go back and time and keep Purdue Pharm from making legal heroin. What would happen then?
And given that California has Silicon Valley, and also the Central Valley that's full of farm-oriented immigrants, of course you're going to have this gigantic disparity in wages. Pick up Silicon Valley and put it in Iowa, or Alabama, or Mississippi, or North Dakota, what would happen then?
Have other states stop shipping the destitute to California. What would happen then?
Go back and time and keep Purdue Pharm from making legal heroin. What would happen then?
Uh, yeah they have a certain slant, lol: https://www.city-journal.org/ivermectin-sparks-yet-another-c...
As an immigrant who came to USA 25+ years ago and made SF bay area home since then I can say that California is not doing well. I am lucky to have a home here and surrounded by friendly neighbors and community. But as someone who came from India - I can draw parallels on many (negative) fronts between my experiences in India and where California is headed. Too much income inequality, inflation, poverty, homelessness, high cost of living, corruption, lack of civic sense and disregard about law shown by many when out in public in public spaces. I truly hope CA does not become replica of yet another "developing nation".
If you live in California, I recommend getting involved in your local housing element. This program will have huge implications in how zoning and development occurs in the state for years to come.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element...
For example in San Francisco, they are reviewing drafts now. https://sfhousingelement.org/
For example in San Francisco, they are reviewing drafts now. https://sfhousingelement.org/
I did the math for Mountain View:
Average Home | Downpayment | Finance | Monthly payment (Loan + Insurance + Tax) | Necessary Annual income
$2,140,000.00 | $428,000.00 | $1,712,000.00 | $11,517.00 | $414,612.00
Mix that with high taxes across every category, very high crime, homelessness and extremely poor indebted government providing poor service. The state needs to hit the reset button.
Taxes are already high, and a negative feedback loop has started: capital flight, loss of income, increase taxes, which in turn causes more capital flight. The annual costs of the state are increasing because we must retire the boomer generation and pay for past promises.
I think the best path forward for California is default, and then start over. The current path is not good.
I wish California could compete with Florida and Texas, but it has real structural problems.
Average Home | Downpayment | Finance | Monthly payment (Loan + Insurance + Tax) | Necessary Annual income
$2,140,000.00 | $428,000.00 | $1,712,000.00 | $11,517.00 | $414,612.00
Mix that with high taxes across every category, very high crime, homelessness and extremely poor indebted government providing poor service. The state needs to hit the reset button.
Taxes are already high, and a negative feedback loop has started: capital flight, loss of income, increase taxes, which in turn causes more capital flight. The annual costs of the state are increasing because we must retire the boomer generation and pay for past promises.
I think the best path forward for California is default, and then start over. The current path is not good.
I wish California could compete with Florida and Texas, but it has real structural problems.
Do you mean default on their debt? If so that is a really bad idea. I don't really get it being uncompetitive. California has a higher gdp per capita then either Texas or Florida.
I mean default as in bankruptcy, then restructure the fixed costs in a way to become competitive with Texas and Florida.
Their debt to gdp ration isn't even in the top 10 of states. There is no reason for them to declare bankruptcy.
The idea that California is not competitive couldn't be further from the truth.If California were a country they would have the 5th highest gdp in the world.
The idea that California is not competitive couldn't be further from the truth.If California were a country they would have the 5th highest gdp in the world.
Do you live here? Do you see the math in my post? Outcomes are horrible. Families can’t afford to exist.
I’m convinced that tax rates on the upper middle class (top 10%) need to be much, much higher. An interesting premise of Modern Monetary Theory is that taxes can and should be used to control inflation, and further that this can be done in a controlled way based on where inflation is occurring. If that is correct, one can reason that inflation for things like housing, education, etc., is caused by taxes being too low—specifically among the folks with high incomes competing for these goods.
More specifically, it appears that taxes are too low on the upper middle class specifically. In my neighborhood near Annapolis, the price of houses has doubled since 2016. We came here because it was a nice place where you could afford a house without being a dual professional household, but that’s increasingly less true. The problem, it seems to me, isn’t billionaires. The house next to mine wasn’t torn down and replaced with a new million dollar home by a billionaire. It was some upper middle class professional. The top 10% has been riding the coattails of the top 0.1% for decades and has significantly pulled away from the median American. Unlike billionaires, which are few in number, this is a large class of people who can use their growing incomes to outbid everyone else for homes, education, etc. At the same time, taxes on these folks are the lowest in the developed world, even lower today than after Reagan’s second round of tax cuts.
More specifically, it appears that taxes are too low on the upper middle class specifically. In my neighborhood near Annapolis, the price of houses has doubled since 2016. We came here because it was a nice place where you could afford a house without being a dual professional household, but that’s increasingly less true. The problem, it seems to me, isn’t billionaires. The house next to mine wasn’t torn down and replaced with a new million dollar home by a billionaire. It was some upper middle class professional. The top 10% has been riding the coattails of the top 0.1% for decades and has significantly pulled away from the median American. Unlike billionaires, which are few in number, this is a large class of people who can use their growing incomes to outbid everyone else for homes, education, etc. At the same time, taxes on these folks are the lowest in the developed world, even lower today than after Reagan’s second round of tax cuts.
One of the actual major tax problems in CA is that property taxes are not equally applied. I bought my house in 2017 and pay well in excess of $10,000 a year in property taxes. But guess what? My neighbors who bought their houses in the 90s pay far less than half of that despite their houses being twice the size and worth far more than my home. Prop 13 has been a terrible thing for California over the long run and has served to inflate housing prices while trapping people in their current home because selling it and moving would force them to immediately increase their tax burden by a significant amount.
astounds me people are still referencing MMT when its exactly what got us into this inflation mess in the first place. the tantalizing cancerous idea which will never die
I’m not sure why you’d blame MMT. The theory behind MMT is that inflation is the primary check on government spending. When significant inflation occurs, you need to raise taxes to remove cash from the system. Obviously that’s not what we’re doing (instead we’re dumping more cash into the system by doing gas tax holidays and subsidizing gas).
A nearby house that is slightly less fancy than mine just sold for 100+K more then mine is listed on the tax rolls which is drastically above previous sales for such homes in this area. Not a large town, lots of empty land for sale, excellent Internet and prices are still thru the roof so it isn't just a California issue when talking about housing and such costs.
Little detail that should be considered by US tech workers moving to another state: non-compete enforceability. This [0] is from 2016, but you get the idea.
[0]: https://beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/
[0]: https://beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/
This is hardly how the problems with California's electricity and manufacturing sectors arose:
> "The state’s climate change policies, however well-intentioned, have had a particularly devastating impact on manufacturing. California’s “renewable energy” push has generated high energy prices and the nation’s least-reliable power grid, crippling an industry reliant on fossil fuels and a stable electric supply. The state fell to 44th in the country in manufacturing sector employment growth last year. . ."
In reality neoliberal trade policies facilitated the outsourcing of California's electronics and garment manufacturing industry over the past 40 years. This alone accounts for much of the loss of middle-class prosperity around the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin.
Furthermore, the disastrous deregulation of the investor-owned utility sector is what caused electricity bills to spike initially and the few publicly-owned electricity distributers had lower rates. Getting off fossil fuels doesn't 'destabilize the grid', either.
I don't know enough about the rest of the claims in the article to say anything about them, but the take on energy and manufacturing looks inaccurate at best.
> "The state’s climate change policies, however well-intentioned, have had a particularly devastating impact on manufacturing. California’s “renewable energy” push has generated high energy prices and the nation’s least-reliable power grid, crippling an industry reliant on fossil fuels and a stable electric supply. The state fell to 44th in the country in manufacturing sector employment growth last year. . ."
In reality neoliberal trade policies facilitated the outsourcing of California's electronics and garment manufacturing industry over the past 40 years. This alone accounts for much of the loss of middle-class prosperity around the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin.
Furthermore, the disastrous deregulation of the investor-owned utility sector is what caused electricity bills to spike initially and the few publicly-owned electricity distributers had lower rates. Getting off fossil fuels doesn't 'destabilize the grid', either.
I don't know enough about the rest of the claims in the article to say anything about them, but the take on energy and manufacturing looks inaccurate at best.
Where does the information on California having the highest poverty rate in the US come from?
The source they listed only gave California's poverty rate at 16.4% [1].
But the Census source used by Wikipedia lists California's rate at 12.58% [2]
Neither rate actually puts California at the top of any other lists I find.
In what measure does California have the highest poverty rate?
EDIT: I see the first number is based on California Poverty Measure (CPM) which takes into account cost of living [3]. But is there a direct way to compare this to other states?
[1] https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
[3] https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/research-report...
The source they listed only gave California's poverty rate at 16.4% [1].
But the Census source used by Wikipedia lists California's rate at 12.58% [2]
Neither rate actually puts California at the top of any other lists I find.
In what measure does California have the highest poverty rate?
EDIT: I see the first number is based on California Poverty Measure (CPM) which takes into account cost of living [3]. But is there a direct way to compare this to other states?
[1] https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
[3] https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/research-report...