To save California, sacrifice single-family zoning(latimes.com)
latimes.com
To save California, sacrifice single-family zoning
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-22/editorial-sb9-sb10-california-housing
195 comments
https://archive.is/7lrVl
For the people with homes, locked into lower property taxes, a stable monthly payment, and their version of the CA dream, nothing needs to change. I can't really blame them. When I owned a home I was a NIMBY who thought my mortgage payment afforded me a right to continue my lifestyle indefinitely.
After a divorce and becoming a renter, I have a lot more sympathy for folks subject to the whims of landlords and the rental market. Sure, renting means I have some flexibility and don't have to worry much about maintenance, but there is an emotional and social price you pay for the lack of (sometimes imagined) stability afforded to you by home ownership.
I'm about to plan my CA escape after 27 years in the sun and it is not without regrets. I'll say though that the one thing CA should consider is requiring the supply of housing to match the supply of jobs. I suppose it's fine if, say, Cupertino doesn't want to urbanize, but as long as they allow more commercial space and more jobs, they put pressure on surrounding communities to deal with the negative effects. I can't really care too much anymore though. CA has been good to me for a long time, but she's showing me the door and telling me I'm no longer welcome and it's not something I have the will to fight for.
After a divorce and becoming a renter, I have a lot more sympathy for folks subject to the whims of landlords and the rental market. Sure, renting means I have some flexibility and don't have to worry much about maintenance, but there is an emotional and social price you pay for the lack of (sometimes imagined) stability afforded to you by home ownership.
I'm about to plan my CA escape after 27 years in the sun and it is not without regrets. I'll say though that the one thing CA should consider is requiring the supply of housing to match the supply of jobs. I suppose it's fine if, say, Cupertino doesn't want to urbanize, but as long as they allow more commercial space and more jobs, they put pressure on surrounding communities to deal with the negative effects. I can't really care too much anymore though. CA has been good to me for a long time, but she's showing me the door and telling me I'm no longer welcome and it's not something I have the will to fight for.
> requiring the supply of housing to match the supply of jobs
As a native Californian, I would change that to, "match the supply of water." I'm astounded at all the construction, particularly that being built in the hills overlooking Folsom, and wonder where they're going to get their water.
As a native Californian, I would change that to, "match the supply of water." I'm astounded at all the construction, particularly that being built in the hills overlooking Folsom, and wonder where they're going to get their water.
Desalination can provide for a lot more, even then, consumer usage is nothing compared to agricultural and industrial use.
Yes, plenty of water it’s just up north, not in the places where agriculture needs it. I’m tempted to argue it’s a self correcting problem; pipes and desalination will be built when the costs make it feasible. It’s all politics and special interests. That’s the California way.
You're welcome to keep your drought to yourself. Please do not expand the blast radius in an attempt to bail out. Agriculture is 100% the drain, and a pipeline would only make it so that more consumers suffer.
So it's ok for other regions to buy food produced with California water but it's not ok for California to buy other regions' water?
We need a national water grid ASAP, before climate change threatens the food security of the US.
We need a national water grid ASAP, before climate change threatens the food security of the US.
>We need a national water grid ASAP
That would result in the export and subsidizing of the wasteful water management practices of the west. We could then look forward to a few years of record crops, then no crops as all the water runs out across the grid at the same time.
That would result in the export and subsidizing of the wasteful water management practices of the west. We could then look forward to a few years of record crops, then no crops as all the water runs out across the grid at the same time.
Agriculture is only a drain if you think eating food is unnecessary.
The pragmatic approach would simply be to price water so farmers and consumers are incentivized to use it efficiently.
The pragmatic approach would simply be to price water so farmers and consumers are incentivized to use it efficiently.
disagree with specific 'only' but not the general sentiment, however;
People growing almonds with flood irrigation (and similar high water needy things) in cali or az
almonds, pistachios, sugar beets.. these (and others) are taking a toll on california's environment to produce some luxury goods for profit - not to provide food for the starving.
People growing almonds with flood irrigation (and similar high water needy things) in cali or az
almonds, pistachios, sugar beets.. these (and others) are taking a toll on california's environment to produce some luxury goods for profit - not to provide food for the starving.
Producing food for the starving is hardly the problem the world faces. In regions that face starvation shipping costs and distribution networks are the bottleneck.
And almonds are hardly any more of a luxury food than a 20 minute shower or front lawn. Look at residential water consumption; how much really goes to basic living vs wasted? And how much effort goes into conserving or reusing water efficiently?
The point is to price water any let it flow to the most efficient use as determined by the market. When that happens, you’ll find that suddenly farmers stop flooding fields to grow alfalfa for Australian cattle and pick crops that are economically viable with the water constraints we have. Maybe nuts are too expensive to grow here; we don’t really know.
And almonds are hardly any more of a luxury food than a 20 minute shower or front lawn. Look at residential water consumption; how much really goes to basic living vs wasted? And how much effort goes into conserving or reusing water efficiently?
The point is to price water any let it flow to the most efficient use as determined by the market. When that happens, you’ll find that suddenly farmers stop flooding fields to grow alfalfa for Australian cattle and pick crops that are economically viable with the water constraints we have. Maybe nuts are too expensive to grow here; we don’t really know.
It floods up north. Do you like floods? The ocean has a lot of water too. Do the math.
There are some proposing diverting the Mississippi for California use - like all of it somewhere around Missouri south to be dry. Don't think that will fly but that's the mindset of California for you - makes you remember the imperialism attitude from the Dead Kennedys in "California Über Alles".
I'd love to see an east-west transcontinental aqueduct from the southeast to the southwest. Cover it with solar panels and string an HVDC line alongside it to both increase grid transport capacity and to run pumping stations and connect substations along the way. Maybe put it alongside I-40.
In a possible future, thousands of gargantuan wind turbines, semi-submerged,10-100 Megawatts each, are going to be scattered all across the oceans. Some of them are going to be connected to the global power grid, some of them are going to become charging stations for liquid-air powered cargo ships, and some of them are going to power offshore desalination plants. Those will pump potable water through deep-sea aqueducts, eventually connecting to vast, transcontinental aqueducts providing drinking water to what was once large deserts.
Plenty of water in California, all going to farming.
Or going out to sea. [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbpHA3xqvOE
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbpHA3xqvOE
We have to let some water flow for wildlife and beach maintenance.
True. However, I see the same story now repeating for Arizona too. Intel, TSMC are all opening fabs there - but where is the water?
Because there isn’t a gigantic reservoir next to Folsom?
Have you seen the levels in Folsom lake recently?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-27/historic...
There. Is. Not. Enough. Water. Anything else you hear is just a lie. I drive by it every day for the past 10 years, it goes up and down a lot but the levels this year are just record breaking, in a bad way.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-27/historic...
There. Is. Not. Enough. Water. Anything else you hear is just a lie. I drive by it every day for the past 10 years, it goes up and down a lot but the levels this year are just record breaking, in a bad way.
>There. Is. Not. Enough. Water. Anything else you hear is just a lie.
At zero cost for usage sure. But there is plenty of water if you price it.
At zero cost for usage sure. But there is plenty of water if you price it.
California voters are probably totally fine with the housing supply being too low because it drives up the price of their houses.
"But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for homeowners."
http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...
http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...
I'd say people in the state being disadvantaged by the housing crisis vastly outnumber those profiting from it. It's just that people in power (richer, older folks, those sitting on local councils, state legislatures, celebrities, corporations, pastors, power brokers, other influential figures) all fall into the latter category.
"They also vote a lot more, and a lot more predictably"
Literally the words out of the mouth of a close friend of mine who sits on city council for a mid-size CA suburb
Literally the words out of the mouth of a close friend of mine who sits on city council for a mid-size CA suburb
An upvote is not sufficient to convey my support of this comment. Seriously, CA would be vastly different if people just showed up to vote. Unfortunately that never seems to change.
As controversial and as energizing as the 2020 election was, and despite breaking voter turnout records, 33% of the voting eligible population still did not show up to vote!
With Covid, person id verification apps became common. Can't they be used for voting? Instead of registering and going to polling stations, just get a popup "Do you want more houses built - Yes/No". Press a button, done.
No because such things should never become digital. Voting should never become digital or rather processed via the internet.
To get a National ID system done there should be an earnest effort to ensure that EVERYone gets one free of charge , at the fastest connivence and earnest effort and no future legislation can infringe on its obtainment and replacement. Anything lesser would be I adequate.
To get a National ID system done there should be an earnest effort to ensure that EVERYone gets one free of charge , at the fastest connivence and earnest effort and no future legislation can infringe on its obtainment and replacement. Anything lesser would be I adequate.
[deleted]
Don't make the mistake of assuming all people in favor of the status-quo only "profit" monetarily:
http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
"Get the poor's out of here!"
But they also want a barista to serve them a latte, it doesn't matter if the barista has an hour commute each way and shit benefits.
I'd say eat the rich, but this place hates that meme xD
But they also want a barista to serve them a latte, it doesn't matter if the barista has an hour commute each way and shit benefits.
I'd say eat the rich, but this place hates that meme xD
Because if you eat the rich then youre only naturally selecting for the faster and more ellusive rich that you wont be able to catch.
With seriousness, a slogan that accomplishes nothing takes the teeth out of a protest. Tax the super wealthy at x% ans enforce minimum corporate taxes simply doesnt have a ring to it.
With seriousness, a slogan that accomplishes nothing takes the teeth out of a protest. Tax the super wealthy at x% ans enforce minimum corporate taxes simply doesnt have a ring to it.
But sir, if you keep exploiting the poor you're only naturally selecting for a meaner hungrier mob.
With seriousness.
With seriousness.
[deleted]
It's worth noting that while upzoning can help the whole housing market go down in price, it can also unlock value for existing home owners.
If you currently own a home and a law is passed that allows you to turn your upstairs into an apartment, then your home may now be worth more, and you actually can access the value stored in your home (by renting it out).
Similarly, if any home in your neighborhood can be turned into a fourplex or larger, and there's the demand to do so, then the supply of large single-family homes in your area shrinks. So your house price can increase as it becomes a rarer find.
But since the total supply of units is going up, rent goes down. And since rent goes down, you don't need pay people extra just to accommodate for crazy expensive housing. For the home owner, cost of living goes down, as every store and restaurant they go to gets cheaper.
Plus, it means that they pay less in taxes, or at least get more for the taxes they're already paying. Places like San Francisco are so inefficient with their tax bases because you need to pay every random bureaucrats $100k+ just to keep up with cost of living.
If you stop restricting the size of the pie, it grows and benefits everyone.
If you currently own a home and a law is passed that allows you to turn your upstairs into an apartment, then your home may now be worth more, and you actually can access the value stored in your home (by renting it out).
Similarly, if any home in your neighborhood can be turned into a fourplex or larger, and there's the demand to do so, then the supply of large single-family homes in your area shrinks. So your house price can increase as it becomes a rarer find.
But since the total supply of units is going up, rent goes down. And since rent goes down, you don't need pay people extra just to accommodate for crazy expensive housing. For the home owner, cost of living goes down, as every store and restaurant they go to gets cheaper.
Plus, it means that they pay less in taxes, or at least get more for the taxes they're already paying. Places like San Francisco are so inefficient with their tax bases because you need to pay every random bureaucrats $100k+ just to keep up with cost of living.
If you stop restricting the size of the pie, it grows and benefits everyone.
Only half of California homes are owner occupied. [0] So, there could be more CA voters renting than home owners. To put that in perspective, Texas has over 60% owner-occupied housing [1].
[0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA
[1]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX
[0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA
[1]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX
I live in a single family house, I've lived in apartments. For me quality of life is way better in SFH. Don't care if house price gows down or up, won't sell this house.
It's not a popular opinion here, but quality of life is important for many of us.
It's not a popular opinion here, but quality of life is important for many of us.
There is nothing wrong with sfh. The problem is when only sfh’s are allowed.
An sfh next to a high density apartment building feels a lot less like a sfh.
When you don't pull a CA and let things grow organically there isn't much of a discontinuity so you don't get much development like that. It'll be a gradual increase from SFH in the exurbs with more and more mutlifamily and small apartment buildings increasing in density to the city core where it's basically all purpose built apartment buildings with dozens of units at a minimum.
A neighborhood that's got a lot of 2/3/4 family homes feels about the same as a SFH neighborhood if those homes have one unit occupied by the owner.
A neighborhood that's got a lot of 2/3/4 family homes feels about the same as a SFH neighborhood if those homes have one unit occupied by the owner.
quality of life is important for all of us. That’s the problem.
Isn't it more reasonable to think that maybe the people in single-family zoned neighborhoods want to live in that kind of neighborhood, completely apart from the price of their houses?
But home values will plummet is a common bogeyman used in local zoning battles, so separating the two concepts is not as trivial as you suggest.
Precisely.
I don't know of any SF voters who think "oh yeah, I need to fight this new development so the price of my house continues to rise".
It's more like "I like the way my neighborhood is and don't want it to change".
I don't know of any SF voters who think "oh yeah, I need to fight this new development so the price of my house continues to rise".
It's more like "I like the way my neighborhood is and don't want it to change".
I'm afraid a change is inevitable. But it can be a softer change that mostly preserves what they care for, or a rough and dramatic change if no adaptive measures are taken.
I suppose that SF residents probably liked what their city was in, say, 1985, and did not want any change. Has SF changed somehow by 2020? Was in to the better?
I suppose that SF residents probably liked what their city was in, say, 1985, and did not want any change. Has SF changed somehow by 2020? Was in to the better?
If you talk to people who have lived in Mountain View, CA for 30+ years they aren't thrilled about Google moving in. Sure their property values are huge but quality of life is worse. Property appreciation doesn't mean much if you're not planning to sell and just want a nice place to live.
[deleted]
Don’t be crazy - everyone wants to live in a pod!
Money is less of a motivator than the preservation of a lifestyle.
It's the most economically rational decision for a very large voting block, but it is openly screwing entire generations as well.
[deleted]
Depends on what percentage of California voters are renters...
Housing can't be both affordable and a good investment.
You have that backwards. Housing can only be affordable if it's not a good investment. If it's a good investment, people will buy houses expecting to get much more out of it than just a place to stay.
Look at Japan, for example, where houses lose their value after 40 years. I pay cheaper rent in Tokyo than I ever did in even mid-sized American cities.
Look at Japan, for example, where houses lose their value after 40 years. I pay cheaper rent in Tokyo than I ever did in even mid-sized American cities.
Both of these are wrong because they confuse buildings and land. Land can be a good investment even if shelter is affordable. My understanding, for example, is land in Tokyo is quite expensive.
Random, but what do you do in Tokyo? I’ve been trying to break into their market for two years. Had an offer rescinded from Rakuten because immigration shut down.
The housing market boggles my mind how houses don’t appreciate at all there.
The housing market boggles my mind how houses don’t appreciate at all there.
Houses are like cars. Nice when they're new, but problems accumulate over time, and eventually with the march of technology and fashion, no one wants an old beater if they can afford otherwise.
Why the downvotes? Housing can’t increase in value faster than real wages over time without making future generations measurably poorer. Of course, caveats apply. It’s reasonable that land prices in urban areas will on average grow as the population does, but if no development is allowed to be able to offset those higher prices then essentially nobody benefits from that increase in value besides existing homeowners.
It an be if you're allowed to improve it.
People have children, sometimes multiple. They're not exactly thrilled about the outlook for them. Also, people have stories about the types of people who have offered them these outrageous prices for their homes. I don't believe this is a situation that will be strongly supported by the average home owner.
>People have children, sometimes multiple
Legend has it people even have those outside of single family zoned regions in California!
Legend has it people even have those outside of single family zoned regions in California!
I’d be more worried about my children growing up in a world where the only places left to live are zoned and built like termite mounts.
don't question unending economic growth :) it's definitely not the root cause of many modern existential problems!
When I think of somebody converting their house to a duplex, termite mound is not the picture that comes to mind.
Yeah, the traffic isn't bad enough so let's just shoehorn in multifamily units into single family zoned neighborhoods that aren't remotely close enough to the jobs people work for bicycling to be a realistic option. Virtue signaling the housing crisis isn't useful. If you're going to talk about housing you can't just rail against "NIMBYs" and clamor for more housing. You have to actually explain how the infrastructure and transportation to/from jobs will work with your assertions. Otherwise you're just arguing for cramming everyone up each other's asses and let the chips fall where they may.
Most people are not going to ride a bicycle to work. Some of us have kids to drop off at school on the way to work. We have to buy enough groceries to feed a family, which don't fit on a bicycle. Let go of your hipster fantasies. We can't all be single people living in a flat, riding a bicycle to the farmer's market and the book store.
Most people are not going to ride a bicycle to work. Some of us have kids to drop off at school on the way to work. We have to buy enough groceries to feed a family, which don't fit on a bicycle. Let go of your hipster fantasies. We can't all be single people living in a flat, riding a bicycle to the farmer's market and the book store.
No, no, no, can't you see? We need to save California! Won't someone PLEASE think about the landlords? I need people to owe me money forever! How else will I survive?
Please, oh please, California, don't build more single-family homes and create stable families. Won't someone PLEASE think about Blackrock! REITs need cash flow to be viable investments! How else will we pay out dividends to investors?
Please, oh please, California, don't build more single-family homes and create stable families. Won't someone PLEASE think about Blackrock! REITs need cash flow to be viable investments! How else will we pay out dividends to investors?
Density is better for the environment and reduces housing costs which benefits poor people and minorities. The primary beneficiaries of the current arrangement are rich white landowners who in many cases pay virtually no property tax. Stable families are more than capable of thriving in multi-family homes, go anywhere in London or Paris to see for yourself.
Renting is for the poor. No one else thinks otherwise.
They will need to triple or quadruple the capacity of the water, electrical and sewer grids that were sized for the current density.
And convince people to part with their cars because street parking will become impossible.
This argument is commonly thrown around, but makes no sense in practice.
The denser the place, the more efficient the infrastructure use. 50 families in a single apartment building use massively fewer pipes & power lines than 50 families in single family homes. But the tax revenue for the city can still be the same. In a denser area, those families are less likely to own or need cars, and if they do, they drive less.
On the other hand, low-density suburban neighborhoods are often so inefficient that the maintenance cost of their infrastructure is more than the tax revenue the residents bring in. (Here's a good overview of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0)
It's more true to say that "we don't have the infrastructure for single family homes" than it is to say that we don't have the infrastructure for apartment buildings.
The denser the place, the more efficient the infrastructure use. 50 families in a single apartment building use massively fewer pipes & power lines than 50 families in single family homes. But the tax revenue for the city can still be the same. In a denser area, those families are less likely to own or need cars, and if they do, they drive less.
On the other hand, low-density suburban neighborhoods are often so inefficient that the maintenance cost of their infrastructure is more than the tax revenue the residents bring in. (Here's a good overview of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0)
It's more true to say that "we don't have the infrastructure for single family homes" than it is to say that we don't have the infrastructure for apartment buildings.
Key quote: "When you lose money on every development, you don't make it up in volume."
India must have the most efficient real estate in the world then. Let's take a nice hard look at their infrastructure.
Do you own a home? Would you willingly let it be replaced alongside surrounding properties with an apartment complex? After all, it's more efficient.
You shouldn't own a washing machine either, that's silly. A laundromat helps reduce the need to own the appliances and create a more social environment.
And we haven't even begun talking about that car you own. Gross. Public transportation is so much more efficient.
Oh you actually wanted to travel somewhere and not have to spend 4 hours of your day to go there, take care of your business, then come home? Weird.
Do you own a home? Would you willingly let it be replaced alongside surrounding properties with an apartment complex? After all, it's more efficient.
You shouldn't own a washing machine either, that's silly. A laundromat helps reduce the need to own the appliances and create a more social environment.
And we haven't even begun talking about that car you own. Gross. Public transportation is so much more efficient.
Oh you actually wanted to travel somewhere and not have to spend 4 hours of your day to go there, take care of your business, then come home? Weird.
Per capita urban water usage in California has decreased by double digits percentages since 1990. See page 10 at https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PI_Water_Use_... Older cities have done even better; newer urban developments further away from the older coastal areas pulled the average state-wide decrease down.
IOW, there's plenty of slack in existing cities, especially the older coastal cities, which were originally planned and built for far greater density than permitted now, and at a time when per capita usage was far greater. If anything, continuing to incentivize urban sprawl is the surest way to overburden water infrastructure, especially supply.
IOW, there's plenty of slack in existing cities, especially the older coastal cities, which were originally planned and built for far greater density than permitted now, and at a time when per capita usage was far greater. If anything, continuing to incentivize urban sprawl is the surest way to overburden water infrastructure, especially supply.
In fact, depending on where you live, water appliance efficiency has reduced sewer flows to the point where systems stop functioning, since a lot of systems are designed around a minimum amount of flow to make things move.
Most water consumption these days comes from the state's agriculture, which bringing more residents in would not really impact since denser housing would not really go in areas that are rural.
Most water consumption these days comes from the state's agriculture, which bringing more residents in would not really impact since denser housing would not really go in areas that are rural.
As with living in a crowded bug-hive apartment building instead of a house, reducing water consumption by making showers, toilets, washing machines, dishwashers, and other appliances function poorly is just masking a real decline in standard of living by clipping coins.
“We’ve reduced water, power, meat, and space consumption by XX%” is not good news. That just means we’re getting poorer. Good news would be “we’ve halved the cost of water, power, meat, and space, so everyone have a good time”.
“We’ve reduced water, power, meat, and space consumption by XX%” is not good news. That just means we’re getting poorer. Good news would be “we’ve halved the cost of water, power, meat, and space, so everyone have a good time”.
The contradiction here is that, overwhelmingly, the most effective way to decrease the price of space (in terms of square mile per person of land) is to increase unemployment -- which basically nobody actually wants.
Some Northern California cities are literally out of water.
https://ktla.com/news/california/please-conserve-water-touri...
In the Monterey Peninsula area residential building permits have been restricted for years due to a persistent water shortage. That's been going on since well before the current drought.
https://ktla.com/news/california/please-conserve-water-touri...
In the Monterey Peninsula area residential building permits have been restricted for years due to a persistent water shortage. That's been going on since well before the current drought.
Not just per capita but absolute. East Bay MUD total deliveries fell by half in the last 40 years while the population increased by 70%.
That’s an exaggeration since there wouldn’t be as many lawns to water and apartments are more energy-efficient.
Also, infrastructure like water treatment plants are expensive and scale well, so you can spread the cost over more people.
But yes, there are problems that come with density and they have to be thought through.
Also, infrastructure like water treatment plants are expensive and scale well, so you can spread the cost over more people.
But yes, there are problems that come with density and they have to be thought through.
Yes, there are many places in the US that are currently having infrastructure crises due to too little density. There might need to be infrastructure upgrades as neighborhoods become denser, but over the long run, the infrastructure will be much more sustainable because the cost per user will be significantly lower.
I think a lot of people would actually embrace getting rid of their cars if they weren't necessary
I live in a sfh in a Bay Area suburb and a lot of my neighbors have multiple cars for fun/hobbies and family. One of my neighbors has a household of three (two parents & a 10year old kid) and they have FIVE cars. I never realized how big "car culture" was in California until moving out of the city and into a suburb. In my experience living here, you can pry their cars out of their cold dead hands.
> And convince people to part with their cars because street parking will become impossible.
Convince nothing, price them out. The state is not obligated to pay for permanent storage for your private property on public land. If you want a car, you need to pay for its permanent storage.
Convince nothing, price them out. The state is not obligated to pay for permanent storage for your private property on public land. If you want a car, you need to pay for its permanent storage.
People who have been become accustomed to abundant free street parking will not be happy about paying for it. They will vote accordingly. You can complain that this isn't fair but that's the reality of living in a democracy.
I don’t think that’s actually true. There is certainly a very noisy minority that would like us to believe that they’re the majority, but revealed consumer preference does not seem to reinforce this statement.
Consider the street closures during the pandemic for outdoors eating. The parking crowd has screeched endlessly about the traffic and parking issues caused by this, but the majority of the populace love these areas now. A bunch of them are actually becoming permanent.
Similarly, the cute, street car suburbs with high walkability and insufficient parking are absurdly expensive everywhere I’ve ever lived. Turns out people like living places that are nice, and that sufficient parking is a relatively minor deciding factor.
Consider the street closures during the pandemic for outdoors eating. The parking crowd has screeched endlessly about the traffic and parking issues caused by this, but the majority of the populace love these areas now. A bunch of them are actually becoming permanent.
Similarly, the cute, street car suburbs with high walkability and insufficient parking are absurdly expensive everywhere I’ve ever lived. Turns out people like living places that are nice, and that sufficient parking is a relatively minor deciding factor.
No it's true. The street closures during pandemic were mostly in downtown commercial areas and were broadly supported by restaurant owners. They hardly impacted residential areas. Politicians who try to increase charges or reduce availability for residential street parking inevitably face a lot of resistance.
Building a new walkable neighborhood is fine. Trying to drastically alter an existing neighborhood is nearly impossible.
Building a new walkable neighborhood is fine. Trying to drastically alter an existing neighborhood is nearly impossible.
There are also examples from Europe where mayors have outright banned or drastically reduced access for cars, and won re-election over the complaints of car owners. And these aren’t podunk towns either, one of them is Paris.
Of course, the counter argument is “but Paris has a good metro system”, to which I say maybe we should fix that.
Of course, the counter argument is “but Paris has a good metro system”, to which I say maybe we should fix that.
The state really wants its people to be as mobile and economically active as possible and cars facilitate exactly that.
Cars are actually one of the least efficient means of achieving that.
Sure, but only if your world begins and ends with the urban public transit map and only includes white collar workers. Outside of areas with good public transit cars are the next best thing, and those areas start much closer to urban cores than you want to admit and even within good transit areas there is a huge amount of economic activity where the point to point nature or cargo capacity of cars enables economic activity that is not otherwise economically in the black. We need to have some amount of car infrastructure to enable all that. A side effect of this is that a bunch of urban workers who don't really have a good argument for commuting by car can and do because they can afford the luxury.
It always amazes that the universal response to arguments about reducing parking in cities is that someone will immediately cry “well what about the country!” It’s always hard to come up with a response more polite than “I wasn’t talking about them, why are you bringing it up?”
It depends what you mean by efficient. A bus is more energy-efficient but a car is way more time-efficient.
They’re incredibly time efficient, until everyone else tries to do the same thing. This is why commutes in places like Atlanta and Los Angeles are notoriously bad.
Also, cars are literally the least space efficient means of transit ever devised. Depending on cars for transit means everyone has to live further apart in order to make roads and parking big enough to accommodate all the cars[0], making commutes worse.
Cars are also time inefficient over longer distances, trains (if we bothered to make them) and airplanes trivially beat cars.
0 - Underground parking solves the storage issue at a ludicrous cost. In many modern buildings the cost of the underground parking structure is often more than the cost of the apartment building above it.
Also, cars are literally the least space efficient means of transit ever devised. Depending on cars for transit means everyone has to live further apart in order to make roads and parking big enough to accommodate all the cars[0], making commutes worse.
Cars are also time inefficient over longer distances, trains (if we bothered to make them) and airplanes trivially beat cars.
0 - Underground parking solves the storage issue at a ludicrous cost. In many modern buildings the cost of the underground parking structure is often more than the cost of the apartment building above it.
That depends. Water? Probably not. Most of the water goes toward Ag. Electrical? Probably, especially as we add more electric transportation options. Sewer and trash, yes.
That said, as others have mentioned, urban living arrangements can be more efficient. There is a big question though if that is compatible with the historical CA dream ideal. Sure, that ideal is becoming more and more incompatible with reality, but people want what they want. CA could offer me a free condo in a high-rise urban environment and I'd still leave because that's not something I would ever want to live in.
That said, as others have mentioned, urban living arrangements can be more efficient. There is a big question though if that is compatible with the historical CA dream ideal. Sure, that ideal is becoming more and more incompatible with reality, but people want what they want. CA could offer me a free condo in a high-rise urban environment and I'd still leave because that's not something I would ever want to live in.
In the South Bay Area, the SR-17 highway to Santa Cruz also presents a significant bottleneck. On hot weekend days everyone tries to drive to the beach, and the traffic gets backed up onto surface streets so badly that Los Gatos residents are literally trapped in their homes. There is a bus line but it's not a practical option for most people.
Los Angeles was zoned for, and plumbed for, ten million people, but down-zoned to only 4 million currently.
https://abundanthousingla.org/downzoning-in-los-angeles/
https://abundanthousingla.org/downzoning-in-los-angeles/
So pack people into towers as densely as possible and take away their ability to freely leave. Wasn’t this the plot of Escape From LA?
You should tell the people living in tents and cars to be grateful they're not locked in a tower.
An open air prison is worse than an enclosed one?California got the state they voted for. Save the hollow moral indignation.
People who live in a tent don’t do so because apartments in SF are too expensive.
But the effects of high housing costs ultimately does impact those people. Everyone, from
the well-off to the impoverished, will seek housing. Those with more money have more options and when the market gets tight, what otherwise would be middle class accommodations in any other market, are only accessible to the wealthy. Middle class families are living in what would
be normally be for working class, working class are living in poor housing, and the poor are pushed out. The homeless person may have been evicted and could not afford a place and subsequently lost their job for reasons relating to their lack of housing. Even if this happens in Oakland, they may set up camp in places that have better services for homeless or larger homeless communities like SF.
They do so because zoning banned boarding houses, which is a variant of the same thesis.
Well, the good news is the majority of us are too broke to move anywhere, so the tower sounds fine to us, gotta be cheaper than the rent now.
Zoning changes are worthless when there is still prop 13 and the most onerous permitting and building restrictions in the country.
The only long term solutions are completely infeasible while there are elections in the state. Existing property owners need to pay actual representative property taxes and need to see their homes decrease about 75% in value through a combination of massive building campaign and increase an inventory from the unaffordability of paying real property taxes.
The only long term solutions are completely infeasible while there are elections in the state. Existing property owners need to pay actual representative property taxes and need to see their homes decrease about 75% in value through a combination of massive building campaign and increase an inventory from the unaffordability of paying real property taxes.
I urge the Times editorial board to experiment in their own neighborhoods first and report back to us.
You WILL live in the concrete pod
You WILL eat the bugs
You WILL NOT own anything
You WILL be happy
Amazing how many of these articles I'm seeing lately.
Amazing how many of these articles I'm seeing lately.
Allowing for denser housing frees up homes. The pod thing is scary because of a lack of choice which is what this article argues against.
Serfdom is SO hot right now. Like global warming? Omg, no like so much hotter.
This is much more complex problem, and each time someone offers one simple solution, you should suspect it’s BS.
Sure, single family zoning contributes to the problem, but Manhattan doesn’t really have single family zoning and is still not affordable. Just getting rid of it, won’t be the end of the world for the neighborhoods, but also won’t really solve problems it’s advertised to solve.
Sure, single family zoning contributes to the problem, but Manhattan doesn’t really have single family zoning and is still not affordable. Just getting rid of it, won’t be the end of the world for the neighborhoods, but also won’t really solve problems it’s advertised to solve.
Comparing the 1.6m person commercial core of a high-income 8.5m person city is a bit unfair.
Manhattan isn’t expensive because it’s high density, it’s high density because it’s expensive (desirable). Californian cities could follow suit if allowed to.
Manhattan isn’t expensive because it’s high density, it’s high density because it’s expensive (desirable). Californian cities could follow suit if allowed to.
New York has been downzoning for years now. What's important isn't just having high density, it's making sure that available housing grows with the population. When your population is increasing, increasing density helps with that.
Every NIMBY this side of Sacramento: "From my cold, dead hands!"
You don't have to be a NIMBY to say that. You can also just be realistic. We don't have the water.
Most water usage is agricultural. And increasing density decreases per-capita water usage because there are fewer lawns to water per person.
Building more housing won't solve that.
We don't today have the water for that. An also today, it's not worth it to build expensive desalination plants.
What increasing the density does do, is bring forwards when desalination becomes economically worthwhile, solving that better than having only low-density single-family homes.
Try this series on the economics of rural development. https://actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/articles/44022590...
What increasing the density does do, is bring forwards when desalination becomes economically worthwhile, solving that better than having only low-density single-family homes.
Try this series on the economics of rural development. https://actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/articles/44022590...
So I actually have a story about this, which I have posted on HN in the past...
Alameda, Ca - I was talking to the planning department about this problem as I was interested in creating a Tiny Home Community - and had one of the Pre-Eminent Tiny Home Companies on board: Wind River Tiny Homes to assist in planning, speaking to the city council etc...
The city council shut it down and refused to re-zone the lots. They stated that one was not allowed to put multiple tiny homes on a single lot - as the zoning required one entrance per dwelling only on the lot, which meant one pluming infrastructure, one sewer and one power...
So I asked if I could build shared utilities underground for multiple units on a lot - and they said no, because they defined single dwelling as only having one primary entrance (front door)
And they were dead set against changing any zoning laws.
Further, when asked about municipal broadband, they said "no we sold that whole contract to comcast, and we wont be looking at that again"
(That is an actual quote)
Alameda, Ca - I was talking to the planning department about this problem as I was interested in creating a Tiny Home Community - and had one of the Pre-Eminent Tiny Home Companies on board: Wind River Tiny Homes to assist in planning, speaking to the city council etc...
The city council shut it down and refused to re-zone the lots. They stated that one was not allowed to put multiple tiny homes on a single lot - as the zoning required one entrance per dwelling only on the lot, which meant one pluming infrastructure, one sewer and one power...
So I asked if I could build shared utilities underground for multiple units on a lot - and they said no, because they defined single dwelling as only having one primary entrance (front door)
And they were dead set against changing any zoning laws.
Further, when asked about municipal broadband, they said "no we sold that whole contract to comcast, and we wont be looking at that again"
(That is an actual quote)
Disclaimer, I’m European and have only been in SFBA for 5months in my life.
Maybe the solution is not to build more residential to keep growing, but instead to limit implantation of new jobs/companies to limit the growth to a sustainable decent value? The result would be to limit real estate price, but without making the Bay Area a hellscape of concrete towers.
I understand it is controversial, but do we really want to transform the Bay Area (which still has some really fine natural beauty and neighborhoods) into the hellscape that are some Chinese (or European) concrete tower based suburbs? Do we still want to keep centralizing more?
Sadly free market + democracy means either the homeowners side are in charge and keep the status quo so their property prices go up. Or the renters side might one day win, and start sacrificing this nice place to make concrete prisons for everyone. The current system ensures that the optimal thing to do will never happen.
Maybe the solution is not to build more residential to keep growing, but instead to limit implantation of new jobs/companies to limit the growth to a sustainable decent value? The result would be to limit real estate price, but without making the Bay Area a hellscape of concrete towers.
I understand it is controversial, but do we really want to transform the Bay Area (which still has some really fine natural beauty and neighborhoods) into the hellscape that are some Chinese (or European) concrete tower based suburbs? Do we still want to keep centralizing more?
Sadly free market + democracy means either the homeowners side are in charge and keep the status quo so their property prices go up. Or the renters side might one day win, and start sacrificing this nice place to make concrete prisons for everyone. The current system ensures that the optimal thing to do will never happen.
Surely there are other ways of increasing density than some concrete tower dystopia? I mean, there's this entire movement, 'new urbanism' or whatever you want to call it, which is specifically about creating nice AND decently high density towns and cities.
IMHO, the Bay Area is its own kind of dystopia, with low-density 'burbia spreading like a mat over the (previously beautiful, I presume) landscape. Even things like central Santa Clara are quite low density, with wide (very wide!) streets, low houses (typically 1-2 stories) set back far from the streets with ginormous parking lots.
IMHO, the Bay Area is its own kind of dystopia, with low-density 'burbia spreading like a mat over the (previously beautiful, I presume) landscape. Even things like central Santa Clara are quite low density, with wide (very wide!) streets, low houses (typically 1-2 stories) set back far from the streets with ginormous parking lots.
The mid-point I like to argue for is to default to quite tall, dense buildings allowed in a circle around public transit stations, and tapering off from there. Maybe with some exceptions in areas where it'd really impact the character of the local areas.
But e.g. having taken Caltrain from Palo Alto to SF a few times, there is plenty of room for much higher density around several of the stations without losing much of value, and in doing so you'd take a lot of pressure off both the nearby city centres and the less developed land.
I live in London and wish for the same here - instead of increasing density in areas that are already high density, pull development out of the centres, surround well connected stations, and use that to justify more services on more suburban stretches of existing rail etc.
My favourite example is that highrises going up surrounding my local train station will house as many people on ca. 2,000m^2 of land as my road of 660 houses has space for on ca. 40,000m^2 of land. And the environmental effects of less travel etc. as more of those people can rely on public transit will be enormous. Increasing density around the stations like that will reduce the need for smaller density increases across the board, or eating into greenfield sites.
But e.g. having taken Caltrain from Palo Alto to SF a few times, there is plenty of room for much higher density around several of the stations without losing much of value, and in doing so you'd take a lot of pressure off both the nearby city centres and the less developed land.
I live in London and wish for the same here - instead of increasing density in areas that are already high density, pull development out of the centres, surround well connected stations, and use that to justify more services on more suburban stretches of existing rail etc.
My favourite example is that highrises going up surrounding my local train station will house as many people on ca. 2,000m^2 of land as my road of 660 houses has space for on ca. 40,000m^2 of land. And the environmental effects of less travel etc. as more of those people can rely on public transit will be enormous. Increasing density around the stations like that will reduce the need for smaller density increases across the board, or eating into greenfield sites.
Prior to the pandemic, Caltrain was already at maximum capacity during commute hours. If people are going to return to offices in large numbers then Caltrain needs a major upgrade before we build a lot of housing near stations. On the other hand if remote working continues then there's less reason to locate new housing near transit hubs.
Caltrain capacity when I used to visit was on the level of a low traffic suburban train line elsewhere. It felt comical from someone used to e.g commuting on London trains.
It may well be it needs upgrades to be able to handle more, but even just having the land is a major part of the cost. It's certainly better than depending on trying to dump higher density housing in the middle of neighbourhoods where transport upgrades will require starting from scratch.
And if remote working continues, that'd allow far more housing near transport hubs. People will still travel on occasion, for all kinds of reasons.
And the second advantage of construction near transport hubs is that it usually means fewer neighbours likely to object. E.g. last time I was at Palo Alto at least, there was no low density housing immediately surrounding the station, and even where there is, there's typically little enough to make buying up the required properties to resolve the issues a lot easier.
It may well be it needs upgrades to be able to handle more, but even just having the land is a major part of the cost. It's certainly better than depending on trying to dump higher density housing in the middle of neighbourhoods where transport upgrades will require starting from scratch.
And if remote working continues, that'd allow far more housing near transport hubs. People will still travel on occasion, for all kinds of reasons.
And the second advantage of construction near transport hubs is that it usually means fewer neighbours likely to object. E.g. last time I was at Palo Alto at least, there was no low density housing immediately surrounding the station, and even where there is, there's typically little enough to make buying up the required properties to resolve the issues a lot easier.
If you're seriously going for some major change in land use patterns to increase density, surely you can fit in some public transit expansion as well.
If you have the budget for that, sure. But upping density can be done fairly cheaply and piecemeal by allowing denser development stage by stage along existing transit and upgrading as necessary. Support for transit expansion becomes a lot easier once there's higher volume of voters who use public transit because they're close to it.
Consider that the number of trains per hour for Caltrain today is a joke, and the length of the trains likewise. From a few quick searches it seems much of that is due to lack of electrification, which is apparently in progress. Complete that and you get 30%+ capacity increase without increasing train lengths, and Caltrain trains are about half the length of e.g. London commuter trains. I suspect you'd need signalling upgrades to increase the frequency much, but you probably could more than quadruple Caltrain capacity from current levels with relatively low impact works to the actual lines (finish electrification; extend platforms to handle at least 12 cars; signalling upgrades to handle a few more trains per hour) - most of the cost would be additional trains.
That gives a lot of room for additional density along the existing line before you need to justify expensive expansions.
But getting support for expansions would probably also be easier if people come to see it as a way of keeping development pressure away from their neighbourhoods and focused on the transit hubs.
Consider that the number of trains per hour for Caltrain today is a joke, and the length of the trains likewise. From a few quick searches it seems much of that is due to lack of electrification, which is apparently in progress. Complete that and you get 30%+ capacity increase without increasing train lengths, and Caltrain trains are about half the length of e.g. London commuter trains. I suspect you'd need signalling upgrades to increase the frequency much, but you probably could more than quadruple Caltrain capacity from current levels with relatively low impact works to the actual lines (finish electrification; extend platforms to handle at least 12 cars; signalling upgrades to handle a few more trains per hour) - most of the cost would be additional trains.
That gives a lot of room for additional density along the existing line before you need to justify expensive expansions.
But getting support for expansions would probably also be easier if people come to see it as a way of keeping development pressure away from their neighbourhoods and focused on the transit hubs.
This seems likely to create a host of unintended consequences and exacerbates the issues caused by a lack of socioeconomic diversity and people working in service jobs. The incentives will push municipalities to only take the “best” jobs, putting further pressure on restaurants etc to find workers. Ultimately the “character” of a neighborhood is a function of the vibrant culture and people more than yhe architecture and density.
In a different system where limiting implantation of new companies would be a thing, I don’t see why you couldn’t place incentives to keep the job balance and avoid these consequence. It’s not that complicated in comparison.
But of course this « different system » is science fiction at this point, especially in the US.
But of course this « different system » is science fiction at this point, especially in the US.
To save California, build more. Single family, multi family, whatever. Just more.
Wouldn't California, and the rest of the country, be better off if quite a few people from across the spectrum left for other places? The wealth/talent/business concentration is really unnecessary, and with drought, fires, and other global warming concerns, it's actually not that nice there.
The solution to a lot of the "housing problems" around the country isn't further concentration but decentralization.
The solution to a lot of the "housing problems" around the country isn't further concentration but decentralization.
Sure. Let’s take the 2 trillion we spent on the Afghan war and instead build up a few more tech cities with high rise apartments, great public transit, new great universities and so on.
I think the problem is that outside the government spending like that, private industry has a hard time getting sufficient funding to create a meaningful new center of innovation.
I think the problem is that outside the government spending like that, private industry has a hard time getting sufficient funding to create a meaningful new center of innovation.
I can't speak to the rest of it, but concentration of populations is often extremely good for certain types of endeavors. Cities often have the surplus value available to support speculative and "non-productive" cultural output. The rapid mixing of ideas and cultures often helps a lot too.
I'd argue that it's good for California to have all those people. It's pretty hard to argue that it isn't, based on the cultural, economic, and agricultural output of the state. Now whether or not it's good for the people in California is another matter altogether. And I say that as someone who recently left CA for another state.
I'd argue that it's good for California to have all those people. It's pretty hard to argue that it isn't, based on the cultural, economic, and agricultural output of the state. Now whether or not it's good for the people in California is another matter altogether. And I say that as someone who recently left CA for another state.
The issue is, you can have 21st-century high-tech free-market capitalism with low state intervention, or you can have decentralization of the population and economy. Pick only one.
There is an upper limit to how many single family homes you can build; transit costs eventually come to dominate and mean that more doesn't really help much.
Sure, I do agree, but having some additional single family homes built wouldn’t be a terrible thing if we also built a million apartments.
If we build that many apartments, we probably won't need any more single family homes. The ones that'll remain will probably balance out for those with the ability and willingness to pay for the luxury.
Interesting. So 50 years ago, with labour efficiency and productivity being a small fraction of what it is today, single-family houses were easily built and bought by people.
Today its somehow an unreachable goal that people cant obtain. Why? I dont want to live in a pod or communal flat with 20 people. How are people not revolting over the direction western economies are taking?
Today its somehow an unreachable goal that people cant obtain. Why? I dont want to live in a pod or communal flat with 20 people. How are people not revolting over the direction western economies are taking?
You can easily get an affordable single-family house - it's just going to be a long, long way from your job because you'll have to drive through all the land taken up by less affordable single-family houses who want to pay extra to live closer to where everybody else is.
Because the population has increased over the course of fifty years. There's a limit to how many single-family houses you can build that are reasonably close to jobs.
California has a long way to go before it starts to become attractive.
If places like the Bay Area had a modicum of intelligent governance, they’d take the approach that Tokyo did. Urbanize and ban street parking. Make the place walkable with affordable rent. The current real estate developments out there are a joke.
I know nothing about housing, but I am always perplexed about size of US houses. My sister has 9 room house, and it is considered small! My parents here in northern Europe has house twice as small, and it is more than enough for them.
Maybe it is part of the problem. Smaller house obviously is cheaper to build and maintain.
Maybe it is part of the problem. Smaller house obviously is cheaper to build and maintain.
Changing zoning in your neighborhood that you currently live in (and continue to want to live in) will likely change it, so for people to accept that risk they should be given an incentive.. for example within a given neighborhood what if the state gave those areas huge property tax breaks to allow zoning changes? Then there is a trade-off, pay less taxes and then you get something for the potentially different future. Maybe it’s better maybe it’s worse but saying to people “please just allow changes to the zoning” has not worked...
edit: basic thing I was thinking about was giving people incentives for YIMBY pushes in areas.. yea prop13 complicates it, but just wondering if there is any incentive for the folks that live in someplace already or the base assumption is that a very large percentage will vote against it?
edit: basic thing I was thinking about was giving people incentives for YIMBY pushes in areas.. yea prop13 complicates it, but just wondering if there is any incentive for the folks that live in someplace already or the base assumption is that a very large percentage will vote against it?
More than half my neighborhood already gets massive property tax breaks from Prop 13. Some people pay like 1/10th of what a new owner would pay.
They bought a house. It came with a deed. The deed delineates exactly what rights are conferred. Zoning is not one of them.
Why do we have to bribe people to rescind rights that they never had in the first place?
Why do we have to bribe people to rescind rights that they never had in the first place?
There is an expectation that where I live won't just be rezoned industrial to make way for more Amazon warehouses.
There's also an expectation that aliens don't invade, and chickens won't mutate into tyrannosaurus rexes with all the 5g going up.
Luckily, none of that will ever happen. You'll get apartments, not warehouses.
Luckily, none of that will ever happen. You'll get apartments, not warehouses.
The people that live in those area, and own those deeds, are the ones that vote and or convey their desires to their representative to impact the rules in those areas.
So I guess the answer to your question is "because those people bought their deeds under when a certain set of rules were in place, and they are in a position to exert pressure to keep those rules in place". Why would you expect them to act against (what they perceive as) their own self interest?
The answer of "because it helps society as a whole" is a powerful one, but not one that holds enough weight for a lot of people to give up a significant portion of their net wealth / retirement / satisfaction.
So I guess the answer to your question is "because those people bought their deeds under when a certain set of rules were in place, and they are in a position to exert pressure to keep those rules in place". Why would you expect them to act against (what they perceive as) their own self interest?
The answer of "because it helps society as a whole" is a powerful one, but not one that holds enough weight for a lot of people to give up a significant portion of their net wealth / retirement / satisfaction.
Why is single-family zoning required to "save" California when the problem is pretty much only in a small downtown core in a 2-3 major metro areas?
Pretty sure Bakersfield will do just fine with single-family zoning.
Pretty sure Bakersfield will do just fine with single-family zoning.
Bakersfield housing is expensive for the region. The salaries here, in my opinion, cannot keep up with this recent rise in prices.
Right, so build more single family home. Why would Bakersfield need condo towers and high density?
An end to single family zoning doesn't imply condo towers everywhere. The most common type of unit that you would see is a two family home, as people convert their basements, second floors or back yards into income generating units. This simple change would create a meaningful increase in housing availability.
Bad for the environment, and why we're dependent on foreign oil.
The US imports very little foreign oil now. We're not dependent.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
Covid won't last forever. But ecars growing should have an effect.
Seems like this would create a whole host of problems which restrictive zoning solves.
In other words we already learned that lesson and people generally do not like unappealing entities being right next door. It allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate.
Why does California not have a wider range of political ideas to solve their problems?
It appears Cali is chasing its tail by their brand and experiment in democracy when they try to "solve" their glaring issues.
Credit where due -- many times other states have benefited from California being so big and mandated certain safety laws. But like the famous saying many citizens of the Golden State will soon be able to answer the question for Newsom (uberkind-liberal-idiot-when-it-suits): What have you done for me lately?
In other words we already learned that lesson and people generally do not like unappealing entities being right next door. It allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate.
Why does California not have a wider range of political ideas to solve their problems?
It appears Cali is chasing its tail by their brand and experiment in democracy when they try to "solve" their glaring issues.
Credit where due -- many times other states have benefited from California being so big and mandated certain safety laws. But like the famous saying many citizens of the Golden State will soon be able to answer the question for Newsom (uberkind-liberal-idiot-when-it-suits): What have you done for me lately?
"unappearling entities being nextdoor", "allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate" You're openly advocating for segregation in 2021, this is almost verbatim how segregation advocates advocated for housing segregation ~100 years ago
Bluster is what you say!
OK then I am sure you would be ok with zoning being changed to allow for a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood whenever someone(s) with big piles of cash comes through. Yeah, no thanks mate.
Where I live the last heads of our county council, where openly corrupt with sweetheart deals handed out to local construction and developer companies. The one before last ended up in jail thanks to the feds investigating these type crimes. This is in the US no less. No way buddy. The public has a right to decide who can built what where and for what purpose.
Yes there should be defining discrimination which rightly limits a free for all when it comes to zoning.
How naïve are you?
OK then I am sure you would be ok with zoning being changed to allow for a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood whenever someone(s) with big piles of cash comes through. Yeah, no thanks mate.
Where I live the last heads of our county council, where openly corrupt with sweetheart deals handed out to local construction and developer companies. The one before last ended up in jail thanks to the feds investigating these type crimes. This is in the US no less. No way buddy. The public has a right to decide who can built what where and for what purpose.
Yes there should be defining discrimination which rightly limits a free for all when it comes to zoning.
How naïve are you?
Sub 100 with a much smaller number.
And yet all of the desirable(aka expensive) places to live are mixed use dense neighborhoods built before the concept of Euclidean zoning? Eg. Old pre-zoning, pre-car neighborhoods in Toronto, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, ect.
One state alone can't fix a nationwide problem. Otherwise it becomes more attractive and loses any ground made. There need to be homes everywhere people would like to live, within reason.
Perhaps single family zoning, which is also in many other states without crises, is not the cause or it's change the solution for California's very real crisis.
Basically every metro area in the country has an affordability problem as defined by cost of housing relative to wages. One of the most affordable growing metros is Houston, which has no zoning.
If that is your only metric by which to judge, then Houston is a roaring success. Include just about any other factor in your judgment, such as walkability, health outcomes, education quality, or disaster resilience to name a few, you might consider Houston's zoning strategy to be batshit insane.
Judging by how many people are moving from places like SF and NYC to places like Houston I think people prioritize affordable housing over all the secondary luxuries.
<insert low effort quip about consumers being cheapskates and not knowing what's good for them here>
<insert low effort quip about consumers being cheapskates and not knowing what's good for them here>
I’m not arguing that all zoning is bad. I was responding to the claim that SFZ is irrelevant to affordability.
Any Californians here?
We don't have the water for that. Sorry.
That's a bald-faced lie. Residential water use is only 10% of California's water use. Most of the water is used up by farmers who have free water rights dating back to the 1800's, flooding almond groves in the desert.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/#:~....
https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/#:~....
Replace the lawns with buildings and you free up some water.
Stop growing water intensive crops and you do even better
Stop growing water intensive crops and you do even better
Sure, once we convince everyone, we can do that.
Yes, you do. Sorry.
I'm with you, I wish we did. Unfortunately, the reservoirs say otherwise.
No you don't...you're a NIMBY just like the rest of Californians. I can tell because of the rehashed completely disingenuous arguments that have been debunked a million times by now.
I probably would be a NIMBY if I owned property myself. Unfortunately I'm not in that position. Higher density could help me become an owner (and hence a NIMBY), but it's not even clear that it will.
The reason I say that is because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand NYC built all the housing they possibly can, and yet I personally still could never afford to own property there. Same with LA.
I'm also opposed to the building of more roads. Not because (as you might claim) I own existing roads and have a vested interest, but because I know that more roads simply means more traffic. The places that have the most roads also have the worst traffic.
I wish it were different.
The reason I say that is because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand NYC built all the housing they possibly can, and yet I personally still could never afford to own property there. Same with LA.
I'm also opposed to the building of more roads. Not because (as you might claim) I own existing roads and have a vested interest, but because I know that more roads simply means more traffic. The places that have the most roads also have the worst traffic.
I wish it were different.
Luckily for you there isn't much support for the idea of induced demand in housing. It's a thing in roads, but not in literally everything and definitely doesn't seem to be in housing. Also while NYC certainly has built tons of housing in the past, it too has been festering anti growth elements and literally the densest us city is only the 20th world wide.
It is not different with housing, unfortunately. Singapore, Shanghai, NYC, SF, LA, won't get cheaper if they build more housing.
Nevertheless, I completely hope that I'm totally wrong on everything I said. It would mean that I might finally be able to afford to buy a house in those places.
Nevertheless, I completely hope that I'm totally wrong on everything I said. It would mean that I might finally be able to afford to buy a house in those places.
Why do you believe that? There are literally tons of studies showing more housing reduces prices and basically none showing increased prices. Look I think you are right that SF will never be as cheap as rural Ohio or something, but the idea that building housing will make the problem worse seems just wrong.
it is different, consumption of road space (road use is free, or at least priced in time instead of money, many routes to get to a destination). Urban land has an enormous cost priced in dollars, and as we practice land ownership in the west, it involves the monopoly right of a fixed space. One can own multiple pieces of property simultaneously, but one cannot take up multiple spaces in traffic. Entirely different concepts and mechanisms.
Foreign investors are the real issue. It's apparent that some are even laundering their money by purchasing US real estate. Just because the big players are doing so with commercial real estate doesn't mean smaller players aren't doing it with housing. Many houses owned by foreign investors tend to sit vacant full time.
There's even lawyers who specialize in the stuff, telling people to setup businesses and have the house owned by the business to reduce their tax rate.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/a-kleptocra...
https://calmatters.org/housing/2018/03/data-dig-are-foreign-...
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/a-guide-for-foreign-in...
There's even lawyers who specialize in the stuff, telling people to setup businesses and have the house owned by the business to reduce their tax rate.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/a-kleptocra...
https://calmatters.org/housing/2018/03/data-dig-are-foreign-...
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/a-guide-for-foreign-in...
This is a baseless conspiracy theory, usually peddled by those who stand to gain from high housing prices. "Oh no, high housing prices aren't caused by the fact that we don't allow anything new to be built, it's those nefarious foreigners".
It's easy to see how it doesn't add up. Why would some wealthy foreign investor want to buy a house and then lose a bunch of money by not renting it out?
It's easy to see how it doesn't add up. Why would some wealthy foreign investor want to buy a house and then lose a bunch of money by not renting it out?
It's not baseless. China is full of a new class of wealthy people who can have their property or wealth confiscated by the state at any time. They also know that won't happen in foreign real estate and as a bonus it affords their children the opportunity to attend a prestigious foreign university. Many wealthy Chinese own foreign real estate in western countries as a hedge.
Some people have money they need to get rid of. Taking a loss on the property is not as big of a problem as having money you can’t justify having possession of. How much of the market that is would be hard to guess. Zero is not likely, though.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-16/taxing-th... - the wealthy can afford lots of houses. They buy them or even build them (midwest, lots of empty multi-million dollar homes are still appearing).
I mean, there are multiple multi-billion dollar companies who haven't let go of their office spaces when there's no hope that people were going to return to work anytime soon. One of the many simple reasons, they can afford to burn the cash and it's a drop in the bucket. I don't think you are grasping what kind of wealth buys up houses.
> It's easy to see how it doesn't add up.
> Why would some wealthy foreign investor want to buy a house and then lose a bunch of money by not renting it out?
In the late 2010s, the primary reason was as a protective measure/taxation avoidance. In China, the wealthy are always at a danger of being on the wrong side of the government and having your wealth confiscated. In Bellevue (the wealthy eastside of the Seattle area) had a burgeoning industry of exotic car dealerships, luxury jewelry and housing prices soaring as Chinese money loaded up on housing. When Xi (and the PRC at large) decided to crack down https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/02/chinas-new-fore..., by 2019 most of the luxury businesses evaporated and houses were being liquidated (most still made money because of decent US housing inflation) because of the taxation of foreign assets and the penalties for not disclosing them. So that's done.
There's always oil money from the middle east which has ended up in California. My family sold off 2 properties to families from Quatar and Iran, who casually paid for east house up front. These were their "California" homes.
Banks have been buying up houses for awhile now. Yes, it pains me to bring up FOX News. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/major-wall-street... - they are likely to rent out the homes. American banks who are looking to maximize value for something they don't intend to even live in (or run to), don't mind renting. This is a maximized investment that makes sense to you. Those do happen.
My wife and I just bought a house next door to one of the MANY display houses of Todd Griffin (Windows Plus). The yard is a wreck but the interior furnishings (kitchen, windows, shelving, etc) are very nice, barring the bare slab concrete floor. Nobody has ever lived there.
I mean, there are multiple multi-billion dollar companies who haven't let go of their office spaces when there's no hope that people were going to return to work anytime soon. One of the many simple reasons, they can afford to burn the cash and it's a drop in the bucket. I don't think you are grasping what kind of wealth buys up houses.
> It's easy to see how it doesn't add up.
> Why would some wealthy foreign investor want to buy a house and then lose a bunch of money by not renting it out?
In the late 2010s, the primary reason was as a protective measure/taxation avoidance. In China, the wealthy are always at a danger of being on the wrong side of the government and having your wealth confiscated. In Bellevue (the wealthy eastside of the Seattle area) had a burgeoning industry of exotic car dealerships, luxury jewelry and housing prices soaring as Chinese money loaded up on housing. When Xi (and the PRC at large) decided to crack down https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/02/chinas-new-fore..., by 2019 most of the luxury businesses evaporated and houses were being liquidated (most still made money because of decent US housing inflation) because of the taxation of foreign assets and the penalties for not disclosing them. So that's done.
There's always oil money from the middle east which has ended up in California. My family sold off 2 properties to families from Quatar and Iran, who casually paid for east house up front. These were their "California" homes.
Banks have been buying up houses for awhile now. Yes, it pains me to bring up FOX News. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/major-wall-street... - they are likely to rent out the homes. American banks who are looking to maximize value for something they don't intend to even live in (or run to), don't mind renting. This is a maximized investment that makes sense to you. Those do happen.
My wife and I just bought a house next door to one of the MANY display houses of Todd Griffin (Windows Plus). The yard is a wreck but the interior furnishings (kitchen, windows, shelving, etc) are very nice, barring the bare slab concrete floor. Nobody has ever lived there.
US investors are also a real issue, even if they fill their property with tenants