95% of Bay Area Cities Lost Zoning Authority(darrellowens.substack.com)
darrellowens.substack.com
95% of Bay Area Cities Lost Zoning Authority
https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/96-of-bay-area-cities-lost-zoning
389 comments
I disagree. This says what is actually being done - while that title uses a biased and meaningless marketing term.
If a municipality truly lost zoning authority, anyone could build anything anywhere they wanted. That isn't the case. One very specific way of bypassing usual zoning codes in certain circumstances is a very different thing, and that specific way has a common name that's broader than just California, even.
we gotta nimby on our hands
> Now the wealthiest community in the United States has the unique distinction of also being the first community in the Bay Area to have a Builder’s Remedy project proposed. A young homeowner and computer engineer, frustrated that the town has been slow to permit the reconstruction of his water-damaged home, has announced plans to use the zoning holiday to build a 15-unit apartment complex and five townhomes on his property. Per the rules, four of those homes will house Los Altos Hills’ first low-income families.
...
> Local media speculates that this project may be out of spite by the young engineer regarding the NIMBY government of his town. Maybe, but it’s good nevertheless. Undoubtedly, this project will be sued by neighbors, but the courts have mostly ruled in favor of the Builder’s Remedy and other state housing laws so far.
More details about that part here: https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/02/13/homeowner-invokes-b...
Zbrozek previously made the news with Los Altos Hills Community Fiber, after fighting a $210,000 Comcast quote for fiber internet service: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/comcast-wanted-2...
...
> Local media speculates that this project may be out of spite by the young engineer regarding the NIMBY government of his town. Maybe, but it’s good nevertheless. Undoubtedly, this project will be sued by neighbors, but the courts have mostly ruled in favor of the Builder’s Remedy and other state housing laws so far.
More details about that part here: https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/02/13/homeowner-invokes-b...
Zbrozek previously made the news with Los Altos Hills Community Fiber, after fighting a $210,000 Comcast quote for fiber internet service: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/comcast-wanted-2...
This guy is my new hero.
One under-appreciated topic is the extent to which we dis-incent people to sell their homes as they age. Through prop 13 (in California), and a stepped-up cost basis at death (in the US) - we give people very strong financial incentives to continue ownership.
As a result you have (forgive me) old people who either remain in their homes or rent them out instead of selling them, long after they otherwise would.
I think this is still not as big a factor as the simple lack of building - but it sure doesn't help.
As a result you have (forgive me) old people who either remain in their homes or rent them out instead of selling them, long after they otherwise would.
I think this is still not as big a factor as the simple lack of building - but it sure doesn't help.
It's the heart of the problem. Prop 13 means there's zero financial downside to appreciating home values which leads to NIMBYs on steroids.
This will be exacerbated by the low mortgage rates which most homeowners are locked in for the next 20+ years. There should be a way to negotiate with the lender holding my mortgage to let me move it to another house for some increase in basis points which would result in a win-win for both sides.
This is a great point!
However I'm not sure about your proposed solution. You'd have to give up a fair bit of the difference in interest rate to incent the banks to agree to this. There would likely be a selection bias that most of the people who would take advantage of it were going to sell anyway, and now the bank is stuck carrying a sub-market-rate loan they otherwise would have gotten out of.
However I'm not sure about your proposed solution. You'd have to give up a fair bit of the difference in interest rate to incent the banks to agree to this. There would likely be a selection bias that most of the people who would take advantage of it were going to sell anyway, and now the bank is stuck carrying a sub-market-rate loan they otherwise would have gotten out of.
I think there is a way to do this? I'm not sure what it is called or how common it is, but we've been house hunting and one of the local Agent's brought it up.
A law was recently passed that allows you to sell and move and keep your property tax rate that was designed to alleviate this issue.
Prop 13 has distorted the market of residential, but, at this point, it's baked in. Individual residential housing will turn over--the owner will eventually die.
Where Prop 13 has been terrible is on commercial real estate. Most office complexes in Silicon Valley have dozens of sublease layers in order to avoid triggering a reassessment. Forcing those to unwind would be a gigantic boon.
Unfortunately, those people have a LOT of money to throw around. The last time this popped up on a proposition, the commercial real estate owners spent a FORTUNE to defeat it.
Where Prop 13 has been terrible is on commercial real estate. Most office complexes in Silicon Valley have dozens of sublease layers in order to avoid triggering a reassessment. Forcing those to unwind would be a gigantic boon.
Unfortunately, those people have a LOT of money to throw around. The last time this popped up on a proposition, the commercial real estate owners spent a FORTUNE to defeat it.
Yes, I can’t say this enough but a really great way to preserve wealth in CA is to (1) buy an expensive home with a low interest 30 year fixed loan, (2) live in said home as long as possible so you can pay roughly the same tax you did when you purchased the home. After 10 years in the home there’s only downsides to moving.
I actually rented in SF from somebody whose grandparents bought the home I rented. The value of the 1800 sq/ft rental home was around $1.8m, but the landlord was paying property tax on the value of the home from when his grandparents bought the property in the 70’s. The tax bill should have been about $20k/year, but it was only a few thousand because the tax rate was locked into the value of the home in the 70’s. Meanwhile a neighbor bought a $3m home next door and was paying $35k in property tax. For me it meant I got a slight discount on rent.
The whole thing is absurd.
I actually rented in SF from somebody whose grandparents bought the home I rented. The value of the 1800 sq/ft rental home was around $1.8m, but the landlord was paying property tax on the value of the home from when his grandparents bought the property in the 70’s. The tax bill should have been about $20k/year, but it was only a few thousand because the tax rate was locked into the value of the home in the 70’s. Meanwhile a neighbor bought a $3m home next door and was paying $35k in property tax. For me it meant I got a slight discount on rent.
The whole thing is absurd.
Agreed but property tax should not be based on the current value of the home.
Property prices are insane.
It's both unfair that the guy in the expensive home pays a huge amount in taxes as it is also unfair that the other guys property taxes are locked in to when property prices were less insane.
Property prices are insane.
It's both unfair that the guy in the expensive home pays a huge amount in taxes as it is also unfair that the other guys property taxes are locked in to when property prices were less insane.
In theory, yes, but in practice what happens is those people get priced out of their homes anyway.
If a retired person was living in the $1.8m home in my example above and was paying a low tax based on the 1970's of the house, they might not be able to afford moving to a more practical $900k one-bedroom apartment/condo because their tax rate would increase and they may not have the cashflow to pay for that bill (even considering the proceeds from the sale of the home).
If you walk through SF, even really nice neighborhoods like St. Franciswood, you'll see large beautiful homes that are in severe states of disrepair because the owners don't have the cashflow to pay for the enormous costs of repairing their homes. They'd be better off moving to a smaller dwelling, but they won't because it could cost more and the incentives are more out of whack.
If a retired person was living in the $1.8m home in my example above and was paying a low tax based on the 1970's of the house, they might not be able to afford moving to a more practical $900k one-bedroom apartment/condo because their tax rate would increase and they may not have the cashflow to pay for that bill (even considering the proceeds from the sale of the home).
If you walk through SF, even really nice neighborhoods like St. Franciswood, you'll see large beautiful homes that are in severe states of disrepair because the owners don't have the cashflow to pay for the enormous costs of repairing their homes. They'd be better off moving to a smaller dwelling, but they won't because it could cost more and the incentives are more out of whack.
The problem is that property is taxed as a percentage of it's value and as the value goes up the government just gets more money. Instead the government should set a goal of how much revenue it needs and as the property value goes up, the percentage rate drops.
Forgive you what? For saying "old people"?
Why not let developers build all the luxury housing they want? Affordable housing is often luxury housing built 30 years ago. It's very difficult to solve affordability today but much easier to solve it in the future. Let time do the work.
Presumably because the housing crisis is here today, not 30 years from now.
> It's very difficult to solve affordability today but much easier to solve it in the future.
I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this is. I see no reason that affordable housing should magically solve itself. The only possible explanation that comes to mind is if you think population will collapse, but the population of the US is projected to continue growing apace for the next 40 years: https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/country?COUNTRY...
> It's very difficult to solve affordability today but much easier to solve it in the future.
I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this is. I see no reason that affordable housing should magically solve itself. The only possible explanation that comes to mind is if you think population will collapse, but the population of the US is projected to continue growing apace for the next 40 years: https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/country?COUNTRY...
If expensive housing keeps selling then somebody must be living there… therefore it is solving the problem
It's entirely common for luxury properties to be seen as investments. Having people actually live there would reduce their value as investments. See any of the new luxury skyscrapers in Manhattan, whose units are mostly vacant despite being sold. More luxury housing doesn't solve a damn thing.
So add a vacancy tax (like SF and Oakland have). Even though our vacancy rate shows this is not a problem currently.
Yes, affordable housing today often luxury housing from the past. That works well enough for areas dealing with slow growth. In Dallas, for example, the apartment I rented in 1996 was top of the line, and is now mid-range.
When a government interrupts that process for years on end by disallowing any new construction, you end up with a backlog, and can't afford to wait the decades it would take for affordable housing to be available.
In the future, given sane zoning, the process will work. For now, though, there's a dire need to fill in the gap with affordable housing today.
When a government interrupts that process for years on end by disallowing any new construction, you end up with a backlog, and can't afford to wait the decades it would take for affordable housing to be available.
In the future, given sane zoning, the process will work. For now, though, there's a dire need to fill in the gap with affordable housing today.
If you can build 2 market rate units for every affordable unit, why would you build affordable?
Why can't the millions of homes that exist today be the mid-range to affordable and just flood the market with market rate homes/
Why can't the millions of homes that exist today be the mid-range to affordable and just flood the market with market rate homes/
Because demanding subsidized housing be built (sorry 'affordable') is a useful tool to stop people from building housing.
> subsidized
Subsidizes are fine, requirements are not.
Subsidizes are fine, requirements are not.
> Why can’t the millions of homes that exist today be the mid-range to affordable and just flood the market with market rate homes?
Because you can’t get there from here. The only way to “flood the market” with any kind of homes is to build at higher density. But building market rate units at higher density won’t, itself, make lower-density units in the same area more affordable, as lower density is itself a thing people will pay a premium for; it will just allow more rich people to move in to an area and drive gentrification o the lower-density areas. (If preferentially done in urban cores to an extent that overwhelms other, particularly transportation, infrastructure, it may make lower density homes in peripheral areas less valuable simply by making jobs less accessible, but that also doesn’t solve the problem of housing affordability.)
Because you can’t get there from here. The only way to “flood the market” with any kind of homes is to build at higher density. But building market rate units at higher density won’t, itself, make lower-density units in the same area more affordable, as lower density is itself a thing people will pay a premium for; it will just allow more rich people to move in to an area and drive gentrification o the lower-density areas. (If preferentially done in urban cores to an extent that overwhelms other, particularly transportation, infrastructure, it may make lower density homes in peripheral areas less valuable simply by making jobs less accessible, but that also doesn’t solve the problem of housing affordability.)
So who gets to decide who gets to live here then? Or just a lottery it out and hope people get lucky?
If you flood the market with enough high density homes, some of those will be affordable. The ONLY true affordable housing is to make market rate affordable.
Don't get me wrong, I think BMR housing has a place, but morally, number of units is the most important metric. If we can build both, do so, but when you block market rate housing for the potential of affordable housing (that may never come), we just make the situation overall MUCH worse.
> If preferentially done in urban cores to an extent that overwhelms other, particularly transportation
High density in urban cores makes commutes shorter and lowers the stress on transportation infrastructure per person.
If you flood the market with enough high density homes, some of those will be affordable. The ONLY true affordable housing is to make market rate affordable.
Don't get me wrong, I think BMR housing has a place, but morally, number of units is the most important metric. If we can build both, do so, but when you block market rate housing for the potential of affordable housing (that may never come), we just make the situation overall MUCH worse.
> If preferentially done in urban cores to an extent that overwhelms other, particularly transportation
High density in urban cores makes commutes shorter and lowers the stress on transportation infrastructure per person.
I feel like there are so many things wrong with these questions that I must be misunderstanding you. Like, every assumption seems counter-factual.
Affordable housing requirements lead to less overall units being built. That only makes the problem worse.
Affordable housing subsidies help, because they enable both to be built.
So often in the bay area we see large market rate developments blocked for the potential of an affordable project that never comes. Let them build, because until we make up the MASSIVE shortage of housing, there is no getting around needing to build more.
Affordable housing subsidies help, because they enable both to be built.
So often in the bay area we see large market rate developments blocked for the potential of an affordable project that never comes. Let them build, because until we make up the MASSIVE shortage of housing, there is no getting around needing to build more.
That part seems more like feelgoods than sound economics, but sometimes you need feelgoods to make something politically viable.
It is sound economics. Housing is fungible -- poor people would gladly occupy luxury housing if the price is right, and rich people can and do pay luxury prices for dumps when the alternative is sleeping on the streets.
Therefore the primary thing that matters is how many units are built. If there are N people and N-1 housing units, then if you build super cheap housing the poorest guy can move off the streets into it. But if you build a luxury unit, the richest guy moves out of his unit into the new one, which opens up rich guy's place for a not-quite-as-rich person, etc.
Therefore the primary thing that matters is how many units are built. If there are N people and N-1 housing units, then if you build super cheap housing the poorest guy can move off the streets into it. But if you build a luxury unit, the richest guy moves out of his unit into the new one, which opens up rich guy's place for a not-quite-as-rich person, etc.
I meant that the 20% low income requirement is not sound economics. I agree with you.
It doesn't take 30 years for new housing to have an impact. New homes immediately affect the price+availability of existing homes, because when someone moves into a shiny new home they free up the place where they were living before.
I think this is a bad argument for an essentially correct position, an unintentional strawman, presented in good faith.
The price of housing is not dependent on how nice the housing is in aggregate, only how much of it there is. The argument for building "affordable" housing comes from landlords who own luxury housing not wanting the new housing to hurt their investments.
The price of housing is not dependent on how nice the housing is in aggregate, only how much of it there is. The argument for building "affordable" housing comes from landlords who own luxury housing not wanting the new housing to hurt their investments.
Yes, two generations of working homelessness and we'll be all sorted! After all, it's the best we can do!
/s
What's the alternative? Ban the only kind of housing that developers, residents, and municipalities are excited to build and then blame capitalism?
No! The alternative is explicitly to unban the kind of housing that there's demand for. Single-family zoning prevents capitalism from doing its job properly by limiting developers' ability to respond to demand for high-density and low-income housing. Getting rid of most single-family zoning wouldn't make it illegal to build single-family homes, but as the article says regarding Santa Monica, developers are eager to build high-rises and denser housing.
You know things can land somewhere in the middle right? No need to be so intentionally black and white.
Here on Long Island, it tends to be the opposite.
As the city metropolitan area expands, neighborhoods that used to be marginal, are now tony.
Brooklyn is turning into quite the yuppie stronghold. It used to be known as a fairly scrappy, affordable area.
As the city metropolitan area expands, neighborhoods that used to be marginal, are now tony.
Brooklyn is turning into quite the yuppie stronghold. It used to be known as a fairly scrappy, affordable area.
> Why not let developers build all the luxury housing they want? Affordable housing is often luxury housing built 30 years ago.
Because the requirements on the local governments that the builder’s remedy deals are failures to provide affordable housing on a much shorter timescale than 30 years from now.
Because the requirements on the local governments that the builder’s remedy deals are failures to provide affordable housing on a much shorter timescale than 30 years from now.
Let’s hope that we start to see some more dense building occur. I get not wanting a skyscraper next to your ranch-style home, but the housing affordability crisis needs to end. If not for the good of our fellow citizens, at the very least so people can have more money in their pockets to stimulate the economy more so than just by paying their rent.
There still seems to be quite a few strings attached:
> ... As long as developments are 20% low-income or 100% middle-income and are environmentally sound ...
What's the difference between "environmentally sound" and the onerous environmental review that Bay Area construction projects had to go through?
> ... As long as developments are 20% low-income or 100% middle-income and are environmentally sound ...
What's the difference between "environmentally sound" and the onerous environmental review that Bay Area construction projects had to go through?
You're probably referring to the California Environmental Quality Act. It is very unclear how these two things intersect. My guess is some court will decide sometime in the future. By default, as far as I know, CEQA still applies.
My understanding of the wording there comes from https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Bu...
which says
> The five findings which would allow denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows:
> <snip>
> 4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project.
but I am not an expert on these details whatsoever.
My understanding of the wording there comes from https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Bu...
which says
> The five findings which would allow denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows:
> <snip>
> 4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project.
but I am not an expert on these details whatsoever.
> You're probably referring to the California Environmental Quality Act. It is very unclear how these two things intersect. My guess is some court will decide sometime in the future.
A trial court already has already ruled that it does and that environmental review has to be completed before a project enters the Buklder’s Remedy process.
Appeals and further legislation are likely.
A trial court already has already ruled that it does and that environmental review has to be completed before a project enters the Buklder’s Remedy process.
Appeals and further legislation are likely.
Thank you! I hadn't heard that yet.
Build housing with 20% low-income set asides or take your chances with environmental review. I think the intention is you can't shortcut all the bureaucratic bullshit with this neat trick.
I see this in Seattle and it makes no sense and just annoys the shit of me when I'm looking for housing. They'll list their income restricted units as their entry level price online, then you look at their actual listings and they're all $1000 more expensive per month. The real problem that makes no sense, however, is that these income restricted units are sometimes like $2000-2500 a month. And to qualify you have to make less than like 60k a year or something. They can't afford to the rent. I don't get it.
From what I understand those are for the Section 8 tenants.
Right. But for section 8 it's still only for low income people right? And they can't afford the listed (already discounted) rent.
I don't think the 20% low-income gets you out of CEQA.
> What's the difference between "environmentally sound" and the onerous environmental review that Bay Area construction projects had to go through?
Its all (with narrow exemptions) California construction projects, not most Bay Area prohects, and there is no difference; this sentence is referring to the fact that Builder’s Remedy projects are not exempt from CEQA.
Its all (with narrow exemptions) California construction projects, not most Bay Area prohects, and there is no difference; this sentence is referring to the fact that Builder’s Remedy projects are not exempt from CEQA.
I don't think there is much difference that's why all the projects plan for 20% low income units.
You are misparsing the sentence: it is:
(
20% low-income or
100% middle-income
) and environmentally sound
20% low-income or
(
100% middle-income and
environmentally sound
)One of those options gets the inspector front row seats at a Lakers game.
There is no inspector level override to allow projects.
CEQA overrides all this. Here's a person that spent five years in courts, because a neighbor didn't want a single family home to expand due to aesthetic concerns, that suddenly shifted to fake "environmental" concerns as soon as the city level obstruction failed.
https://twitter.com/tribtowerviews/status/162851785910113075...
The threat of years of lawsuit is enough to kill most projects, as that amount of uncertainty and risk will eliminate all financial backing for any but the very most motivated, such as those living in their own homes with tons of money to burn.
Discretionary approval of projects is definitely a corruption machine, as exposed recently in LA, and any politician that endorsed discretionary community review is almost certainly corrupt. However it's also the norm in California.
Even with that discretionary review, CEQA is still a powerful tool for stopping projects that improve the environment, due to the long decision timelines.
CEQA overrides all this. Here's a person that spent five years in courts, because a neighbor didn't want a single family home to expand due to aesthetic concerns, that suddenly shifted to fake "environmental" concerns as soon as the city level obstruction failed.
https://twitter.com/tribtowerviews/status/162851785910113075...
The threat of years of lawsuit is enough to kill most projects, as that amount of uncertainty and risk will eliminate all financial backing for any but the very most motivated, such as those living in their own homes with tons of money to burn.
Discretionary approval of projects is definitely a corruption machine, as exposed recently in LA, and any politician that endorsed discretionary community review is almost certainly corrupt. However it's also the norm in California.
Even with that discretionary review, CEQA is still a powerful tool for stopping projects that improve the environment, due to the long decision timelines.
It’s not too hard for developers to build 20% low income.
Especially since "low income" is defined relative to area income. One of the first builder's remedy projects is announced in Los Altos Hills, where median family income is $250K a year. "Low income housing" means it has to be affordable to somebody making 80% of that, i.e. $200K a year.
"Los Altos Hills, California is one of the wealthiest communities in the world, home to Silicon Valley’s upper echelons of technology billionaires and millionaires such as the founder of Google and its current CEO. The non-diverse town boasts a median household income north of $400,000. Its zoning prohibits multifamily housing, whether apartments, townhomes or condos, along with commercial stores and shops in the entirety of its city limits."
This kind of hypocrisy where CEOs look down from the stratosphere on the common rabble yet have their corporations espouse a kind of elitist morality about diversity, equity, and inclusion is dumbfounding and disgusting.
https://about.google/belonging/
This kind of hypocrisy where CEOs look down from the stratosphere on the common rabble yet have their corporations espouse a kind of elitist morality about diversity, equity, and inclusion is dumbfounding and disgusting.
https://about.google/belonging/
> This kind of hypocrisy where CEOs look down from the stratosphere on the common rabble yet have their corporations espouse a kind of elitist morality about diversity, equity, and inclusion is dumbfounding and disgusting.
You're really missing the forest for the trees. Which is OK, because a lot of people are. On every side of this issue.
It's not hypocrisy, its just business. They don't give a shit because they see where society is going, and they want to make sure they remain as profitable as possible.
This is also why all the fighting and gnashing of teeth is pointless. CEOs aren't pushing the agenda. They're just following profits, like they always have. If you don't like that, well, welcome to the club, lots of us have been here for a very long time.
You're really missing the forest for the trees. Which is OK, because a lot of people are. On every side of this issue.
It's not hypocrisy, its just business. They don't give a shit because they see where society is going, and they want to make sure they remain as profitable as possible.
This is also why all the fighting and gnashing of teeth is pointless. CEOs aren't pushing the agenda. They're just following profits, like they always have. If you don't like that, well, welcome to the club, lots of us have been here for a very long time.
> It's not hypocrisy, its just business.
The problem with prepackaged political beliefs is that it leads to dissonance where ones view on society is at odds with "the free hand of the market", but capitalism does no wrong, so it has to be a conspiracy of CEOs and their personal politics.
The problem with prepackaged political beliefs is that it leads to dissonance where ones view on society is at odds with "the free hand of the market", but capitalism does no wrong, so it has to be a conspiracy of CEOs and their personal politics.
"Its zoning prohibits multifamily housing, whether apartments, townhomes or condos, along with commercial stores and shops in the entirety of its city limits.""
Many, many middle class communities all over the United States have similar restrictions. This is what single family zoning looks like and it's not a function of these particular residents being billionaires.
Further, living in a prototypical single family zoned "nice neighborhood" is an aspirational goal for quite a bit of the lower middle or lower working class in the United States - including the racial and class cohorts in whose name much of this housing deregulation is being done.
Perhaps they all need to be educated in the errors of their thinking ?
Many, many middle class communities all over the United States have similar restrictions. This is what single family zoning looks like and it's not a function of these particular residents being billionaires.
Further, living in a prototypical single family zoned "nice neighborhood" is an aspirational goal for quite a bit of the lower middle or lower working class in the United States - including the racial and class cohorts in whose name much of this housing deregulation is being done.
Perhaps they all need to be educated in the errors of their thinking ?
Conservative HN never misses an opportunity to punch air about "wokeness"
Old man yells at cloud. I can relate to that. :)
I doubt this applies to cities that adopted their housing elements by the Jan 31 deadline and submitted them as revisions that are still pending review by the HCD.
I'm sure some of those will still eventually be judged out of compliance and builder's remedy may stand, but for now they're just pending review.
The cities that are likely to actually be subjected to builder's remedy (which will be challenged in court, which might cause delays for any developers trying to use it, but is still a useful bargaining chip) are those marked as "NEW CYCLE". Those cities did not prepare any housing permitting plan submission to the HCD at all by the deadline.
I'm sure some of those will still eventually be judged out of compliance and builder's remedy may stand, but for now they're just pending review.
The cities that are likely to actually be subjected to builder's remedy (which will be challenged in court, which might cause delays for any developers trying to use it, but is still a useful bargaining chip) are those marked as "NEW CYCLE". Those cities did not prepare any housing permitting plan submission to the HCD at all by the deadline.
Yes the question is not whether the plans were deemed to be compliant, it is whether the plans were in fact compliant. The only clear-cut cases are where cities failed to even adopt a plan. Less clear are those cities that are vocally subverting state law. Even less clear are those cities with adopted plans that are marginally compliant, like Berkeley, which helps explain why Berkeley has so far not attracted any "builder's remedy" plans.
From TFA:
| 96 of 101 Bay Area municipalities had their housing elements rejected
Then TFA discusses one in particular at some length that did get their HE in by the deadline and had it rejected.
| 96 of 101 Bay Area municipalities had their housing elements rejected
Then TFA discusses one in particular at some length that did get their HE in by the deadline and had it rejected.
Personal data point: I've had to move out of the bay area over a year ago after I failed to purchase a place due to the cost and competition for housing (tried hard, made multiple competitive offers, narrowly missed etc). Still hurts, its such a gorgeous part of the world to be. I doubt i'll ever be able to move back, most of the places we bid on are up several 100Ks over just a year.
From the article:
"The housing element is important. The Builder’s Remedy is nice, but we want compliant housing elements to house population growth, combat segregation, reduce home prices and combat sprawl."
I was surprised to see "sprawl" called out in the op because that is directly opposed to the flattening of building restrictions and the deregulation that is being pursued by both the state and housing activists.
I thought that sprawl and homogenization of built environments and the flattening of transitions between built spaces was a necessary evil that has been conceded in order to pursue housing deregulation.
So ... I'm surprised to see it mentioned - especially as a pejorative - and it seems incoherent in this context.
"The housing element is important. The Builder’s Remedy is nice, but we want compliant housing elements to house population growth, combat segregation, reduce home prices and combat sprawl."
I was surprised to see "sprawl" called out in the op because that is directly opposed to the flattening of building restrictions and the deregulation that is being pursued by both the state and housing activists.
I thought that sprawl and homogenization of built environments and the flattening of transitions between built spaces was a necessary evil that has been conceded in order to pursue housing deregulation.
So ... I'm surprised to see it mentioned - especially as a pejorative - and it seems incoherent in this context.
> I was surprised to see "sprawl" called out in the op because that is directly opposed to the flattening of building restrictions and the deregulation that is being pursued by both the state and housing activists
Strange. I understand sprawl (especially suburban sprawl) to be the direct result of housing regulations. The "natural" ("unregulated") trend seems for cities to become denser and for buildings to become higher (e.g. single family homes getting replaced by multi apartment buildings). Density being the opposite of sprawl.
More housing in an already populated area leads to denser populations leads to less sprawl.
Strange. I understand sprawl (especially suburban sprawl) to be the direct result of housing regulations. The "natural" ("unregulated") trend seems for cities to become denser and for buildings to become higher (e.g. single family homes getting replaced by multi apartment buildings). Density being the opposite of sprawl.
More housing in an already populated area leads to denser populations leads to less sprawl.
"The "natural" ("unregulated") trend seems for cities to become denser and for buildings to become higher (e.g. single family homes getting replaced by multi apartment buildings)."
I agree with that.
Further, I would like to see cities like San Francisco and Oakland and San Jose become denser/taller in just the ways you are describing.
However, the article speaks of the entire Bay Area which runs the gamut from Point Reyes Station to Atherton to Strawberry to Dublin - and everything in between.
I don't live in a residential area and I have no financial exposure to residential housing in the Bay Area - so this is purely academic for me - but I really don't see why our inability to make San Francisco denser means people in Atherton (for instance) can't decline apartment high rises.
That outcome is, in fact, sprawl.
Further, the impacts of that sprawl go beyond the aesthetic: it starves infrastructure advances that depend on a critical mass of density.
Every unit of housing that gets distributed outside of the city center is a missing unit of density that would have gotten us closer to another subway, another terminal connection, another tunnel, another rebuilt blighted area, etc.
I agree with that.
Further, I would like to see cities like San Francisco and Oakland and San Jose become denser/taller in just the ways you are describing.
However, the article speaks of the entire Bay Area which runs the gamut from Point Reyes Station to Atherton to Strawberry to Dublin - and everything in between.
I don't live in a residential area and I have no financial exposure to residential housing in the Bay Area - so this is purely academic for me - but I really don't see why our inability to make San Francisco denser means people in Atherton (for instance) can't decline apartment high rises.
That outcome is, in fact, sprawl.
Further, the impacts of that sprawl go beyond the aesthetic: it starves infrastructure advances that depend on a critical mass of density.
Every unit of housing that gets distributed outside of the city center is a missing unit of density that would have gotten us closer to another subway, another terminal connection, another tunnel, another rebuilt blighted area, etc.
Sprawl can be the result of deregulation in a ex-urban, suburban context, but not in an urban context, as the urban areas are already fully built out, so further sprawl in an urban centre is not possible. Deregulation in an urban context enables redevelopment and denser housing.
Additionally more housing options that result from a deregulation in urban spaces is thought to weaken the profit motive for further development in deregulated suburban environments, and thus limit sprawl. Whether this is true I'm less sure, though laying it out as an explanation because it's at least part of the typical environmentalist and urbanist argument for deregulation in urban areas.
Additionally more housing options that result from a deregulation in urban spaces is thought to weaken the profit motive for further development in deregulated suburban environments, and thus limit sprawl. Whether this is true I'm less sure, though laying it out as an explanation because it's at least part of the typical environmentalist and urbanist argument for deregulation in urban areas.
Sprawl is somewhat the result of over-zoning for SFH. That severely limits the height and density of the city while sprawl is concerned with the total area of the city (compare an area like Manhattan with Atlanta).
Even if California adds housing, how can it possibly add enough water, roads, schools, parks, etc? It's just trading one crisis for another.
The coastal regions are already over-crowded at current prices. The overall cost is just too high. It's wasteful compared to building in other regions. And, it's unnecessary because so much of modern work can be done remotely.
Instead of allowing 80% of housing at market rate to subsidize 20% low-income housing in an unsustainable growth pattern, California should mandate that large employers offer at least 20% of their office employees the opportunity to work remotely. Creating an escape valve for local demand would slow the growth of housing costs without adding new infrastructure requirements.
The coastal regions are already over-crowded at current prices. The overall cost is just too high. It's wasteful compared to building in other regions. And, it's unnecessary because so much of modern work can be done remotely.
Instead of allowing 80% of housing at market rate to subsidize 20% low-income housing in an unsustainable growth pattern, California should mandate that large employers offer at least 20% of their office employees the opportunity to work remotely. Creating an escape valve for local demand would slow the growth of housing costs without adding new infrastructure requirements.
Many other places have solved this problem. San Francisco has relatively low population density compared even when only looking at US cities. NYC is very livable.
It's in CA best long term interest to support as many people as possible. Remote work isn't going to solve the problem that someone who works at Walgreens cannot afford to live within 20 mi of the city.
It's in CA best long term interest to support as many people as possible. Remote work isn't going to solve the problem that someone who works at Walgreens cannot afford to live within 20 mi of the city.
Fascinated to see the effect on the supply of housing and affordability in the Bay Area. Know lots of people who outright reject the idea of moving there because of housing costs despite the potential career boon.
> because of housing costs despite the potential career boon.
Tech jobs adjust for col though ? Its maybe 3k more/month at high estimate. I know bay area jobs in tech ajdust for 35k more for sure.
Tech jobs adjust for col though ? Its maybe 3k more/month at high estimate. I know bay area jobs in tech ajdust for 35k more for sure.
35k per year doesn't cover the difference when I can live in a "lcol" city and buy a house for 400k that's probable 2M+ in the Bay. Mostly talking about people interested in raising a family in a home and not renters.
> 400k that's probable 2M+
This seems like an extreme example. I have friends raising 2 kids in Pleasanton, CA working for bigtech. They bought their houses at ~ 1M before the housing craziness started. They made a similar move from suburbs of chicago with 3k extra monthly mortgage for the new house in CA, with a salary bump of over 100k.
This seems like an extreme example. I have friends raising 2 kids in Pleasanton, CA working for bigtech. They bought their houses at ~ 1M before the housing craziness started. They made a similar move from suburbs of chicago with 3k extra monthly mortgage for the new house in CA, with a salary bump of over 100k.
>They bought their houses at ~ 1M before the housing craziness started.
"Only 1M"
And I mean sure I could have bought a big house in Palo Alto for 50k or whatever in 1950 but that's not really relevant anymore.
Maybe dual tech worker couples can make it work but but there isn't a large pay increase for most other fields in the Bay.
"Only 1M"
And I mean sure I could have bought a big house in Palo Alto for 50k or whatever in 1950 but that's not really relevant anymore.
Maybe dual tech worker couples can make it work but but there isn't a large pay increase for most other fields in the Bay.
yes for sure, that kind of salary bump outside tech is not easy.
But at the same time if you can make it happen it has a huge impact on your net worth/retirement/kids college ect.
Even in this example, ppl in bay area gained a million in networth in just home price while the 400k person didn't make any gains. I don't know where houses are 400k these days though.
But at the same time if you can make it happen it has a huge impact on your net worth/retirement/kids college ect.
Even in this example, ppl in bay area gained a million in networth in just home price while the 400k person didn't make any gains. I don't know where houses are 400k these days though.
>But at the same time if you can make it happen it has a huge impact on your net worth/retirement/kids college ect.
Well the joke was always you had to have an all cash bid 20% over asking in the Bay before the run up anway so you already had to have a pretty massive net worth to buy in the first place.
>I don't know where houses are 400k these days though.
Basically anywhere outside the Coasts in the US?
Well the joke was always you had to have an all cash bid 20% over asking in the Bay before the run up anway so you already had to have a pretty massive net worth to buy in the first place.
>I don't know where houses are 400k these days though.
Basically anywhere outside the Coasts in the US?
[deleted]
Rent has gone down in recent years at least
Saving you the click - it really is a matter for the courts now. If developers have not begun to litigate these projects, then cities have not lost anything yet.
It'll be interesting to see what the unintended consequences of this big, sweeping gesture will be in the next few years.
the bay area will start building just in time for everyone to move out
This title just seems totally wrong? Not having zoning would be like Houston, where you can have big industry next to a day care (fwiw no zoning is my preference). This is much closer to "areas for SFHs have very relaxed rules if you follow these set of conditions".
NIMBYs are crying in their backyards
Maybe I am missing something, but seems unlikely this will impact housing availability, developers will simply build luxury housing to extract the maximum the market will offer. Government will not build any affordable housing at scale, since it will only increase demand for government services while at the same time reducing average tax revenue per taxpayer.
If there’s a solution to the problem, I am not aware of it.
If there’s a solution to the problem, I am not aware of it.
100 luxury homes are still 100 more homes in the supply pool. The people that move in are presumably vacating their previous, more affordable homes.
Aren’t the projects only exempt from zoning if they are 20% below-market-rate or 100% middle income?
> the maximum the market will offer
This is a function of supply (and demand), increase the supply the market will offer less.
This is a function of supply (and demand), increase the supply the market will offer less.
i think the 95% is not accurate. if you read the linked report many cities are in various stages of approval, but it appears a few are quite far along
Courts may disagree, but the head of the bureaucracy that runs this program said all cities that "are in various stages of approval"(a.k.a. not approved) as of Feb. 1 are out of approval and builders remedy is available.
authority is a scheme to distribute power (in a 'social' sense, not physical a one) without giving it away
The idea that owners of homes should be able to make it (almost) illegal to build more homes in an area with some of the highest housing costs in the country is grossly immoral. It enriches homeowners at the expense of other's misery. Grandkids grow up without knowing their grandparents, careers are stunted, and lives are wasted on horrendous commutes (or, considering the safety of driving, ended entirely).
When a building is proposed, the benefactors are diffuse - any of the people looking for a home will benefit from its existence. But the people who oppose it are concentrated - anyone who lives near the new building. For too long our planning system has only considered the latter, and nobody has spoken for the person who will be seeking a home in the future (though groups like SFBARF come to mind).
When a building is proposed, the benefactors are diffuse - any of the people looking for a home will benefit from its existence. But the people who oppose it are concentrated - anyone who lives near the new building. For too long our planning system has only considered the latter, and nobody has spoken for the person who will be seeking a home in the future (though groups like SFBARF come to mind).
The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me.
Definitely feels true for kids growing up without siblings too. I know we would have had more than one probably if housing wasn't such an enormous consideration.
Definitely feels true for kids growing up without siblings too. I know we would have had more than one probably if housing wasn't such an enormous consideration.
Yeah, the family planning changes that result from housing costs literally have generational effects. Even if you think of it just from a housing and economy perspective, the tax base and workforce of the future is smaller because of high housing costs. Value that could be better for everyone (more jobs can be done, more tax can be spent on everyone, more economic activity can occur for businesses) taken out of the future and brought into present home values.
Not just grandparents -- often kids cannot afford to live near their parents. My parents bought their house for $490,000 (2023 dollars) and Redfin estimates it would cost $1,300,000 today.
That was the point though, right? Your kids won't know your parents (their grandparents) if you're forced to live really far away.
> often kids cannot afford to live near their parents.
That's one point, but another is that the careers of many young people force them to migrate across the country or even across continents. Academia and IT are particularly known for this, but also other industries like moviemaking have their world-wide-known centers.
That's one point, but another is that the careers of many young people force them to migrate across the country or even across continents. Academia and IT are particularly known for this, but also other industries like moviemaking have their world-wide-known centers.
With some exceptions, I plan on moving wherever my kids live. Not sure why this is unthinkable.
This won't scale all that well -- like if you have more than one kid.
Yeah, my parents at one point had their 5 adult kids living in Ohio, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and Brazil. Really doesn't scale.
My mother could not afford to move reasonably close to where I live (Austin, not CA though). Certainly not in walking distance, maybe in a suburb, but that's even assuming she could find work.
Surely housing your kids elsewhere would be more expensive than keeping them under your roof?
Early settler homes were typically a single room and not much bigger than a modern living room, and they had many kids living there. Space is a wonderful luxury, but hardly a necessity.
Early settler homes were typically a single room and not much bigger than a modern living room, and they had many kids living there. Space is a wonderful luxury, but hardly a necessity.
We could also live in caves but folks wouldn't recommend that. A family living in a single room the size of a modern living room would soon get child protection agencies called on them–what was normal in pioneer days (pro-creating in the same room as your children, for example) would certainly be a serious issue today!
But pushing your kids far away to live without parents wouldn't be a serious issue?
To be clear, I'm for higher density housing and new builds in the Bay and outlying areas, which would make it easier for families to stay closer together.
GP was saying that 27-42yo millenials are not likely to be able to afford to live near their boomer/Gen X parents, so the grandparents of the millennials' 0-18yo children are not close to those grandkids.
I feel very fortunate to live in a Midwestern small city, to have bought in 2014, and to have the skills and tools to fix up a foreclosure with lots of problems, so that I can live within 5 miles of my parents (so that my son can grow up within 5 miles of his grandparents). That 5 miles, though, is a car trip, because their house was $145k in 1995 and is now worth some $700k. There's no way as the sole breadwinner that I could buy a house within walking distance my 6-year-old's grandparents (my parents).
I feel very fortunate to live in a Midwestern small city, to have bought in 2014, and to have the skills and tools to fix up a foreclosure with lots of problems, so that I can live within 5 miles of my parents (so that my son can grow up within 5 miles of his grandparents). That 5 miles, though, is a car trip, because their house was $145k in 1995 and is now worth some $700k. There's no way as the sole breadwinner that I could buy a house within walking distance my 6-year-old's grandparents (my parents).
> GP was saying that 27-42yo millenials are not likely to be able to afford to live near their boomer/Gen X parents
While you are right that perspective was taken from that of a millennial, the parents you speak of were the grandparents in the discussion. The kids are the children of the millennials. While it is true that some millennials do have adult children now, it is not common. Most millennials with children have children who are not yet adults and there is a general expectation that said children will live under the same roof as their parents.
And yes, that is most likely what the GP meant, despite the earlier discussion which already setup the context. Which is why we’re joking about it.
While you are right that perspective was taken from that of a millennial, the parents you speak of were the grandparents in the discussion. The kids are the children of the millennials. While it is true that some millennials do have adult children now, it is not common. Most millennials with children have children who are not yet adults and there is a general expectation that said children will live under the same roof as their parents.
And yes, that is most likely what the GP meant, despite the earlier discussion which already setup the context. Which is why we’re joking about it.
It is a 'necessity'. Building and/or zoning codes require often 1200 sq ft minimum and then it's illegal to rent out beyond a certain occupancy.
You may be able to get away with it with just adults. Kids talk, sooner or later some 'well meaning' individual reports them to CPS for 'inadequate shelter' and the whole thing destruct.
You may be able to get away with it with just adults. Kids talk, sooner or later some 'well meaning' individual reports them to CPS for 'inadequate shelter' and the whole thing destruct.
I'd think they'd say that was a self imposed constraint not tied to any absolute survival needs of the human body.
it's always a good point to look to prior human challenges in history to tease out essentials from simple hardships as hard as they could be. People survived those ordeals in spite of the limitations.
humans are primates and respond to what the other primates are doing, right now.. there is a reason that price extraction and gate-keeping were so massively inflated.. it worked.
side-note: one of the convicted defendants in the USC pay-to-play scandal paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars for their two kids to get placement in a prestigious college. His job title? Director of a property title clearing house in San Diego county. hundreds of thousands of dollars in "envelope" money.. get the idea of how profitable it has been to do this real estate market stuff ?
side-note: one of the convicted defendants in the USC pay-to-play scandal paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars for their two kids to get placement in a prestigious college. His job title? Director of a property title clearing house in San Diego county. hundreds of thousands of dollars in "envelope" money.. get the idea of how profitable it has been to do this real estate market stuff ?
Adult children. And as much as I love my folks I'd rather live in a separate building. So would they, since they're divorced.
> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me.
Eh, I mean, for a lot of homeowners in the bay area, because they so little amount of housing compared to market price, they usually can (and do for some communities) front large down payements for their kids' houses. That's how you see so many people in their late 20s affording houses you have two have two or three of: two good incomes, frugal mindset, good RSUs / IPOs, or parental help.
Obviously it sucks for people who do not have upper middle class parents, and that's why we need to fix this stupid housing crisis.
Eh, I mean, for a lot of homeowners in the bay area, because they so little amount of housing compared to market price, they usually can (and do for some communities) front large down payements for their kids' houses. That's how you see so many people in their late 20s affording houses you have two have two or three of: two good incomes, frugal mindset, good RSUs / IPOs, or parental help.
Obviously it sucks for people who do not have upper middle class parents, and that's why we need to fix this stupid housing crisis.
Yes, having a 'landed gentry' is not ideal in a lot of ways. Especially in an area that really has seen some amazing success from fairly 'average background' sorts of people.
> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me.
But do the grandparents want to know the kids? If they did, they would not oppose new housing near theirs.
But do the grandparents want to know the kids? If they did, they would not oppose new housing near theirs.
We had a second kid in part because we moved to a house big enough for one (3 bedrooms!)
Well, before we get into the moral/immoral dimension, the fact is that these areas are growing from net migration in, rather than internal population increase. So in some sense the huge influx of these new residents (typically with high-paying tech jobs) are pushing out the parents and grandparents (and not bringing their own extended families anyhow). So the atomization of intra-family bonds that seems so immoral to you is actually caused by the migration, driven by underlying economic opportunities and not some NIMBY anti-growth mindset.
> It enriches homeowners at the expense of other's misery.
This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners; adding traffic, pollution, destroying nature, maybe bringing crime, increasing population which increases distance and reduces oversight of schools and politics, requiring more police. So a lot of people who want to keep their town small and close knit would disagree with the premise at the outset. Do communities have rights too?
> It enriches homeowners at the expense of other's misery.
This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners; adding traffic, pollution, destroying nature, maybe bringing crime, increasing population which increases distance and reduces oversight of schools and politics, requiring more police. So a lot of people who want to keep their town small and close knit would disagree with the premise at the outset. Do communities have rights too?
> new residents (typically with high-paying tech jobs) are pushing out the parents and grandparents
It is the refusal to build housing that pushed up prices and pushes out parents and grandparents. It’s not the migrants’ fault. Would you rather the migrants simply stay poor where they are rather than seek a better life for themselves and their families. I believe freedom of movement is a fundamental human right.
> This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners
Nothing is happening “at the expense of the homeowners.” The homeowners are the ones getting rich.
> This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners
Nothing is happening “at the expense of the homeowners.” The homeowners are the ones getting rich.
> The homeowners are the ones getting rich.
If it's not an investment property then homeowners don't get any benefits from higher home value other than a larger tax bill.
If it's not an investment property then homeowners don't get any benefits from higher home value other than a larger tax bill.
Just because you buy a place for you and your family to live in, rather than "for investment", doesn't mean you won't still reap a massive profit if you downsize to a one-bedroom 20 years later when your kids are out of the house.
(Or if you retire to a country with a lower cost-of-living and no housing bubble, buying a similarly-sized house there for lower than the original purchase-price of your home in the US. Which is exactly how every retiree you see in e.g. Thailand lives like they do: they're not living off a pension; they're living off the "nest egg" they naturally accumulated by holding a house in the West for 20+ years before selling it to move there.)
(Or if you retire to a country with a lower cost-of-living and no housing bubble, buying a similarly-sized house there for lower than the original purchase-price of your home in the US. Which is exactly how every retiree you see in e.g. Thailand lives like they do: they're not living off a pension; they're living off the "nest egg" they naturally accumulated by holding a house in the West for 20+ years before selling it to move there.)
If they don't want the higher tax bill, keep housing prices down by allowing homes to be built. I really couldn't care less about the person who pushes up prices by blocking development having a higher tax bill.
How do I buy a house that's not an investment?
Be poor. At least in California, Habitat for Humanity as well as several counties offer BMR (Below Market Rate) housing for people and families just scraping by. The way it works is you purchase the house a certain percentage below market rate, and when you sell, it also has to be a certain percentage below market rate.
If you sell for the same percentage BMR that you bought, the investment attributes remain unchanged. It's all proportional.
Different places may do it differently, but SF bases it off of a cap for the monthly payment for the mortgage. As interest rates went up this forced the price lower and some people had to sell at a loss.
Roughly its monthly payment => a third of 90-110% of AMI.
Roughly its monthly payment => a third of 90-110% of AMI.
Buy a house in Japan. Housing shouldn’t be a nest egg.
> homeowners don't get any benefits from higher home value
You've never heard of a HELOC?
You've never heard of a HELOC?
Although it would probably have paid off between 2010 and 2020, taking additional money out of a house with a HELOC in order to invest or spend it probably isn't a great strategy under a lot of circumstances.
>a larger tax bill.
Nope[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Nope[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Even if you never sell you can borrow against your massive home equity wealth, invest and make more money that way.
I never understood why the person who owns a $1.8M asset is poor and the person who is obligated to pay a $1.8M mortgage is rich in these conversations
It has more to do with income and running expenses. That $1.8M that was bought in the 1960s for a few tens of thousands has appreciated, sure. But houses require maintenance, upgrades, and taxes that are in today's prices. Someone that old that has retired and is living on fixed income maybe can't afford those anymore and opt to move to a lower cost of living area. Thus they are forced out by the general demand for everything--basically being outbid by the influx of new residents. Relative to the person earning a lot and paying a mortgage, yes, they are poor.
California capped the tax increase to far below inflation.
Retired Americans are the only Americans who are categorically never on a fixed income.
I mean technically Social Security benefits are tied to cost-of-living and thus inflation and are not "fixed income". But that's just technically. My mother's retired and her SS is not a lot. There are a lot of very low income older people in America that fall in this category.
You need to differentiate between liquid and illiquid assets, because they represent different kinds of wealth.
The person with a $1.8M property holds a very valuable illiquid asset. They cannot convert the value to cash trivially (they could perhaps take out a home equity credit or remortgage the house). Effectively none of the value of asset is available to them to meet any other needs, and will only be fully realized when the house (their home) is sold.
The person who can pay the mortgage on a $1.8M property has substantial income and/or cash reserves, which are liquid assets and thus distinctly different from the property owned by the previously discussed person. They may not have a net worth of $1.8M but they are much more easily able to shift financial resources aound to meet their needs.
The person with a $1.8M property holds a very valuable illiquid asset. They cannot convert the value to cash trivially (they could perhaps take out a home equity credit or remortgage the house). Effectively none of the value of asset is available to them to meet any other needs, and will only be fully realized when the house (their home) is sold.
The person who can pay the mortgage on a $1.8M property has substantial income and/or cash reserves, which are liquid assets and thus distinctly different from the property owned by the previously discussed person. They may not have a net worth of $1.8M but they are much more easily able to shift financial resources aound to meet their needs.
I would trade a million dollar debt for the inconveniences of getting a HELOC any day. Wouldn't you?
For the most part sure.
But there are situations where the HELOC will either be hard to get. For example, you may own the house outright but have very very low income. Or the bank may not be willing to view the land in the same light as potential developers.
"House rich, cash poor" is generally convertible into "have mortgage, and cash", but it is still a distinct condition from "Income rich, have mortgage", especially for low income folks.
But there are situations where the HELOC will either be hard to get. For example, you may own the house outright but have very very low income. Or the bank may not be willing to view the land in the same light as potential developers.
"House rich, cash poor" is generally convertible into "have mortgage, and cash", but it is still a distinct condition from "Income rich, have mortgage", especially for low income folks.
If they sell their home and leave. Being forced out of your community is a rather perverse definition of “getting rich.” A wealthy refugee is a refugee nonetheless. That’s what getting rich means in this context— replacement.
That sounds like they should advocate for more homes so prices don't go up too much!
Yes. That’s definitely not a childish idea that seems to be based on the idea that you can will things into being simply by stamping your feet and holding your breath until the adults break down and give you ice cream.
>The homeowners are the ones getting rich.
Im a homeowner and this is just ludicrous. Rich? Please. This kind of added drama makes me discount everything you say.
Im a homeowner and this is just ludicrous. Rich? Please. This kind of added drama makes me discount everything you say.
[deleted]
This might be true in an area with gentrificiation but this is unlikely to be true in wealthy areas. Cupertino, as an example, is struggling with the last generation not moving out. The end result is a lower population of kids.
https://patch.com/california/cupertino/cupertino-councilmemb...
https://patch.com/california/cupertino/cupertino-councilmemb...
This.
Many of those vilified "high-paying tech jobs" are young and have school-age kids. I am one of them (well, except I'm not that young), and almost all my friends in the SV area are the same. I go to work and half of the team have a kid or two.
It's not tech workers pushing out parents: they want to be parents and settle down. It's old grandmas in three bedroom single houses refusing to move out.
Many of those vilified "high-paying tech jobs" are young and have school-age kids. I am one of them (well, except I'm not that young), and almost all my friends in the SV area are the same. I go to work and half of the team have a kid or two.
It's not tech workers pushing out parents: they want to be parents and settle down. It's old grandmas in three bedroom single houses refusing to move out.
To be clear, the grandmas can refuse to move out, and it's their right to refuse. What's not their right is to have veto powers over what is built on adjacent properties they don't own.
Wow, this bit was pretty surprising
> The school board had cited declining enrollment, funding issues and voters’ rejection of a parcel tax as reasons for closing the two schools.
I'm very intrigued that the Cupertino voters rejected a parcel tax, I've seen so many of those in my town and they all pass. They typically go something like "shall the City of Cupertino collect a parcel tax at rate XYZ for the next ZZZ years to replace aging air conditioning and plumbing and other aging building facilities?".
> The school board had cited declining enrollment, funding issues and voters’ rejection of a parcel tax as reasons for closing the two schools.
I'm very intrigued that the Cupertino voters rejected a parcel tax, I've seen so many of those in my town and they all pass. They typically go something like "shall the City of Cupertino collect a parcel tax at rate XYZ for the next ZZZ years to replace aging air conditioning and plumbing and other aging building facilities?".
It's possibly because of Prop 218. One of Howard Jarvis's more insidious laws which requires that local taxes get 2/3 of votes to pass.
that's interesting, I wonder why it never changed. Been on the books since the late 90s it sounds like.
Ratified November 5, 1996
Date effective November 6, 1996; 26 years agoHJTA is extremely powerful in California. Voting demographics skew towards anti tax property owners and they have zero problem crushing everyone else.
>So in some sense the huge influx of these new residents (typically with high-paying tech jobs) are pushing out the parents and grandparents
No one is forcing grandpa to sell his house by rezoning the land (the property tax won't go up due to pro 13). If your argument is that the house will appreciate in value and that grandpa is "forced" to sell his house because he likes money, well I have no argument.
No one is forcing grandpa to sell his house by rezoning the land (the property tax won't go up due to pro 13). If your argument is that the house will appreciate in value and that grandpa is "forced" to sell his house because he likes money, well I have no argument.
Grandpa gets forced out because of a combination of the following:
1. Massively increased rent, if he is renting 2. Massively increased cost of local goods and services and change in who those services cater to 3. Predatory tactics by real estate developers targeting lower income individuals in the community, if he owns the property 4. Loss of friends/community due to cohort being forced to leave by 1-3
1. Massively increased rent, if he is renting 2. Massively increased cost of local goods and services and change in who those services cater to 3. Predatory tactics by real estate developers targeting lower income individuals in the community, if he owns the property 4. Loss of friends/community due to cohort being forced to leave by 1-3
So you are arguing that residential densification and a increase in housing supply will lead to
1. Rent increase
2. Consumption price increase
3. Big real estate will use thugs and trickery to force people to sell
4. More people in the community leads to less friends
1. Rent increase
2. Consumption price increase
3. Big real estate will use thugs and trickery to force people to sell
4. More people in the community leads to less friends
Grandpa gets forced out by increased rent, yes.
Increased housing supply almost universally decreased housing prices.
If you don't want renter Grandpa to be forced out, build more
Increased housing supply almost universally decreased housing prices.
If you don't want renter Grandpa to be forced out, build more
Grandpa's groceries, medical care, and everything else go up due to increased cost of labor associated with cost of living.
eh these developments often ruin neighborhoods. a few people sell and then a development comes in that ruins the street etc.
Whether it's Manhattan, Brooklyn, or even Paris... none of them would exist as we know them if we cared about "developments often ruin neighborhoods".
Neighborhoods change. What was once farm land and a few houses becomes suburban. What was once suburban becomes medium density. What was once medium density becomes dense city core. That's how cities have always worked. As the value of the land changes existing owners cash out and developers infill or rebuild. As density grows the justification (and budget) for city services like subways and parks grows.
Excessively restrictive zoning cuts off that natural process after the farmland-to-suburb step.
In free market terms if you cared so much about what your neighbor does with their own property you should have bought an interest in that property. Who are you to tell someone else they can't build a bigger building on property they own?
In reality there are few true free markets and externalities exist but in property rights terms zoning is a rather large government imposition to benefit other landowners often without any compensation to the owners who want to build. In an ideal world people who want to keep single family zoning should be paying land value fees to their neighbors who want to build density to compensate for the restriction. You couldn't possibly make such a scheme work in the real world though.
Neighborhoods change. What was once farm land and a few houses becomes suburban. What was once suburban becomes medium density. What was once medium density becomes dense city core. That's how cities have always worked. As the value of the land changes existing owners cash out and developers infill or rebuild. As density grows the justification (and budget) for city services like subways and parks grows.
Excessively restrictive zoning cuts off that natural process after the farmland-to-suburb step.
In free market terms if you cared so much about what your neighbor does with their own property you should have bought an interest in that property. Who are you to tell someone else they can't build a bigger building on property they own?
In reality there are few true free markets and externalities exist but in property rights terms zoning is a rather large government imposition to benefit other landowners often without any compensation to the owners who want to build. In an ideal world people who want to keep single family zoning should be paying land value fees to their neighbors who want to build density to compensate for the restriction. You couldn't possibly make such a scheme work in the real world though.
> In reality there are few true free markets
Because it turns out there are pesky uncontrollable externalities that keep popping up. Like, you can't buy some random lot in suburbia and turn it into a nuclear waste dump or a trash incinerator site, no matter what you pay the neighbors, because of regulations like zoning.
Because it turns out there are pesky uncontrollable externalities that keep popping up. Like, you can't buy some random lot in suburbia and turn it into a nuclear waste dump or a trash incinerator site, no matter what you pay the neighbors, because of regulations like zoning.
It doesn't ruin neighborhoods, it creates housing for a lot more people to live in, bringing down housing costs citywide, and it makes the neighborhood better and more vibrant with more people.
More people may make a neighborhood more "vibrant." It can also increase traffic, congestion more broadly, make goods and services more expensive, etc.
So add people and remove cars.
There would be very little point in living in the Bay Area for me if I didn't have convenient access to nature, which requires a car.
I lived in Munich 7 years and could take a train to Garmisch in less than 90 minutes, then literally walk from the train station to any of dozens of hiking trails that cover several mountains, or to several Gondolas.
"Ruins" in what way?
I lived on a quiet street that became an optimized shortcut (no stop lights, fewest stop signs) for all the new-construction dwellers, most of whom had zero regard for speed limits.
It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but the benefits likely outweigh the drawbacks.
FWIW, the most the township would do is setup a radar trailer (zero enforcement) and new stop signs were not allowed for traffic control purposes. I never got them to add one for safety purposes either, even though a speeder clobbered a mailbox one house up from the school bus stop.
It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but the benefits likely outweigh the drawbacks.
FWIW, the most the township would do is setup a radar trailer (zero enforcement) and new stop signs were not allowed for traffic control purposes. I never got them to add one for safety purposes either, even though a speeder clobbered a mailbox one house up from the school bus stop.
This is a great illustration of how we can address this by adding people but removing cars. Make the street narrower, remove parking, add transit, add bike infra, etc.
Crime, traffic, noise, blight.
Hire more cops[0], build sane public transit, invest in acoustic insulation and adjust your notions of what 'blight' is, to focus on blight-by-design of cookie-cutter suburbia.
[0] https://thecrimereport.org/2022/09/14/the-u-s-is-under-polic...
[0] https://thecrimereport.org/2022/09/14/the-u-s-is-under-polic...
The insulation might help when I'm in the house, but not trying to, for instance, read a book in the back yard.
Does anyone not think that broken down cars growing literal trees in them, broken glass, and garbage in people's yards are not blight? That's what I find just a mile from here where there are duplexes and apartment buildings.
Does anyone not think that broken down cars growing literal trees in them, broken glass, and garbage in people's yards are not blight? That's what I find just a mile from here where there are duplexes and apartment buildings.
You miss a big piece. These cities all allow new office spaces and thereby new jobs, since that brings in tax revenue. They just don’t allow new housing, so people pay astronomical prices, commute from far away, or live with entire families sharing spaces designed for single people. For an area that claims to care about the environment and the welfare of immigrants, the lack of building is selfish, greedy, and immoral and one of my biggest disappointments about where I grew up. I’m glad to see this being fixed at the state level and state law superseding local law.
From the article:
> Its (Los Altos) zoning prohibits multifamily housing, whether apartments, townhomes or condos, along with commercial stores and shops in the entirety of its city limits.
The asymmetry of how cities/neighborhoods interact with each other is what creates the need for interventions like this. Some cities are more than happy to open up commercial and office spaces without allowing additional housing, eating up all the tax revenue, all the while pushing the burden of housing and other infrastructure on others. Meanwhile cities like Los Altos make any commercial development not possible in their neighborhood but will have its residents happily go to other neighborhoods to fulfill their need of a $7 artisanal coffee. Cities like Oakland will try to push high density housing in areas that don’t really add any value, simply because these are rich neighborhoods and you get election votes for doing it, meanwhile, plenty of medium/low income neighborhoods would benefit more from new high density housing with commercial space and the infrastructure upgrades that come from it. There’s all kinds of selfish interests and there needs to be a check on them.
> Its (Los Altos) zoning prohibits multifamily housing, whether apartments, townhomes or condos, along with commercial stores and shops in the entirety of its city limits.
The asymmetry of how cities/neighborhoods interact with each other is what creates the need for interventions like this. Some cities are more than happy to open up commercial and office spaces without allowing additional housing, eating up all the tax revenue, all the while pushing the burden of housing and other infrastructure on others. Meanwhile cities like Los Altos make any commercial development not possible in their neighborhood but will have its residents happily go to other neighborhoods to fulfill their need of a $7 artisanal coffee. Cities like Oakland will try to push high density housing in areas that don’t really add any value, simply because these are rich neighborhoods and you get election votes for doing it, meanwhile, plenty of medium/low income neighborhoods would benefit more from new high density housing with commercial space and the infrastructure upgrades that come from it. There’s all kinds of selfish interests and there needs to be a check on them.
So how moral is the behavior of the companies building/renting offices there, knowing in advance that housing is unaffordable? Only because their investors live nearby?
Instead of talking about morality I think it’s best talk about incentives and try
to determine what incentives ought to be in place in order to achieve a desired outcome. For whatever reason, it is the case that building high density housing is not allowed in many locations and the accompanying expense of that is unsustainable. I use “expense” to encompass financial, economic, societal, and environmental costs.
and we could solve this problem by creating new cities/towns. Why on earth, can't we do that anymore? for most of human history we were able to do that, now all the sudden everyone needs to be in the same exact geographical area.
People follow the jobs. Give companies a subsidy for starting in a new town/city/village and the people will certainly follow it. And you'll get all the benefits of starting with a clean slate: you could make it walkable, bikable, keep land costs low by not limiting it(enough supply to keep costs low)
People follow the jobs. Give companies a subsidy for starting in a new town/city/village and the people will certainly follow it. And you'll get all the benefits of starting with a clean slate: you could make it walkable, bikable, keep land costs low by not limiting it(enough supply to keep costs low)
People want to live near other people, not in empty towns. Other people start businesses they want to work at, cook at restaurants they want to eat at, and play basic at bars they want to frequent.
Starting an empty town doesn’t do that. Why doesn’t everyone just stay at home with their parents and just commute into a meta verse version of the Bay Area where everyone can have a fake home?
Starting an empty town doesn’t do that. Why doesn’t everyone just stay at home with their parents and just commute into a meta verse version of the Bay Area where everyone can have a fake home?
We've been creating new "towns" in the form of subdivisions and planned communities for the better part of a century. They are fine for a generation or two, but the astronomical costs of maintaining their government subsidized services (utilities, sewer, roads, schools, fire, police) stretched thin into a low density area inevitably leads to their decline.
The costs of suburbs aren’t astronomical in the Bay Area. There is a reason Strong Towns and the like always talk about suburbs in Missouri. The suburbs that are unaffordable are the $150K home owned by the household making $40k/year. You can’t charge that person the $8k in property tax you need to upkeep a suburb. Charging $8k on a $2 million home in the Bay Area is a lot more doable. It’s a 0.4% property tax rate which should be achievable. The only barrier to Bay Area suburbs paying for things is California’s neo-feudal property tax laws.
There are rent seeking local “mafias” in every pocket of the globe you would try this. Companies would rather negotiate with the devils they know ( large cities ) than end up dealing with e.g. unknown, possibly corrupt and rent seeking commissioners,protection agencies,judges,sheriffs,mayors,councils,unions,etc.
People want to live in this area because it's closer to work, which requires them to be in the office. Take out that variable and our population would start to be more evenly distributed over time.
I personally don't like living in a city, too much traffic, too many assholes and I don't trust modern police, of which cities have an abundance of.
Hopefully, if this remote working sticks and we don't go back to driving to an office everyday, it will be a net positive for a lot of problems we are facing: overcrowding of cities, skyrocketing rents, pollution, unnecessary carbon emissions, etc.
I personally don't like living in a city, too much traffic, too many assholes and I don't trust modern police, of which cities have an abundance of.
Hopefully, if this remote working sticks and we don't go back to driving to an office everyday, it will be a net positive for a lot of problems we are facing: overcrowding of cities, skyrocketing rents, pollution, unnecessary carbon emissions, etc.
I'm not sure how common pure remote is going to be. I see a lot more hybrid, which gives greater flexibility, but still involves being within an hour or two drive of an office.
Furthermore, for people already living in, say, the Bay Area, they probably have friends and/or family there and it's not like the Bay Area is a hellhole so the default for a lot of people is to stay there, in spite of the high housing prices, rather than move to a cornfield in Iowa.
Furthermore, for people already living in, say, the Bay Area, they probably have friends and/or family there and it's not like the Bay Area is a hellhole so the default for a lot of people is to stay there, in spite of the high housing prices, rather than move to a cornfield in Iowa.
new cities? where? why? there's plenty of space right there in the bay area, no, not the parks, look up.
negative density tax is the way.
unfortunately new suburbs are an unsustainable addiction in this regard. it incentivizes everyone for optimizing for cars and backyard-driven life-development.
negative density tax is the way.
unfortunately new suburbs are an unsustainable addiction in this regard. it incentivizes everyone for optimizing for cars and backyard-driven life-development.
You seem to be asking companies to create company towns--probably with company housing and stores.
There's already tons of cheap housing around the US. It's just that a lot of it isn't where many people most want to live.
There's already tons of cheap housing around the US. It's just that a lot of it isn't where many people most want to live.
You know the VC question that they ask founders, "why now?"? For any particular location you might want to create a city, ask "why here?".
Successful towns have historically been built near some natural resource (rivers, deltas, lakes, mines, forests, etc). Jobs / corporate mini-HQs are not a natural resource.
Successful towns have historically been built near some natural resource (rivers, deltas, lakes, mines, forests, etc). Jobs / corporate mini-HQs are not a natural resource.
Give companies a subsidy
So we give existing house owners a subsidy by creating artificial housing scarcity, and then we give companies a subsidy to fix the house owner subsidy by starting new towns?
Who pays for this? Productive young people earning income? Again?
So we give existing house owners a subsidy by creating artificial housing scarcity, and then we give companies a subsidy to fix the house owner subsidy by starting new towns?
Who pays for this? Productive young people earning income? Again?
> Give companies a subsidy
Who's paying for that? And why?
Who's paying for that? And why?
It's actually common practice in many parts of the country. The practice is called Economic Development. Rarely used for residential purposes, but does finance commercial development and promote hiring. The funding typically comes from the calculated/expected incremental tax revenue to the area (State, Local, etc). Newark, CA in the Bay Area did this for a while (may still?).
I'd be curious the inner workings surrounding the development of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starbase in Boca Chica, TX and what the backstory was around that.
Kind of a different use case with needing distance and dangerous stuff being deployed but still probably a worthy bit of development history and municipal dynamics to be shared there.
Kind of a different use case with needing distance and dangerous stuff being deployed but still probably a worthy bit of development history and municipal dynamics to be shared there.
Ok but why spend that money at all? Companies are happy to create jobs and hire people in existing cities. And we can build housing at the cost of 0 tax dollars, for all those people, by easing zoning. It'll also cost a lot less to upgrade infrastructure for higher density that to build it wholecloth for new communities.
I was contemplating something in this direction once. That this concentration in the bay area could very well be driven by the tastes and desires of the CEOs and other execs who are pleased to live in the comfy parts of the bay area regardless of the outcomes of their employees and how much blood is squeezed out of them by the high cost of living and time sunk on commutes.
I think it was Elon Musk who made me ponder this. Somewhere he blasted the notion that most of the Silicon Valley venture capital gets blown on housing costs. That made me ponder what other alternatives could be found and what other productive uses that money could have been spent on. It's a fascinating train of thought with big directions it could go. That's an interesting idea about encouraging the subsidization of a town, I'd like to see that experiment tried if it hasn't yet.
I think it was Elon Musk who made me ponder this. Somewhere he blasted the notion that most of the Silicon Valley venture capital gets blown on housing costs. That made me ponder what other alternatives could be found and what other productive uses that money could have been spent on. It's a fascinating train of thought with big directions it could go. That's an interesting idea about encouraging the subsidization of a town, I'd like to see that experiment tried if it hasn't yet.
We stopped building real cities when people decided it was more important to be able to park everywhere forever for free than to have nice places.
We have run out of flat land along the coasts, and housing everywhere else is already dirt cheap.
> Why on earth, can't we do that anymore?
We used up all the good places.
We used up all the good places.
> Give companies a subsidy
Probably very difficult to get this right.
Probably very difficult to get this right.
Fordlandia was already tried
> the atomization of intra-family bonds that seems so immoral to you is actually caused by the migration, driven by underlying economic opportunities and not some NIMBY anti-growth mindset
The point is that we have to make a trade-off between free internal migration and NIMBY. If you mix those two ideas together, you get misery. In deciding which is worth prioritizing, perhaps you should consider that free internal migration is a literal bedrock principle of the American state, dating back prior to the Constitution, enshrined legally in the Constitution, on which huge quantities of American legal and economic life have been built for the last 250 years, whereas NIMBY is an ad-hoc political coalition of wealthy homeowners and crotchety neighborhood activists who'd rather no one new get to live in their city.
The point is that we have to make a trade-off between free internal migration and NIMBY. If you mix those two ideas together, you get misery. In deciding which is worth prioritizing, perhaps you should consider that free internal migration is a literal bedrock principle of the American state, dating back prior to the Constitution, enshrined legally in the Constitution, on which huge quantities of American legal and economic life have been built for the last 250 years, whereas NIMBY is an ad-hoc political coalition of wealthy homeowners and crotchety neighborhood activists who'd rather no one new get to live in their city.
>Well, before we get into the moral/immoral dimension, the fact is that these areas are growing from net migration in, rather than internal population increase. So in some sense the huge influx of these new residents (typically with high-paying tech jobs) are pushing out the parents and grandparents (and not bringing their own extended families anyhow).
How would net migration in push out existing residents? This makes no sense.
>This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners; adding traffic, pollution, destroying nature, maybe bringing crime, increasing population which increases distance and reduces oversight of schools and politics, requiring more police. So a lot of people who want to keep their town small and close knit would disagree with the premise at the outset. Do communities have rights too?
This is true. I would say 1% of the population shares your subjective view, while 99% don't. Literally the OVERALL majority wants cheaper houses while 1% are worried about their rich enclaves having crime go up and getting messier.
Yeah as a minority of the population YOU would love to have your imitation-of-the-country-side suburbia stay the same and have good nature and all that but keep in mind it exists because an UNFAIR advantage to a small minority of rich people: YOU.
The overall quality of your living standards must go down if you want to be fair. The luxuries you fight to preserve is a literal crime against humanity. This is the only way. But keep in mind if you own a home it's not like you LOSE any part of your home. It's just your neighborhood becomes more populated, that's the main difference.
How would net migration in push out existing residents? This makes no sense.
>This is a profoundly subjective view, because homeowners could turn around and accuse new residents of enriching themselves at the expense of homeowners; adding traffic, pollution, destroying nature, maybe bringing crime, increasing population which increases distance and reduces oversight of schools and politics, requiring more police. So a lot of people who want to keep their town small and close knit would disagree with the premise at the outset. Do communities have rights too?
This is true. I would say 1% of the population shares your subjective view, while 99% don't. Literally the OVERALL majority wants cheaper houses while 1% are worried about their rich enclaves having crime go up and getting messier.
Yeah as a minority of the population YOU would love to have your imitation-of-the-country-side suburbia stay the same and have good nature and all that but keep in mind it exists because an UNFAIR advantage to a small minority of rich people: YOU.
The overall quality of your living standards must go down if you want to be fair. The luxuries you fight to preserve is a literal crime against humanity. This is the only way. But keep in mind if you own a home it's not like you LOSE any part of your home. It's just your neighborhood becomes more populated, that's the main difference.
I'm one of those people who moved to an urban area for a tech job, and yes, my presence here is a part of the problem that drives working class, local born people either out of the region or on to the streets.
But I did nothing wrong. The people who actively prevent Boston from building more housing are the reason my presence here is at someone else's expense.
But I did nothing wrong. The people who actively prevent Boston from building more housing are the reason my presence here is at someone else's expense.
Communities have rights, and they can be overridden by larger communities that include them. Just as a majority can override the wishes of a minority. In this case, the state of CA, a larger community, has overridden the wishes of pricey Bay Area towns. Los Altos Hills, Atherton et. al. are not sovereigns.
The people with the majority in money get majority voice.
For what it's worth I grew up in Northern California. Grandparents lived (one still does!) in Vallejo and worked at Mare Island naval base.
My cousins and I grew up in a band from Monterey to Sacramento. Our parents all still live in the homes they had decades ago. But None of our generation live in northern California any more, except for my sister who bought in Sacramento during the recession (she had a state job which made it a lot easier to get a mortgage!)
I think that's bad. I'd like to be able to afford to live in norcal. I moved away from California for multiple reasons but one of them was affordability.
Also, I hate traffic too! It's a good thing I am not a car! Ideally we could build places like culdesac.com or bloommerwede.nl and allow people to live completely car free.
And no, in my view, "communities" do not have rights.
My cousins and I grew up in a band from Monterey to Sacramento. Our parents all still live in the homes they had decades ago. But None of our generation live in northern California any more, except for my sister who bought in Sacramento during the recession (she had a state job which made it a lot easier to get a mortgage!)
I think that's bad. I'd like to be able to afford to live in norcal. I moved away from California for multiple reasons but one of them was affordability.
Also, I hate traffic too! It's a good thing I am not a car! Ideally we could build places like culdesac.com or bloommerwede.nl and allow people to live completely car free.
And no, in my view, "communities" do not have rights.
I don't see why "migration, driven by economic opportunities" is a bad thing. Socioeconomic mobility is tied heavily to where you live (proximity to economic centers). I doubt all or even most of the new residents are tech workers. Plenty of working class people come from all around the country move to California or New York. I think the failure to build housing not only disenfranchises those people but also lower / middle income families already living in the area.
I find it odd how people can be pro-immigration and anti-migration. Keeping people out of your community is similar to keeping people out of your country.
I find it odd how people can be pro-immigration and anti-migration. Keeping people out of your community is similar to keeping people out of your country.
These areas are only growing from net migration in because the housing there is so expensive that the people from there can no longer keep up, and most of their kids have to move away in early adulthood to establish their own household because they can no longer afford it at early career salary levels like their parents once could.
What you are painting as the cause is actually the effect.
What you are painting as the cause is actually the effect.
> So in some sense the huge influx of these new residents (typically with high-paying tech jobs) are pushing out the parents and grandparents (and not bringing their own extended families anyhow)
Assuming they are renters, how does that happen? Increase in housing will decrease rents, so even if their current apartment / house gets replaced with a bigger one they can just rent something in the same neighborhood? Unless the only reason they can still afford to live in said neighborhood is because of rent control.
Having rent control plus very strict zoning laws is the most asinine housing policy. It basically means that after a new neighborhood has been built you just freeze its state eternally - only allowing new people in when one family dies and their kids or some friends move in. The privilege to live in a neighborhood isn't then determined by wealth but by kinship - a harmful form of socialism that calcifies communities.
Assuming they are renters, how does that happen? Increase in housing will decrease rents, so even if their current apartment / house gets replaced with a bigger one they can just rent something in the same neighborhood? Unless the only reason they can still afford to live in said neighborhood is because of rent control.
Having rent control plus very strict zoning laws is the most asinine housing policy. It basically means that after a new neighborhood has been built you just freeze its state eternally - only allowing new people in when one family dies and their kids or some friends move in. The privilege to live in a neighborhood isn't then determined by wealth but by kinship - a harmful form of socialism that calcifies communities.
> When a building is proposed, the benefactors are diffuse - any of the people looking for a home will benefit from its existence. But the people who oppose it are concentrated - anyone who lives near the new building
This was the precise thesis of Milton and Rose Friedmans' "Tyranny of the Status Quo"
This was the precise thesis of Milton and Rose Friedmans' "Tyranny of the Status Quo"
It's not owners of homes, it is whoever occupies it. If I live in Washington and rent out a home I own in SF, the renter gets to vote in SF, not me.
Yes, but the political system is often more likely to represent the interests of the donors rather than the voters, and the homeowners are the wealthy class who can afford to buy votes and hold political sway.
It often doesn't matter who the renting class votes for, and politicians who represent their interests are less likely to collect campaign donations, which affects their likelihood of holding office
It often doesn't matter who the renting class votes for, and politicians who represent their interests are less likely to collect campaign donations, which affects their likelihood of holding office
If votes can be bought, it's because people selling their vote don't really care about the issue.
A lot of housing policy happens at the state level, so the fact that a large part of the SF voting population are renters can get cancelled out by the fact that home ownership rates are higher outside the city, at least in state issues.
I agree on the morality points. But the interesting thing is that this isn't true:
> It enriches homeowners
Homeowners own the land, not just the building. If your property is worth X dollars when anyone buying is only allowed to (re)build a single family home on it, it must be worth more if they can also build a tall condo complex on it instead. Dense neighborhoods almost always more valuable on a per-unit-land basis than less dense ones, so upzoning is going to increase land value, lining the pockets of incumbent homeowners. This all makes perfect sense but everyone seems to go around pretending the opposite.
Now what does happen is that poorer people will live in these condos and apartment buildings, and send their kids to the same schools as incumbent families, use the same services, etc. I strongly suspect that's why people are so against upzoning, and I think that is an important moral issue in itself.
> It enriches homeowners
Homeowners own the land, not just the building. If your property is worth X dollars when anyone buying is only allowed to (re)build a single family home on it, it must be worth more if they can also build a tall condo complex on it instead. Dense neighborhoods almost always more valuable on a per-unit-land basis than less dense ones, so upzoning is going to increase land value, lining the pockets of incumbent homeowners. This all makes perfect sense but everyone seems to go around pretending the opposite.
Now what does happen is that poorer people will live in these condos and apartment buildings, and send their kids to the same schools as incumbent families, use the same services, etc. I strongly suspect that's why people are so against upzoning, and I think that is an important moral issue in itself.
Housing is an infrastructure resource. It delivers a wide range of collective economic and social benefits which are often stunted by the current zoning laws.
I agree with the point of diffuse benefits being under-appreciated.
I do think that some parts of the YIMBY side at its worst sometimes downplays the rights of the present land owners though, and I think your “enriches homeowners” comment plays into that. We need to respect and honor both sets of stakeholders. I think most homeowners are not money-grubbers as you suggest, they chose a particular neighborhood vibe because that is where they want to live, and they don’t want to lose that. That is valid! Moving house is incredibly disruptive, particularly considering school districts. (To be clear though, I do agree that YIMBY is directionally appropriate for most neighborhoods).
One angle I don’t see discussed often is “rate of change”. I think some people would like to preserve their neighborhoods character indefinitely, and that is unrealistic clinging. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that if you buy a house in a quiet suburban neighborhood, that it’ll have that character for, say, a decade or maybe two while your kids grow up or whatever.
I think a lot of infill can happen without changing the character too much, and this middle ground is probably hurt by polarization.
I do think that some parts of the YIMBY side at its worst sometimes downplays the rights of the present land owners though, and I think your “enriches homeowners” comment plays into that. We need to respect and honor both sets of stakeholders. I think most homeowners are not money-grubbers as you suggest, they chose a particular neighborhood vibe because that is where they want to live, and they don’t want to lose that. That is valid! Moving house is incredibly disruptive, particularly considering school districts. (To be clear though, I do agree that YIMBY is directionally appropriate for most neighborhoods).
One angle I don’t see discussed often is “rate of change”. I think some people would like to preserve their neighborhoods character indefinitely, and that is unrealistic clinging. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that if you buy a house in a quiet suburban neighborhood, that it’ll have that character for, say, a decade or maybe two while your kids grow up or whatever.
I think a lot of infill can happen without changing the character too much, and this middle ground is probably hurt by polarization.
I agree with everything you said in theory. In practice, I don't really know that I agree with the grandkids/grandparents point.
The implication here is that if housing were abundant and more affordable in the bay area, then both grandparents and grandkids can live in the same city and visit each other often, rather than one side living far away in some suburbs. (In some cases, it's the grandparents living in suburbs and parents/kids living in the city for jobs; in other cases, it's grandparents living in the city because they've lived there forever and don't want to move, while parents/kids move to a suburb further away for better life/more space).
The thing is, growth of a city/a region brings along many other issues (in addition to lack of housing driving prices up), including safety, traffic, crowds, decrease in quality of life. Just because housing is affordable doesn't mean that both grandparents and grandkids would still want to live in the city.
Instead of building out even more housing in an already dense area (because jobs are concentrated in that area), I would've liked it if we have a far more diverse set of growing cities across the country where the job markets thrive in all of them, rather than deeply concentrated in a couple of places (SF Bay, NY, etc.).
[Edit] To clarify, I am in the group where the grandparents want to live in SFBA because they've been there forever and don't want to move away. I'm saying, the job market made SFBA grow too much, and building more housing in SFBA to make them cheaper won't necessarily make me want to keep living there because there are other problems that come with more people. Hence, if job markets weren't so deeply concentrated in one area, the country could see more evenly distributed growth across many cities/metropolitan areas, and SFBA/NY wouldn't be so lopsided and ridiculously unaffordable.
The implication here is that if housing were abundant and more affordable in the bay area, then both grandparents and grandkids can live in the same city and visit each other often, rather than one side living far away in some suburbs. (In some cases, it's the grandparents living in suburbs and parents/kids living in the city for jobs; in other cases, it's grandparents living in the city because they've lived there forever and don't want to move, while parents/kids move to a suburb further away for better life/more space).
The thing is, growth of a city/a region brings along many other issues (in addition to lack of housing driving prices up), including safety, traffic, crowds, decrease in quality of life. Just because housing is affordable doesn't mean that both grandparents and grandkids would still want to live in the city.
Instead of building out even more housing in an already dense area (because jobs are concentrated in that area), I would've liked it if we have a far more diverse set of growing cities across the country where the job markets thrive in all of them, rather than deeply concentrated in a couple of places (SF Bay, NY, etc.).
[Edit] To clarify, I am in the group where the grandparents want to live in SFBA because they've been there forever and don't want to move away. I'm saying, the job market made SFBA grow too much, and building more housing in SFBA to make them cheaper won't necessarily make me want to keep living there because there are other problems that come with more people. Hence, if job markets weren't so deeply concentrated in one area, the country could see more evenly distributed growth across many cities/metropolitan areas, and SFBA/NY wouldn't be so lopsided and ridiculously unaffordable.
I was pushed out of the Bay Area by people moving in, which jacked up the prices. Those people who CHOOSE to move to the Bay Area and FORCE people out of the communities that they grew up in are the IMMORAL people (see how nebulous the moral impact your choices have on others can be?). Those people that purchase houses at more that 5% of the homes previous sale price are immoral, driving up the prices of homes with their wealth. So many immoral people in the Bay Area, but the grandmother that moved into a community once filled with cherry and apple orchards that are now clone homes and is just trying to maintain something of the community she put her life savings into living in is not, actually, a monster.
People have a right to move wherever they want. You don't have a right for things to not change. Grandma had a choice, make room for newcomers or price out kids and neighbors. Simple as that.
Housing prices were jacked up because more people moved in than there were houses to live in. The rich tech yuppies are gonna move where they want regardless, so either build enough housing to accommodate them or they will take over the existing housing. If you build, they won't have to kick anyone out
Keep in mind increasing density usually increases land values and also home values… so it’s not exactly gonna hurt homeowners. The issue is the “character of the neighborhood” or the “quality of life”
In expected value yes. But the variance is high and people with all their wealth in one asset don't want the extra risk. Sitting around doing nothing has provided them more than enough wealth already.
If this were actually true it would never be possible to build more to make housing more affordable. Rents in a market are typically a percentage of the capital investment so what you are saying is roughly equivalent to “building more makes rents go up”. It’s actually the opposite. The demand for density raises the value of land, but the supply of density lowers it.
It’s not a simple equation. Demand can change based on desirability and other factors. You can make more in rent from a 100 unit skyscraper than a single family home… but the value is mostly in sfh is weighted heavily toward the land whereas with the skyscraper it’s not. Sfh can appreciate while rents go down and population goes up.
Could this ability be a contributing factor for why this area is so desirable?
No matter what you or I might think about it, people like the suburban single family home.
No matter what you or I might think about it, people like the suburban single family home.
If that were broadly true, then highly urbanized, dense cities would be cheaper. But we see the opposite. Manhattan has some of the highest rents and most expensive real estate in the nation.
People want to live near their jobs, their schools, shops, doctors, all the things they need, and where that kind of density exists, they're willing to pay for it.
The demand is there.
People want to live near their jobs, their schools, shops, doctors, all the things they need, and where that kind of density exists, they're willing to pay for it.
The demand is there.
[deleted]
It's socially beneficial for people to A) make the place they live reflect their preferences and B) ensure that the ones who capture the positive social externalities of an action are the ones who paid for it.
Being able to make rules about how the area you live is used are a fundamental part of both of those.
Fully externalizing the benefits of an action never has positive social outcomes. No one would bother making their neighborhood nice if they thought that as soon as they did, a million people who had nothing to do with making it nice in the first place would move in and screw it up.
Being able to make rules about how the area you live is used are a fundamental part of both of those.
Fully externalizing the benefits of an action never has positive social outcomes. No one would bother making their neighborhood nice if they thought that as soon as they did, a million people who had nothing to do with making it nice in the first place would move in and screw it up.
> a million people who had nothing to do with making it nice in the first place would move in and screw it up
So definitely _not_ socially beneficial.
So definitely _not_ socially beneficial.
Obvoiusly one solution could be an internal passport system, where you would need to apply for a visa or residency permit in order to live somewhere.
Certainly, that would work very well, but such a system would almost certainly not be permitted by federal regulators (e.g. HUD) or the courts.
I hate how well this sums things up.
[deleted]
did the homeowners ask for SF to become a tech hub? Many of these people bought homes decades ago due to liking the existing area at that time.
It's interesting to me how people argue from a left-leaning angle(think of the children, it's immoral, etc.) about this topic while essentially having a pro-colonialism mindset that the current residents need to just suck it up or leave.
It's interesting to me how people argue from a left-leaning angle(think of the children, it's immoral, etc.) about this topic while essentially having a pro-colonialism mindset that the current residents need to just suck it up or leave.
Maybe people should live literally anywhere else?
"Literally anywhere else" is going to be facing the same challenges and questions. SF is not the only city with a housing shortage. Why should SF be specially interested in preserving high rents and driving away the children of its residents?
IMO, the bay area is well beyond carrying capacity. The last time I stayed in a hotel there, the water out of the shower was a bare mist.
How many people should we try to pack into that area? Double the current housing? Triple it? Where do you stop?
How many people should we try to pack into that area? Double the current housing? Triple it? Where do you stop?
The only reason it is beyond capacity is because the ability to expand capacity has been blocked. The bay is nowhere near maximum possible density.
"The hotel had bad water pressure so the Bay is full".
I very much doubt SF is limited in expanded by water pipe capacity. Total water use, sure, but people use less water in a city then the suburbs anyways so it will be a net savings of water.
I very much doubt SF is limited in expanded by water pipe capacity. Total water use, sure, but people use less water in a city then the suburbs anyways so it will be a net savings of water.
Traffic, transit, and the water and sewer systems disagree.
The Bay Area has a whole is nowhere near carrying capacity, what?
We "stop" where it is natural to, like any other place in human history: lack of resources, lack of space*, there's better places to move to, etc. And if the only thing holding back the Bay Area's development is artificial zoning laws -- we are certainly not at its "natural" equilibrium.
While CA has had its generational water supply issues, only 10% of it is used for residential purposes; 90% of it is used for agriculture. Adding more people in SF, or Palo Alto or Berkeley, does not put special strain on CA versus anywhere else. Not to mention, single family homes often consume _much_ more water per family than those in apartments or condos (yards, many bathrooms, etc).
*Lack of space, for what is a _city_, is not "it's too populated here for me to have a backyard without paying a ton of money"
We "stop" where it is natural to, like any other place in human history: lack of resources, lack of space*, there's better places to move to, etc. And if the only thing holding back the Bay Area's development is artificial zoning laws -- we are certainly not at its "natural" equilibrium.
While CA has had its generational water supply issues, only 10% of it is used for residential purposes; 90% of it is used for agriculture. Adding more people in SF, or Palo Alto or Berkeley, does not put special strain on CA versus anywhere else. Not to mention, single family homes often consume _much_ more water per family than those in apartments or condos (yards, many bathrooms, etc).
*Lack of space, for what is a _city_, is not "it's too populated here for me to have a backyard without paying a ton of money"
> SF is not the only city with a housing shortage.
And? There are dozens of cities that don't have a housing shortage. Living in the city of your choice isn't a human right.
And? There are dozens of cities that don't have a housing shortage. Living in the city of your choice isn't a human right.
This comes at a huge opportunity cost for all of us. People earn more in places like SF because the value of their labor is higher there. Making them mover elsewhere rather than creating more room in the place where they generate the most value costs everyone substantial loss of economic growth. I think it was Jenny Schuetz in Fixer Upper (not 100% certain) who mentioned estimates that we've lost out on 30% GDP growth by not building enough.
Sure, then everyone can complain about the Californians pushing up prices and destroying their town. It doesn’t solve anything.
Yes I agree the people who cannot stand anything besides detached density controlled development should move to less productive and jobs rich regions of the country.
I’d like to live where I grew up though.
The counter argument is: it wouldn't be where you grew up anymore.
It seems like you're defining "where you grew up" with long/lag proximity, while attaching lots of unrelated personal concepts to it. How much can an area change before you've, for all practical purposes, moved somewhere else.
I'm fine with communities deciding for themselves how they grow and change. I really only take issue when they decide to grow office space and not housing, or when employers take office space meant for 100 workers and cram 300 into it.
It seems like you're defining "where you grew up" with long/lag proximity, while attaching lots of unrelated personal concepts to it. How much can an area change before you've, for all practical purposes, moved somewhere else.
I'm fine with communities deciding for themselves how they grow and change. I really only take issue when they decide to grow office space and not housing, or when employers take office space meant for 100 workers and cram 300 into it.
Places change. Where I grew up there was a nice mall. It is still there. But 0 of the stores in that mall are the same. The map from the early 80s does not match with the current one in any way. It was a mall with at least 200 stores. The buildings that surrounded that mall are all different/gone/rebuilt. The parks in that city are dumpy junk now, weeds everywhere. The places I remember from a kid are gone. The buildings are there but what made it 'my city' is gone. Replaced ship theseus style with something else. Is it better? Some ways yes. Is it worse? Some ways yes.
Can confirm. I am almost 10years out from my "home town" (more or less, socially speaking) and it took me some time to reflect and realize, that "home town" is (for me) a romanticized, emotional concept and "what I experienced" can literally never occur again in that specific geographical location (at least not in 2 lifetimes) due to change.
That being said - I do wish my children were able to see their extended family more than once a year (travel costs/calendar coordination/ etc... being the impediments)
That being said - I do wish my children were able to see their extended family more than once a year (travel costs/calendar coordination/ etc... being the impediments)
Well here’s the funny thing: communities are changing anyways. When short sighted communities don’t build, it doesn’t stop people elsewhere from moving in if they have enough money. Even during redlining this was the case. It just pushes out the poorer segments of the existing community. NIMBY-ism is the thing that destroys neighborhood character, because a neighborhood is its people and culture, not its architecture.
I think the place will change either way. Either because renters have been pushed out, or because the population has increased with a ton of new people, requiring functional changes (the neighborhood market has become a whole foods, etc.), or both.
Building more doesn't stop the makeup of a community from changing. If anything it accelerates it.
Building more doesn't stop the makeup of a community from changing. If anything it accelerates it.
Having the option for the people who want to stay there and retain more of your community is a huge value and maybe the main value.
It won’t be where he grew up in any case, because it won’t have the same mix of people in it. It will only be older people and wealthy professionals.
I sympathize but it's not people born in the Bay Area who are driving up demand. If there had not been an influx of people from other areas (including other areas of Calif) there would not be such housing crunch --and likely there would have been a pop. reduction without an influx. What's the fertility rate per woman in the Bay Area, I'm pretty sure it's below the 2.1 figure to sustain a pop.
The local native population without an influx would not be in such dire housing situation.
Yes, the area is very attractive and is a magnet but without that influx the population would have plateaued.
The local native population without an influx would not be in such dire housing situation.
Yes, the area is very attractive and is a magnet but without that influx the population would have plateaued.
Fortunately, we don't have internal passports in the United States
Sure, but it does not mean it's the local pop driving the growth, it's the newcomers who are driving growth and causing pain for the locals.
Ignoring the argument around whether showing up before the population density is high confers some special “native-ness” and ownership (which I think would need to be fleshed out significantly to be really compelling), the math doesn’t really make sense.
Typically people’s lifetimes overlap their kids’ significantly. I mean most people meet their grandparents, so if you have a fertility rate of 1, and an area becomes attractive to early-career people who are just settling down and starting families, and the existing housing become taken up by that group, then I guess the area will have to house the original population, plus their kids, plus their grandkids, so we’ll need housing for 175% of the original population, total.
Of course the area is, by not accepting new immigrants to get back to replacement rate, setting itself up for long-term unpleasantness as the tax base ages into retirement. But hey I guess that’s their right…
Typically people’s lifetimes overlap their kids’ significantly. I mean most people meet their grandparents, so if you have a fertility rate of 1, and an area becomes attractive to early-career people who are just settling down and starting families, and the existing housing become taken up by that group, then I guess the area will have to house the original population, plus their kids, plus their grandkids, so we’ll need housing for 175% of the original population, total.
Of course the area is, by not accepting new immigrants to get back to replacement rate, setting itself up for long-term unpleasantness as the tax base ages into retirement. But hey I guess that’s their right…
This is not really true. Many Bay Area cities have severely underbuilt even their own demographic processes. Berkeley, for example, needed to add 40% more homes just to accommodate its own longevity increases and birth rate since 1970. Casual observers severely underestimate the housing implications of longer old age, and birth rates were well above replacement until quite recently.
You are wrong. San Francisco does not even build enough homes to match natural population growth. Neither do most cities on the Peninsula.
As I posted below, here are the natural growth rates:
Look at the figures: https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-....
Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/FQ7tVqs
SF: 1.49
SJ: 1.59
That's not growth, it's decline.
Look at the figures: https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-....
Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/FQ7tVqs
SF: 1.49
SJ: 1.59
That's not growth, it's decline.
Your link 404s, and fertility rates are not measures of net new natural population growth. If everyone lives longer, you can still have more births than deaths with sub replacement fertility.
In any case, the California Department of Finance gives counts of births and deaths by county, and you are wrong: https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Forecasting/Demographi...
In any case, the California Department of Finance gives counts of births and deaths by county, and you are wrong: https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Forecasting/Demographi...
Which is flat out insane given the economy
There's almost no natural population growth in the US. It's all coming from immigrants.
There was not a single year in 2010-2019 where California had more deaths than births.
From [1]:
> A rate of 2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain a population at its current level (immigration and migration aside). California and the nation had fertility rates near population replacement levels in 2008, but every state falls below those levels today. California has fallen faster than most, dropping from 2.15 to 1.52
Well below replacement rates on births. I imagine a very large portion of the births are immigrant births as well, which would push the rate even lower.
1: https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-plunging-birth-rates/
> A rate of 2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain a population at its current level (immigration and migration aside). California and the nation had fertility rates near population replacement levels in 2008, but every state falls below those levels today. California has fallen faster than most, dropping from 2.15 to 1.52
Well below replacement rates on births. I imagine a very large portion of the births are immigrant births as well, which would push the rate even lower.
1: https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-plunging-birth-rates/
Why is everyone trying to infer net new births from fertility rates? We have the exact data: https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Forecasting/Demographi...
People can live longer, and natural population increase can persist long after fertility drops below replacement.
People can live longer, and natural population increase can persist long after fertility drops below replacement.
Why does that matter? Unless you're proposing unconstitutional restrictions on internal migration, people are going to want to move to places with jobs, culture, friendly politics, etc. and housing demand will reflect that for locals and new arrivals alike.
I was replying to poster saying he or she wanted to live (afford a house) where they grew up. I'm saying, it wasn't natural pop growth that caused the situation but rather influx that was not met with commensurate housing development/construction.
TBH, "I have a right to live where my parents did" is flat untrue, and while not a uniquely American pathology, something I observe my fellow countrymen believing without evidence.
I grew up in a town with an economic implosion. Very few people born here during the '70s stayed, and there was not, is not, and should not be a mechanism to bend the economics of the entire country to enable them to do so (if for no other reason than their industry collapsed for a compelling counter-concern: it was killing us. Pollution controls went in and the best companies in town could no longer compete while maintaining air quality standards and shuttered operations. So now people were out of work but the work was also not shortening their lives by a decade).
I grew up in a town with an economic implosion. Very few people born here during the '70s stayed, and there was not, is not, and should not be a mechanism to bend the economics of the entire country to enable them to do so (if for no other reason than their industry collapsed for a compelling counter-concern: it was killing us. Pollution controls went in and the best companies in town could no longer compete while maintaining air quality standards and shuttered operations. So now people were out of work but the work was also not shortening their lives by a decade).
I think there's a big difference between "I want to be paid to live in an economically collapsed community because I was born here" and "I want to be able to afford to live in an economically thriving community because my friends and family are here". Especially when considering government policy.
What is the big difference?
1) Generally speaking, family and friend communities offer support structures that increase individual success and decrease antisocial behavior. Keeping those communities together is worthwhile both from a social welfare perspective and an economic efficiency one.
2) Reducing obstacles to building is free (in the long term, it's revenue-positive). Propping up a dying town is expensive.
2) Reducing obstacles to building is free (in the long term, it's revenue-positive). Propping up a dying town is expensive.
Since your data is wrong, I can only imagine you’re going to change your mind right?
Just completely made up. There is no way a region with great weather year round was ever going to see population reduction. Even if you were to assume SF would, Oakland and the rest of the more diverse bay is filled with the demographics that are driving US population growth as a whole.
Look at the figures: https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-....
SF: 1.49
SJ: 1.59
SF: 1.49
SJ: 1.59
The population would only reduce if the parents die immediately after the kid is born. Until the parents die, the population would still grow.
Thank about what the Fertility rate means.
>the TFR is based on the age-specific fertility rates of women in their "child-bearing years", which in conventional international statistical usage is ages 15–44.
>The TFR is, therefore, a measure of the fertility of an imaginary woman who passes through her reproductive life subject to all the age-specific fertility rates for ages 15–49 that were recorded for a given population in a given year. The TFR represents the average number of children a woman would potentially have, were she to fast-forward through all her childbearing years in a single year, under all the age-specific fertility rates for that year. In other words, this rate is the number of children a woman would have if she was subject to prevailing fertility rates at all ages from a single given year and survives throughout all her childbearing years.
Thank about what the Fertility rate means.
>the TFR is based on the age-specific fertility rates of women in their "child-bearing years", which in conventional international statistical usage is ages 15–44.
>The TFR is, therefore, a measure of the fertility of an imaginary woman who passes through her reproductive life subject to all the age-specific fertility rates for ages 15–49 that were recorded for a given population in a given year. The TFR represents the average number of children a woman would potentially have, were she to fast-forward through all her childbearing years in a single year, under all the age-specific fertility rates for that year. In other words, this rate is the number of children a woman would have if she was subject to prevailing fertility rates at all ages from a single given year and survives throughout all her childbearing years.
Is the assumption that there are no existing 60, 70, 80 and 90-year olds...?
A measurement of fertility rate with high earning women in tech included in two of the most popular-in-tech cities in the Bay Area is not an argument in favor of the native population being unwilling to have children.
Why do you get to say where they live?
Nobody has an inherent right to live anywhere. It doesn't matter if your parents live there. Your grandparents. Your friends. You don't have any inherent right to be their neighbor. You don't have a right to buy across the street or even across town. It's a free market and if 100 other people want to live in the same place and are willing to pay more than you, then you're not going to live their either.
After this zoning change goes through and new houses are built, I'd wager those new houses will still be still priced out of reach of people that want to live in a given area. I'm not saying it's not going to help, but it's not going to magically create 10x the housing density in a given area and bring housing prices down to the point where a low income worker can afford a home. That's a pipe dream.
After this zoning change goes through and new houses are built, I'd wager those new houses will still be still priced out of reach of people that want to live in a given area. I'm not saying it's not going to help, but it's not going to magically create 10x the housing density in a given area and bring housing prices down to the point where a low income worker can afford a home. That's a pipe dream.
Nobody has an inherent right to live anywhere but people have the right to control their neighbors' property through zoning?
You could make this argument about other laws too. Do you have a right to control your neighbors ability to cook meth? It’s bad for the rest of us if they do, so we ban it.
Society creates laws that affect each other and zoning is no different.
If I live in a cute little community and my neighbors all agree that we like it how it is, we can collectively agree to keep it like that.
If that little neighborhood had a dense block of apartment buildings, many of the people who originally lived there wouldn’t want to stay.
Now, all that in mind, I generally agree that we need to fix zoning. I’m not a homeowner and want to buy property in places that are currently too expensive for me..
But I completely understand that people would be upset to build a community somewhere, then gradually be pushed away because a few of their neighbors sold to a big company, and their neighborhood doesn’t fit their needs anymore.
Even if the majority want to stay, they get forced away by a few using their land in ways that are bad for the rest of the group.
Society creates laws that affect each other and zoning is no different.
If I live in a cute little community and my neighbors all agree that we like it how it is, we can collectively agree to keep it like that.
If that little neighborhood had a dense block of apartment buildings, many of the people who originally lived there wouldn’t want to stay.
Now, all that in mind, I generally agree that we need to fix zoning. I’m not a homeowner and want to buy property in places that are currently too expensive for me..
But I completely understand that people would be upset to build a community somewhere, then gradually be pushed away because a few of their neighbors sold to a big company, and their neighborhood doesn’t fit their needs anymore.
Even if the majority want to stay, they get forced away by a few using their land in ways that are bad for the rest of the group.
If the majority want to keep their community unchanged, they can buy out their neighbors who want to sell.
Builder's remedy or state-imposed zoning has no power if no one ever sells to a developer, right?
Plus you're comparing living in a more dense neighborhood to cooking meth. I can't take you seriously at all.
Builder's remedy or state-imposed zoning has no power if no one ever sells to a developer, right?
Plus you're comparing living in a more dense neighborhood to cooking meth. I can't take you seriously at all.
I was using the cooking meth as an example of something that negatively impacts a community even if it seem to only impact the individual at first glance. Maybe a little too extreme of a comparison, but I was just trying to make a point that it’s not unprecedented to make laws that limit other people’s ability to do things with their property.
And I do prefer dense walkable neighborhoods personally, but I just also understand the frustration of a community living somewhere because of some quality of that neighborhood, then having that quality ripped away just because a small number of previous inhabitants left.
And I do prefer dense walkable neighborhoods personally, but I just also understand the frustration of a community living somewhere because of some quality of that neighborhood, then having that quality ripped away just because a small number of previous inhabitants left.
There are no guarantees in life. You could allow hyper-local zoning and still have some terrible neighbors that don't pick up dog shit and have loud parties all night. People trying to "keep property values up" has also led to some terribly discriminatory behavior in the past - we should be glad that such kinds of exclusion are no longer legal.
If "quality of neighborhood" is so important then said neighborhood should, as I stated above, put their money where their mouth is. Maintain a common fund, and commit to match any offer for any house going up for sale in the community. Stop using everyone else's taxpayer dollars to have cities pass and enforce laws to do it.
If "quality of neighborhood" is so important then said neighborhood should, as I stated above, put their money where their mouth is. Maintain a common fund, and commit to match any offer for any house going up for sale in the community. Stop using everyone else's taxpayer dollars to have cities pass and enforce laws to do it.
I think it is pretty clear from an ethical perspective that whatever rights people have to housing are stronger than whatever rights people have to block housing in their neighborhood. It takes a weird sort of mental gymnastics to simultaneously argue that no one has a right to housing but also that people have a right to using zoning laws to block housing.
Why's it got to be about rights? It's possible to decide it's nicer if people can live near their parents and grandparents and friends, than not, and change systems and policies such that that's a more-accessible way of living, without it being a right.
[EDIT] And that's putting aside that "right" just means "thing we like a bunch", anyway.
[EDIT] And that's putting aside that "right" just means "thing we like a bunch", anyway.
I agree with you on that. I never said they have a right to live there.
I asked OP why the people who don't own that property, and have no ties to it (other than potentially living near it), should be able to decide that others _can't_ live there through restrictive zoning.
If it's actually a free market, and people have interest and money to afford to live in an area, and a property owner has property and interest to build housing they can afford, why should people with no interest in the property get to decide they should live elsewhere?
I asked OP why the people who don't own that property, and have no ties to it (other than potentially living near it), should be able to decide that others _can't_ live there through restrictive zoning.
If it's actually a free market, and people have interest and money to afford to live in an area, and a property owner has property and interest to build housing they can afford, why should people with no interest in the property get to decide they should live elsewhere?
> Nobody has an inherent right to live anywhere
But you have an inherent right to deny someone to live somewhere?
But you have an inherent right to deny someone to live somewhere?
Mild disagree — not everything has to be about über-capitalism and the free market. Sometimes we should just make it easy to live in places (within reason) just for the sake of being human. We all share this earth, together.
We don't need a housing market where buying a small fixer upper costs millions. That's unjust.
We don't need a housing market where buying a small fixer upper costs millions. That's unjust.
The idea that a state government can seize land-use decision-making power from local communities is anti-democratic and grossly immoral.
Having a majority-elected government step in to restrict the property rights of individuals is literally the most democratic thing possible. That is the purpose of the US democracy: to "promote the general Welfare".
You're confusing your ideas of property rights with actual US democratic ideals, which are not equal at all. In fact the idea of property rights is explicitly left out of the Declaration of Independence; where Locke would declare "Life, Liberty, and Property" as inalienable human rights, Jefferson changes "Property" to "Pursuit of Happiness". (Quite a strange distinction for a man who owned slaves!) This is because there was great debate about property and lordship in the New World. Property holders were seen as the tyrants who oppressed the colonists, and prevented the Americans from doing what they needed to do to live, in pursuit of their own profits and investments. So, the idea of a democratic government's eminent domain is absolutely the point: to keep the land available for public good and not for the sole-benefit of the few.
You're confusing your ideas of property rights with actual US democratic ideals, which are not equal at all. In fact the idea of property rights is explicitly left out of the Declaration of Independence; where Locke would declare "Life, Liberty, and Property" as inalienable human rights, Jefferson changes "Property" to "Pursuit of Happiness". (Quite a strange distinction for a man who owned slaves!) This is because there was great debate about property and lordship in the New World. Property holders were seen as the tyrants who oppressed the colonists, and prevented the Americans from doing what they needed to do to live, in pursuit of their own profits and investments. So, the idea of a democratic government's eminent domain is absolutely the point: to keep the land available for public good and not for the sole-benefit of the few.
> Having a majority-elected government step in to restrict the property rights of individuals is literally the most democratic thing possible.
We need to allow the mob to steal everything - it's the most democratic social process possible!
We need to allow the mob to steal everything - it's the most democratic social process possible!
> the mob
I mean, what do you think majority vote is if not essentially the largest mob of people?
I mean, what do you think majority vote is if not essentially the largest mob of people?
What gives you the right to decide what your neighbors do with their land? Would it be "democratic and moral" if I got a group of friends together who decided that your house was too big and forced you to downsize?
This underscores is the hilariously hypocritical nature of these arguments: "my property rights give me the right to deny others their property rights"
It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker.
The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking sometimes.
It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker.
The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking sometimes.
>It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker.
Got an example there? Not sure I'm following.
Got an example there? Not sure I'm following.
The "first speaker" has free speech, but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech.
Example: Dave Chappelle makes a joke about trans people, other people criticize Chappelle and vow to boycott Netflix. Those are BOTH free speech but a lot of people think Chappelle's free speech rights should take priority over his critics.
To be clear, I believe Chappelle has the right to make trans jokes and I also believe he has brain worms about the issue and has become distinctly unfunny because of it.
Example: Dave Chappelle makes a joke about trans people, other people criticize Chappelle and vow to boycott Netflix. Those are BOTH free speech but a lot of people think Chappelle's free speech rights should take priority over his critics.
To be clear, I believe Chappelle has the right to make trans jokes and I also believe he has brain worms about the issue and has become distinctly unfunny because of it.
Mmmmkay. I see where you're going. But I don't think
> but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech.
entirely follows; in particular since the hallmark of "cancel culture tends to be communicating with other people to orchestrate action or dissociation of the one of the speakers from society.
It seems much closer to something akin to the practice of industrial blacklisting/secondary striking in employment/labor reltions law. In that you're using speech to command/coordinate a group to force an action or change in circumstance on someone else.
I'm not saying mind, that even those and similar activities don't have a place, but they are examples of "patterns of speech elevated to action", and thereby removed from the arena of "free speech", and firmly plopped in the "freedom of association"/situationally labelled and verboten bucket.
The spirit of free speech is you are free to voice things without the threat of government force gagging you, or compelling you to say otherwise.
Now... Where is the dividing line between the "Government" and "a sufficiently large group of people that there is warranted a stepping in and reminder that "if a government employee eould be specifically restricted from keeping you from saying this then mayhaps as a very large group of citizens it warrants the same consideration of restraint; as we've all got a vested interest in not windi g up on the wrong side of a snowball network effect"... That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
> but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech.
entirely follows; in particular since the hallmark of "cancel culture tends to be communicating with other people to orchestrate action or dissociation of the one of the speakers from society.
It seems much closer to something akin to the practice of industrial blacklisting/secondary striking in employment/labor reltions law. In that you're using speech to command/coordinate a group to force an action or change in circumstance on someone else.
I'm not saying mind, that even those and similar activities don't have a place, but they are examples of "patterns of speech elevated to action", and thereby removed from the arena of "free speech", and firmly plopped in the "freedom of association"/situationally labelled and verboten bucket.
The spirit of free speech is you are free to voice things without the threat of government force gagging you, or compelling you to say otherwise.
Now... Where is the dividing line between the "Government" and "a sufficiently large group of people that there is warranted a stepping in and reminder that "if a government employee eould be specifically restricted from keeping you from saying this then mayhaps as a very large group of citizens it warrants the same consideration of restraint; as we've all got a vested interest in not windi g up on the wrong side of a snowball network effect"... That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
A lot of self-proclaimed free-speech advocates believe it is illiberal to criticize them.
For example, say I give a speech and people criticize me for it. If I then say “I’m practicing free speech. My critics are against free speech” then it’s like I’m saying that only the first person to speak is allowed free speech; everyone else needs to shut up.
It sounds silly in this example but this is an extremely common rhetorical technique.
For example, say I give a speech and people criticize me for it. If I then say “I’m practicing free speech. My critics are against free speech” then it’s like I’m saying that only the first person to speak is allowed free speech; everyone else needs to shut up.
It sounds silly in this example but this is an extremely common rhetorical technique.
Indeed.
The rhetorical technique is frustrating, but there is a clear dividing line between exercising free speech, and coordinating with enough people to facilitate a societal ostracization. In one, a party is availing themselves of making a point; adding something to the intellectual crock pot, if you will. The other is essentially working the room to prevent a party in particular from doing so at all.
I do not think anyone can reasonably argue that someone 'gathering up the boys to defenestrate someone with an odious opinion' is merely a good faith "exercising of free speech".
But again, at that point we're starting to argue about something other than free speech, and more representing enforcement of the Overton window, and what everyone is comfortable with counting as reasonable to be an outcome of being found to be outside it.
The rhetorical technique is frustrating, but there is a clear dividing line between exercising free speech, and coordinating with enough people to facilitate a societal ostracization. In one, a party is availing themselves of making a point; adding something to the intellectual crock pot, if you will. The other is essentially working the room to prevent a party in particular from doing so at all.
I do not think anyone can reasonably argue that someone 'gathering up the boys to defenestrate someone with an odious opinion' is merely a good faith "exercising of free speech".
But again, at that point we're starting to argue about something other than free speech, and more representing enforcement of the Overton window, and what everyone is comfortable with counting as reasonable to be an outcome of being found to be outside it.
Zoning is based on the principle that it's not your land. You are merely its steward for the short time that you are on this planet, and then someone else will become its steward. Know that time will come eventually, the rules prevent someone from causing damage that society does not want to be forced to clean up.
But yeah, these rules are draconian and surpass their intended spirit, creating regulatory capture for the construction industry and preventing perfectly acceptable possibilities that the community would want.
For example, I want to create a summer camp for kids here on my farm, but zoning and other over-regulation actively prevents me from building any of the needed dorms, classrooms, or kitchen/bathing facilities. Countless possibilities like this are being crushed every day. I personally have given up trying.
But yeah, these rules are draconian and surpass their intended spirit, creating regulatory capture for the construction industry and preventing perfectly acceptable possibilities that the community would want.
For example, I want to create a summer camp for kids here on my farm, but zoning and other over-regulation actively prevents me from building any of the needed dorms, classrooms, or kitchen/bathing facilities. Countless possibilities like this are being crushed every day. I personally have given up trying.
> What gives you the right to decide what your neighbors do with their land?
Seems like there's a spectrum (even if the dividing line is in the wrong place on that spectrum right now).
Many suburbs prohibit owning roosters (they wake your neighbors at dawn) though female chickens are OK. I think it's OK if you can't open a slaughterhouse next door in an urban or other dense area. It's also reasonable to require that new construction be up to code, as your close-by building not to fire code could threaten my home.
At the other extreme are restrictions on how you paint your house or operating a slaughterhouse in a low density agricultural area is none of your (distant) neighbors' business, assuming the roads are up to the new traffic.
Increasing infill density doesn't seem bad to me, but even then, you need adequate utility and road capacity, and it's easy for NIMBYs in town to prevent that from being upgraded.
Seems like there's a spectrum (even if the dividing line is in the wrong place on that spectrum right now).
Many suburbs prohibit owning roosters (they wake your neighbors at dawn) though female chickens are OK. I think it's OK if you can't open a slaughterhouse next door in an urban or other dense area. It's also reasonable to require that new construction be up to code, as your close-by building not to fire code could threaten my home.
At the other extreme are restrictions on how you paint your house or operating a slaughterhouse in a low density agricultural area is none of your (distant) neighbors' business, assuming the roads are up to the new traffic.
Increasing infill density doesn't seem bad to me, but even then, you need adequate utility and road capacity, and it's easy for NIMBYs in town to prevent that from being upgraded.
It's a coordination mechanism in the prisoners dilemma. Building is defecting, zoning is legislating cooperation.
In this scenario you and folks who want more building are the justice system: you want defection, you want building. You say, "how is it moral for prisoners to constrain each other's actions?" but they voted for it freely because mutual cooperation is better than mutual defection, even if they personally would defect given the choice.
In this scenario you and folks who want more building are the justice system: you want defection, you want building. You say, "how is it moral for prisoners to constrain each other's actions?" but they voted for it freely because mutual cooperation is better than mutual defection, even if they personally would defect given the choice.
Is this a counter argument? It seems supportive of the point if anything. "Less invested but larger group of people telling a smaller group what to do".
Yeah sorry my argument might not have been exactly clear, I'm not trying to argue either way on how local/global governance should be. I'm trying to say that less governance over property rights is better.
It happens in this case that the state is in favor of less governance over property than local governments so I'm in support of the state here, but that doesn't always hold true and I'd be pro-local if the situation was reversed.
It happens in this case that the state is in favor of less governance over property than local governments so I'm in support of the state here, but that doesn't always hold true and I'd be pro-local if the situation was reversed.
For example - insolation. If somebody builds a massive apartment building in place of a detached house, its neighbors would get much more shade.
Why? At what level do you define "local" - country, state, city, neighbourhood, street, literally next door, just my house?
The idea that a local government can seize land-use decision-making power from the landowner is anti-democratic and grossly immoral.
"We live in a society." Realistically, your neighbors have a lot more invested in your land/home/whatever than the state government.
The people denied housing due to NIMBY have way more skin in the game.
Most of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are dedicated to curtailing the abuses inherent in a pure democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Most of the abuses against the bill of rights I'd argue are also democratically unpopular. So how'd we get here with such prevailing winds of acts that are both unconstitutional and democratically unpopular?
The idea that a few angry homeowners can block someone else from having a home is anti democratic.
Frankly, I think zoning and HOA restrictions on what you can do with land you purchased, and own, has gotten too far. Remember, the buyers own this land. And everybody agrees you shouldn't turn it into a sewage dump - but why is it any of your darned business if I want to build a deck? I'm not an idiot, I bought the land, I own the home, stop treating me like one.
To be fair, within living memory the restrictions went as far as to say what ethnicities could buy the house. The march of progress is slow.
100%, we have apparently slipped so far down the slope of “well your property’s appearance affects my property value” to the point where some places are effective regulating lawn grass types like the sight of tall grass is literal seeping sewage into neighboring plots.
Grass length, allowed paint colors, and in some cases allowed models of vehicles are some of the worst HOA rules I have read about. Of course these are all backed by fines and administered by a power drunk HOA president. No thanks.
> why is it any of your darned business if I want to build a deck?
Hypothetically? Because I live downhill from you, you didn't do any mandated hydrology / runoff study for new construction, and when you moved earth to make room for your deck you turned my nice backyard into a swamp by changing the drainage layout.
This is one of the reasons some new construction requires permitting, for example.
Hypothetically? Because I live downhill from you, you didn't do any mandated hydrology / runoff study for new construction, and when you moved earth to make room for your deck you turned my nice backyard into a swamp by changing the drainage layout.
This is one of the reasons some new construction requires permitting, for example.
it cuts both ways... it's also anti-democratic to leave zoning decisions up to a small pool of the top earners (i.e., land owners) who consistently make decisions that prevent other people from living there and participating
there's a balance to be struck, and at the moment it seems the scale has been heavily tilted towards wealthy home-owners deciding what their neighbors can do on their own property
there's a balance to be struck, and at the moment it seems the scale has been heavily tilted towards wealthy home-owners deciding what their neighbors can do on their own property
but it is not left up to a 'small pool of top earners', it is left to voters - if people don't vote, thats the problem that needs to be fixed.
But these communities have defined themselves so that all the voters are massively wealthy landowners. The average income in los altos hills is $400,000. That's why the state, made up of normal people needs to step in and fix the zoning situation.
Most political candidates in local politics are from the same small pool of top earners. Look up the biographies of your councilors.
a lot of times it's not even a vote — abutters and nearby busybodies will complain until they get a project shot down... people who want to live there but can't afford to have no voice
zoning should be flexible and applied equally within a region (rules as determined by the voting population) but in expensive cities this is not the situation
zoning should be flexible and applied equally within a region (rules as determined by the voting population) but in expensive cities this is not the situation
Isn't that how the US government is designed to work? When a lower authority fails to meet it's mandate, it's escalated up the chain. That's certainly how the courts work.
The local government has been deemed a failure. They have repeatedly been told they need to fix zoning, and each time the local government fails differently. Now their authority has been revoked.
This is very reminiscent of the political distracting and gerrymandering cases currently in flight.
The local government has been deemed a failure. They have repeatedly been told they need to fix zoning, and each time the local government fails differently. Now their authority has been revoked.
This is very reminiscent of the political distracting and gerrymandering cases currently in flight.
States are unitary governments so they're not "seizing" anything. They already have the authority to override counties and municipalities.
Right, another mistake that casual commenters make. The relationship between the city and the state is not analogous to the relationship between the state and the nation. Cities have no powers other than those granted by the state, they exist to serve the purposes of the state and to further state policies, and the state has the unilateral ability to end a city for any or no reason. If a city fails to advance state policy it has no reason to continue existing.
It is about Local-ism. You make stupid rules at city level, you feel the consequences and people who want to advocate their position can travel few blocks for them to be at least heard. Try that at State level esp. in a massive state like CA, TX, FL and NY.
State bureaucracy is far removed from the people.. you are just a row in an excel sheet, if you are lucky.
State bureaucracy is far removed from the people.. you are just a row in an excel sheet, if you are lucky.
You're not conceptually wrong, but structurally, jeffbee is quite correct: the details vary from state to state (for the exact same reason: every state has its own constitution describing how it is organized separate from the federal government) but unless that constitution says otherwise, the governmental structure of the United States is (right there in the name) a union of states, and each state has (federally-constrained) sovereignty in its borders.
If the California constitution says cities have more power, then they do. But I'm pretty sure it says (like every state constitution I'm familiar with) that city power is wholly defined by state authority and if the state wants to explicitly revoke the right to zone, they can do that.
(Whether or not it's a bad idea is independent of the question "Do they have the authority").
If the California constitution says cities have more power, then they do. But I'm pretty sure it says (like every state constitution I'm familiar with) that city power is wholly defined by state authority and if the state wants to explicitly revoke the right to zone, they can do that.
(Whether or not it's a bad idea is independent of the question "Do they have the authority").
So what?
The constitution of the U.S., and likely of every State, clearly does not endow any independent sovereignty to local municipalities.
The constitution of the U.S., and likely of every State, clearly does not endow any independent sovereignty to local municipalities.
[deleted]
If the local communities are completely incapable of even a modicum of good governance, what choice is there?
[deleted]
"incapable of even a modicum of good governance"? really? You can't point to a single way in which these local communities govern better than the State of California? Thats laughable - at best.
Perhaps you should re-read the article, where it shows that >90% of the local communities failed to create zoning plans that comply with state law. That's their fault - they had literally years to prepare, for a >30 year old law, and failed. The latest events are the consequences of their own ineptitude. They thought they could just get away with not zoning for new construction of any significance, which is basically a protection racket.
When will we see the effects?
People really will do anything to avoid building infrastructure and public transport...
so all the water, grid and transport issues we have just magically disappeared with this legislation?
I'm not aware of anyone claiming that.
> Now the wealthiest community in the United States has the unique distinction of also being the first community in the Bay Area to have a Builder’s Remedy project proposed. A young homeowner and computer engineer, frustrated that the town has been slow to permit the reconstruction of his water-damaged home, has announced plans to use the zoning holiday to build a 15-unit apartment complex and five townhomes on his property. Per the rules, four of those homes will house Los Altos Hills’ first low-income families.
This is hilarious. I hope these people who voted for the communists and ran companies that allowed the commissars to take over are happy to reap what they have sown. They now have the gall to act surprised by all of this. It's probably time to take inclusionary housing policy to the Supreme Court because it's clearly unconstitutional.
This is hilarious. I hope these people who voted for the communists and ran companies that allowed the commissars to take over are happy to reap what they have sown. They now have the gall to act surprised by all of this. It's probably time to take inclusionary housing policy to the Supreme Court because it's clearly unconstitutional.
Municipalities should be allowed to lock down their zoning if they want to. That's democracy.
This idea that we have to elevate all power to the state or federal government is antidemocratic. It doesn't matter if it's zoning, education, building codes, etc.
Historically, the state/federal government has acted as a facilitator of local control, but more and more it seems as though one of the goals is to take local control away.
I am not for this. Not because I'm against housing, but because I'm against taking away local control.
This idea that we have to elevate all power to the state or federal government is antidemocratic. It doesn't matter if it's zoning, education, building codes, etc.
Historically, the state/federal government has acted as a facilitator of local control, but more and more it seems as though one of the goals is to take local control away.
I am not for this. Not because I'm against housing, but because I'm against taking away local control.
Everyone, a priori, thinks "local control" means local power.
But unfortunately it doesn't. It means the worst sort of leisurely fools who happen to be your neighbors monopolizing local power, at everyone's expense.
This is the problem with "democracy" as such. In the american mythology it's about self-governance, but the more "direct, local" one makes it, the more absurd such a proposition becomes. As an empirical matter, people cannot govern themselves.
People are too poor in time, energy, concern, care, etc. to do so; and those who arent are the least fit to do it.
Democracy was never, nor should be, about "self-governance". It's about accountability. It's simply a mechanism to prevent tyranny.
The right "level" of democracy is one which maximises one's daily experienced freedom. And "local democracy" so often is a daily oppression on those who experience it.
America is overwhelmed by local corruption, housing-associations, and the like. It's one of the major reasons I would never live there.
But unfortunately it doesn't. It means the worst sort of leisurely fools who happen to be your neighbors monopolizing local power, at everyone's expense.
This is the problem with "democracy" as such. In the american mythology it's about self-governance, but the more "direct, local" one makes it, the more absurd such a proposition becomes. As an empirical matter, people cannot govern themselves.
People are too poor in time, energy, concern, care, etc. to do so; and those who arent are the least fit to do it.
Democracy was never, nor should be, about "self-governance". It's about accountability. It's simply a mechanism to prevent tyranny.
The right "level" of democracy is one which maximises one's daily experienced freedom. And "local democracy" so often is a daily oppression on those who experience it.
America is overwhelmed by local corruption, housing-associations, and the like. It's one of the major reasons I would never live there.
How good is the democracy when you need to live somewhere to participate but all of the land is already owned and there aren’t many rental options so rent is too high? Not everyone needs to be able to live anywhere but as a Bay Area resident I think a lot about the masses of people that work in my city but can’t afford to live there. And they have no vote on how that city manages housing even though they’re an important member of its economy.
> How good is the democracy when you need to live somewhere to participate
That is literally how it should work. That is why I (living in Austin) do not vote for local elections in Berlin.
That is literally how it should work. That is why I (living in Austin) do not vote for local elections in Berlin.
Should have said “sleep” not “live”. Working somewhere full time should entitle you to some say.
Hm, I am not sure that my nanny or housekeeper should have a say in how I run my household. The cooks at McDonalds do not get to say how McD runs their business. I would argue that that scales up correctly.
Workers should have a say in their working environment. Unions are the best way to ensure that. A nanny can’t exactly employ collective bargaining so unionization won’t work there, but most people aren’t working alone so that’s an exception.
You are right. Working environment. They can opine about that. House prices aren’t working environment, they are sleeping environment as you said.
Historically, local governments have made a large number of horrible / immoral decisions, and sometimes the state or federal powers step in to override them. This is a constitutional democracy.
95% of municipalities are in the wrong here? Doubtful.
Check the rent prices in 95% of the Bay Area vs. median income.
What is the reasoning here? Why do you say that it is doubtful?
The only reason the state is stepping in is because the municipalities are overreaching on their authority over property owners. The state isn't taking local control away, it's releasing control to a more local level, the individual property owners.
I think of it more of an individual rights issue. If I own land, I ought to be able to build whatever I want on it within reason.
in this specific case, cities are easily in a conflict of interest with zoning, at least politically as Nymbism was/is popular with established residents. This empasse goes against freedom of movement of people or property "rights" enshrined in the Constitution
All cities exist at the pleasure of the state.
Some cities are the state! (Singapore, Vatican City, Monaco)
Yeah, they're called city-states for a reason.
Obviously my comment was about American cities.
Obviously my comment was about American cities.
(And not to toot my own horn but that title does a much better job of explaining what's going on)