California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked(sf.curbed.com)
sf.curbed.com
California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/16/18617019/transit-housing-bill-sb-50-approproations-committee-suspense-wiener
174 comments
California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.
Upzoning helps the homeowners who are upzoned, though I don't know how many of them realize it. Land can be sold at much higher values to developers if it's upzoned, and so its market rate is generally higher. It's those homeowners whose property isn't upzoned which are left out of the economic benefits.
Upzoning increases the value of the land, but decreases the value of pre-existing built square footage, since it's no longer an exclusivist area. If you have a brand new mansion built to the highest standards on the premise that it will be located in a tranquil neighborhood you might be on the net losing side if an apartment building is approved next door.
In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in order to realize any gains, which few people are willing to do.
In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in order to realize any gains, which few people are willing to do.
yes, the value of upzoning accrues to land value, not the real property that sits on it, but the rest of your conclusion doesn't follow.
when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.
also, you don't need to tear down the home to realize gains, since, as you yourself said, the value accrues to the land, not the building. the price would immediately incorporate that value, without the need to replace the structure atop.
if you also want to gain rental income, then yes, you'd need to replace the structure, but that's an investment to unlock a different income stream.
when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.
also, you don't need to tear down the home to realize gains, since, as you yourself said, the value accrues to the land, not the building. the price would immediately incorporate that value, without the need to replace the structure atop.
if you also want to gain rental income, then yes, you'd need to replace the structure, but that's an investment to unlock a different income stream.
>when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.
That's not how the real world works. In the real world, people who want to live in a single family home also want to live in a low density area. No one wants a single family home if there's a bunch of apartment buildings across the street.
That's not how the real world works. In the real world, people who want to live in a single family home also want to live in a low density area. No one wants a single family home if there's a bunch of apartment buildings across the street.
Yes, and to add to this: most landowners don't benefit from upzoning; only a few do. That's why, in general, most of them oppose upzoning.
> California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators
Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote.
A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.
Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote.
A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.
Also because they exist. People who would move to CA but don't because of the housing problem can't vote to fix the issue.
To be fair democracy needs some type of locality limit to keep it in the specific sovereignty's influence; US citizens don't get to vote in Canadian politics just because some people in Maine are thinking of moving over to Montreal
Large fraction of renters are foreigners. Around 27% CA population, twice the national average.
If they could vote, they would change this.
2 things that would wreck california here are:
1) restricting immigration (they lose suckers)
2) liberalizing immigration (suckers get bargaining power)
If they could vote, they would change this.
2 things that would wreck california here are:
1) restricting immigration (they lose suckers)
2) liberalizing immigration (suckers get bargaining power)
Add "restricting emigration" to the list. If the upper middle class couldn't plan on cashing out their house and leaving for a low CoL area they'd get serious about fixing things.
Or not even that: selling your primary home gives you income tax exemptions!
About two-thirds of the population in NYC rent[0]. Renters in New York are a powerful contingent because they're the majority. Compare that with 45% in the Bay Area as of 2010[1].
[0]https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/... [1]http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm
[0]https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/... [1]http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm
In immigration-heavy places like the Bay Area, a lot of renters don't have the right to vote.
What does "crashing down" mean, exactly? Do you mean economic development will stall? Then that would imply that home prices will decline and/or people will start leaving the state. If so, then that's the market at work, solving the problem without government intervention.
By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction.
There's already heavy government intervention in the housing markets, that's the problem: developers can't simply buy land and develop it to it's maximum potential. There are regulations that prevent the market from meeting demand, hence the skyrocketing prices that can't be addressed by increasing supply.
There's already heavy government intervention in the housing markets, that's the problem: developers can't simply buy land and develop it to it's maximum potential. There are regulations that prevent the market from meeting demand, hence the skyrocketing prices that can't be addressed by increasing supply.
>By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction.
I don't see how that's a problem, in fact it sounds like a solution. I'm certainly not going to cry over a bunch of rich people losing their shirts on overpriced real estate.
I don't see how that's a problem, in fact it sounds like a solution. I'm certainly not going to cry over a bunch of rich people losing their shirts on overpriced real estate.
It's not just rich people. It's people who have spent every bit of disposable income they have on keeping their mortgage paid up.
That includes not investing into retirement funds. They are counting on their house being the retirement fund. When the housing market collapses, there are going to be a lot of people left holding the bag.
That includes not investing into retirement funds. They are counting on their house being the retirement fund. When the housing market collapses, there are going to be a lot of people left holding the bag.
The problem is that many people can't afford to live there in the period of bubble.
Right, nor should they. They should go where they can afford to live. If that means the Bay Area has no more restaurants, gas stations, garbage pickup, schools, etc., that's fine.
I wouldn’t, but given the political power of the home owning class I really fear what corrective measures the government would take to stop a correction.
Hasn’t happened in London yet, or Hong Kong or Bombay or any other world class city open to the elite. The wealth my change hands, but the number of elites is monotonically increasing. It doesn’t matter if none of the locals can afford it.
Property crashes do happen from time to time. Even in HK, Mumbai, London, etc...
Other than minor blips, long-term trend is positive. Check out the ten year trend at [1]
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/housing-index
It may be an unpopular notion or maybe folks in SF are hoping to time the market, but the general trend across the globe is increasing price in desirable locales, barring natural disasters. So, yes, if a major earthquake hit SF, there would be a price correction :)
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/housing-index
It may be an unpopular notion or maybe folks in SF are hoping to time the market, but the general trend across the globe is increasing price in desirable locales, barring natural disasters. So, yes, if a major earthquake hit SF, there would be a price correction :)
> Other than minor blips, long-term trend is positive. Check out the ten year trend
The entire global equities market has been going crazy for the past decade, in no small part due to the historically low interest rates.
Claiming that housing prices will keep going up is like claiming that the stock market will keep going up. Even if it is true in the long run, you can have recessions or depressions, some that may last decades (see Japan's stock market since the 90s).
Bull runs don't last forever. Rental yields are abysmal in top cities, sometimes barely enough to cover the unit's tax burden & maintenance. If equities go down, so will the value of these units.
The entire global equities market has been going crazy for the past decade, in no small part due to the historically low interest rates.
Claiming that housing prices will keep going up is like claiming that the stock market will keep going up. Even if it is true in the long run, you can have recessions or depressions, some that may last decades (see Japan's stock market since the 90s).
Bull runs don't last forever. Rental yields are abysmal in top cities, sometimes barely enough to cover the unit's tax burden & maintenance. If equities go down, so will the value of these units.
Land ownership has a long-term positive growth trend going back a thousand years in western society. It’s as stable an investment as one can make. Average rate of return in North Am over 50 years is about 5% per year.
SF area was pretty down for more than a few years in the 90s (almost a lost decade from a gain perspective). Yes, it is temporary but even a small blip is enough to take out most leveraged speculators.
HK is an especially speculated and manipulated market, only experts should play there.
HK is an especially speculated and manipulated market, only experts should play there.
Its a market at work but it puts a cap on how much CA can grow. CA is already losing out enormously domestically. CA thrives demographically only on immigration, otherwise it would constantly lose people.
Also the quality of life is not guaranteed by prices: SF is the only place i know where millionaires step on human shit on their way to work daily.
Also the quality of life is not guaranteed by prices: SF is the only place i know where millionaires step on human shit on their way to work daily.
Americans are fleeing SF in masses already.
The thing is, there's so much capital floating around with nowhere to go that it's not clear to me when it's going to come crashing down. It's not just real estate speculation, it's also venture capital feeding exploding tech valuations which results in all these new millionaires who buy up what little real estate there is.
And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.
I honestly don't see the problem here.
It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to.
These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll have to hire twice as many people.
So if some wealthy homeowner needs a plumber, it's no problem. Remember, plumbers are usually contractors. They can call up the plumbing company, who will send a plumber who will drive 2-4 hours to get there, and the same amount to go home. This will result in an enormous charge just for fixing a leaking pipe. But that's OK, because the homeowner is wealthy, remember? They can afford $3k for a service call. If they can't, well maybe they need to rethink where they're living, and sell and move someplace cheaper.
Some jobs just don't even need to be done. Baristas, for instance, aren't really needed. They can be paid a fortune to drive 3 hours each way every day, and this can be reflected in the coffee prices, but will wealthy people pay $30 for a latte? If they do, fine: baristas can commute. If they don't, oh well, the coffee shop can go out of business (or maybe have self-serve lattes), and the wealthy homeowners can go without.
The same goes for teachers. If the wealthy people aren't willing to pay enough taxes for teachers to have $250k salaries to live there, then they don't really need to have teachers, and their kids can go without an education. Maybe they can send their kids to boarding school somewhere cheaper.
Seriously, I think that if people stop fretting about these lower-paid people, and just let the chips fall where they will, the problem will resolve itself one way or another. Either the wealthy people will cave in and get local government to approve more affordable housing construction, or the local real estate market will collapse because people don't really want to live in a place where there's no garbage collection.
It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to.
These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll have to hire twice as many people.
So if some wealthy homeowner needs a plumber, it's no problem. Remember, plumbers are usually contractors. They can call up the plumbing company, who will send a plumber who will drive 2-4 hours to get there, and the same amount to go home. This will result in an enormous charge just for fixing a leaking pipe. But that's OK, because the homeowner is wealthy, remember? They can afford $3k for a service call. If they can't, well maybe they need to rethink where they're living, and sell and move someplace cheaper.
Some jobs just don't even need to be done. Baristas, for instance, aren't really needed. They can be paid a fortune to drive 3 hours each way every day, and this can be reflected in the coffee prices, but will wealthy people pay $30 for a latte? If they do, fine: baristas can commute. If they don't, oh well, the coffee shop can go out of business (or maybe have self-serve lattes), and the wealthy homeowners can go without.
The same goes for teachers. If the wealthy people aren't willing to pay enough taxes for teachers to have $250k salaries to live there, then they don't really need to have teachers, and their kids can go without an education. Maybe they can send their kids to boarding school somewhere cheaper.
Seriously, I think that if people stop fretting about these lower-paid people, and just let the chips fall where they will, the problem will resolve itself one way or another. Either the wealthy people will cave in and get local government to approve more affordable housing construction, or the local real estate market will collapse because people don't really want to live in a place where there's no garbage collection.
By that logic we should abandon all minimum wage and employee rights laws. People wouldn't do the jobs unless the pay and conditions were acceptable, so it would resolve itself one way or the other right?
The unfortunate reality is that many people have little to no real choice in where they work or what they make. They live paycheck-to-paycheck and do jobs that do not come with any bargaining power. If they quit there will be 100 applicants to replace them the next day. And as the money continues to localize into major metro areas, the only available jobs are more and more often in those metro areas.
If you work-to-live then you have to have a job, if the only jobs are in the city you have to commute in, and if all the jobs pay $X you have to try to live on $X.
The unfortunate reality is that many people have little to no real choice in where they work or what they make. They live paycheck-to-paycheck and do jobs that do not come with any bargaining power. If they quit there will be 100 applicants to replace them the next day. And as the money continues to localize into major metro areas, the only available jobs are more and more often in those metro areas.
If you work-to-live then you have to have a job, if the only jobs are in the city you have to commute in, and if all the jobs pay $X you have to try to live on $X.
>By that logic we should abandon all minimum wage and employee rights laws.
No, that's not the logic at all.
Remember, this problem is entirely local, and can't really be solved because the local politics are locked up by the local wealthy homeowners.
Minimum wage and employee rights laws are usually either state or federal (or both). But the state and federal governments here have little power to fix the Bay Area's problems, because of the way the governmental systems are structured.
Personally, I think minimum wage should be raised, and employee rights laws should be strengthened. That's government's job, to fix problems like this which hurt the lower classes. But for the Bay Area, I think they should just provide grants to help lower-income people move out of the area and relocate to cheaper places, leaving the Bay Area without any lower-class people. Then let's see how they function without any janitors or teachers.
No, that's not the logic at all.
Remember, this problem is entirely local, and can't really be solved because the local politics are locked up by the local wealthy homeowners.
Minimum wage and employee rights laws are usually either state or federal (or both). But the state and federal governments here have little power to fix the Bay Area's problems, because of the way the governmental systems are structured.
Personally, I think minimum wage should be raised, and employee rights laws should be strengthened. That's government's job, to fix problems like this which hurt the lower classes. But for the Bay Area, I think they should just provide grants to help lower-income people move out of the area and relocate to cheaper places, leaving the Bay Area without any lower-class people. Then let's see how they function without any janitors or teachers.
Fair enough. I was extending your argument to the National level, as this same issue is playing out with slight variations in many of the major metro areas in the US. I’m on the East Coast, so I’m not familiar with the particulars of the local government structures in California and how that effects who and how those decisions get made. So, I withdraw my specific criticisms here.
On the national scale, my issue with “let the chips fall where they will” is because of how I’ve seen this issue play out in some of the places I’ve live here in the North-East. People in the position to demand that their wages match the cost of living do so, but those who work the kind of jobs that afford no barging power (office cleaning crews for example) can’t. This exacerbates the income divide, as the people who have/make more money are the ones in the positions to demand the largest increases to account for the local cost-of-living.
If the job pool starts to dry up, local businesses start busing people in and/or push local governments to subsidize public transportation. People need jobs, the jobs are in the city, so you end up with an entire economic class taking hour long bus/car trips to and from work every day. Nobody with means ever ends up inconvenienced.
You then end up with an entire economic class who doesn’t get compensated for the time spent commuting, incurs other associated expenses and complications (miss the bus and you don’t get paid), and ends up segregated to lower-cost-of-living areas outside the metro, which always see less funding for schools, parks, hospitals, public works, etc.
On the national scale, my issue with “let the chips fall where they will” is because of how I’ve seen this issue play out in some of the places I’ve live here in the North-East. People in the position to demand that their wages match the cost of living do so, but those who work the kind of jobs that afford no barging power (office cleaning crews for example) can’t. This exacerbates the income divide, as the people who have/make more money are the ones in the positions to demand the largest increases to account for the local cost-of-living.
If the job pool starts to dry up, local businesses start busing people in and/or push local governments to subsidize public transportation. People need jobs, the jobs are in the city, so you end up with an entire economic class taking hour long bus/car trips to and from work every day. Nobody with means ever ends up inconvenienced.
You then end up with an entire economic class who doesn’t get compensated for the time spent commuting, incurs other associated expenses and complications (miss the bus and you don’t get paid), and ends up segregated to lower-cost-of-living areas outside the metro, which always see less funding for schools, parks, hospitals, public works, etc.
I'm completely in favor of a law which requires employers to compensate employees for commute time over a certain amount. I'm sure higher levels of government could use some creative laws like this to put the squeeze on municipalities which refuse to build affordable housing for their service workers.
> By that logic we should abandon all minimum wage and employee rights laws.
Yes.
Yes.
Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that a given job is filled.
That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
>I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this.
I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all.
This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.
I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this.
I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all.
This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.
>> It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to.
> I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.
> I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.
I agree with you: the angle of "helping lower income people" is weak and moralistic.
That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state. CA does have a high homelessness and house poverty problem. San Francisco is already a dump: literal human poop on every street in front of million dollar condos built in the 70's.
Once tech diversifies away from CA they are toast.
That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state. CA does have a high homelessness and house poverty problem. San Francisco is already a dump: literal human poop on every street in front of million dollar condos built in the 70's.
Once tech diversifies away from CA they are toast.
>That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state
So? Let them crash and burn and serve as an example to the other 49. There will always be some states poorer than others. What's the harm in CA going from the top to the bottom?
The only thing that worries me about CA crashing and burning is that the upper and upper middle class who advocated for the public policy that caused the crash and burn may move to other states and enact the same policy before it becomes obvious that their policy is what caused CA's demise.
So? Let them crash and burn and serve as an example to the other 49. There will always be some states poorer than others. What's the harm in CA going from the top to the bottom?
The only thing that worries me about CA crashing and burning is that the upper and upper middle class who advocated for the public policy that caused the crash and burn may move to other states and enact the same policy before it becomes obvious that their policy is what caused CA's demise.
California residents are right to want to change that course! Renters and land-owners alike, even on antagonistic positions in this topic.
I think the core policy issue is not housing though, its taxes. Single family homes pay less taxes than what they consume: building more housing will increase density, but if my model is right, it will expand public spending and keep rents high.
I think the core policy issue is not housing though, its taxes. Single family homes pay less taxes than what they consume: building more housing will increase density, but if my model is right, it will expand public spending and keep rents high.
It won't be CA that goes to the bottom, just the Bay Area. LA and SD and Fresno and even Sacramento don't have the same problems.
LA and SD also have affordable housing problems. They aren't as pronounced as the Bay Area, but it's still an issue.
Every metro area in the US has those same affordable housing problems, not just LA and SD. It's only in the Bay Area where it's really ridiculous because they won't build any new construction.
Don't worry! San Francisco has thought about the problem of course. They're building housing dedicated to teachers. Mountain View is thinking about doing the same. One step closer to feudalism (or when people working in mines used to live in housing owned by the mining company). The ineptitude of local politicians catering to NIMBY is boundless.
Probably find them living in tiny capsules and/or shipping containers down by the docks or maybe on top of that superfund site that rich people are starting to get weary about living on/near.
Not much room for "servant's quarters", when your multi-million-dollar condo is like 1200 sq. ft.
I know of no one that is against putting up more housing near transit. People that live near the new construction will see their property values and quality of life rise due to more walkable businesses nearby. People selling existing houses on up zoned lots should also be able to charge a premium, knowing the developers are putting in >>$10M of housing units on the lot.
I wish I knew which legislators blocked this so I could donate to their opponents.
I wish I knew which legislators blocked this so I could donate to their opponents.
Anthony J. Portantino
I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners.
With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.
With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.
Homeowners vote often and also are more engaged. They show up to hearings more than renters.
This is the problem with renters. When they don't like how things are going, maybe they feel helpless, they just move to a different city.
This is the problem with renters. When they don't like how things are going, maybe they feel helpless, they just move to a different city.
I see nothing wrong with this though. Homeowners can't just leave like the renters can. Of course they're more involved in trying to prevent the place from turning into a dump (never-mind that their actions have the exact opposite effect)
I can tell you what the turnout of CA foreigners that vote: 0%.
And CA is 27% foreign born population.
And CA is 27% foreign born population.
In cupertino there was a similar drive and a similar movement to stop it.
The slogan for the people against it were saying "Don't turn cupertino into condotino!" There are a lot of condos in cupertino now.
The slogan for the people against it were saying "Don't turn cupertino into condotino!" There are a lot of condos in cupertino now.
> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development.
Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no desirable public lands where people spend any time, and really nothing at all other than houses and ghost streets. One needs a car to go anywhere. There is nothing to do, no one to see, and no one to interact with. It's no wonder people who live there end up using drugs and coping with a ton of anxiety and depression. It's one of the worst places to raise teenagers and young adults especially ones not old to drive. Having lived in such neighborhoods all my life, I still can't understand what people are talking about in regards to the quality of life. The quality of life is shit. But I can see putting up with that for more money. I guess that's what they mean by quality of life. Low taxes and home value appreciation.
Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no desirable public lands where people spend any time, and really nothing at all other than houses and ghost streets. One needs a car to go anywhere. There is nothing to do, no one to see, and no one to interact with. It's no wonder people who live there end up using drugs and coping with a ton of anxiety and depression. It's one of the worst places to raise teenagers and young adults especially ones not old to drive. Having lived in such neighborhoods all my life, I still can't understand what people are talking about in regards to the quality of life. The quality of life is shit. But I can see putting up with that for more money. I guess that's what they mean by quality of life. Low taxes and home value appreciation.
Based on what I see on Nextdoor and from anti-housing groups in Seattle, I suspect quality of life is coded language for "undesirable" types moving in. If you make your city affordable, you don't get to live in an enclave where everyone has a 7-figure net worth and went to Stanford.
Yes, and the effects of that on local schools as well.
Our local school in California busses in out of district students. By their claim, they can offer higher quality education with more students because the state funding scales faster than the burden.
That's atypical of most high income, high quality districts in California. E.g., Palo Alto is currently fighting with Stanford over a housing expansion because of the impact of additional students at local schools.
It’s totally fine you don’t like it, but many people do. They are choosing to live that way because they like the lifestyle, not for the money. If they wanted money, they’d do better by the passing of SB50, and developing multi unit dwelling on their lot. I don’t think you are helping push the discussion forward by mischaracterizing the opposition.
Given that the majority of residential areas outside cities (and even some inside cities) are not sufficiently walkable to do without a car, you're basically suggesting that the vast majority of the US has poor quality of life. That may be true (I'd doubt it), but an extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidence.
I personally prefer to live in a place where I can live my life through walking and transit, but I know quite a few people who prefer open, spread-out, commercial/industrial-free neighborhoods, and either don't mind or actively enjoy having a car and driving places.
I personally prefer to live in a place where I can live my life through walking and transit, but I know quite a few people who prefer open, spread-out, commercial/industrial-free neighborhoods, and either don't mind or actively enjoy having a car and driving places.
Who blocked this? I am a California voter and I do not recall having any say over this blockage.
From the latimes article, it was a state senator from the Los Angeles area: “Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced at the beginning of the committee hearing Thursday that Senate Bill 50 would not advance this year, meaning the bill would not be debated again until 2020.”
Edit: Here is a video of him saying that despite the crisis, he doesn’t think the bill is right, and maybe something better will come along https://twitter.com/BryanRAnderson/status/112911212601702809...
Edit: Here is a video of him saying that despite the crisis, he doesn’t think the bill is right, and maybe something better will come along https://twitter.com/BryanRAnderson/status/112911212601702809...
As Chairman he blocked it from even being voted on... looks like I know who to axe on the next elections.
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
I believe the conventional wisdom is that legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters, and either of those are stronger signals to them than emails.
I believe the conventional wisdom is that legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters, and either of those are stronger signals to them than emails.
legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters
Tell Sen. Anthony Portantino that you are unhappy that he abused his power to stop SB 50.
Tell Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins you want her to do everything in her power to get a floor vote this year.
https://cayimby.org/call/
Tell Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins you want her to do everything in her power to get a floor vote this year.
https://cayimby.org/call/
The bay area will lose more experienced older workers if the only way to exist here is to share an apartment with other young single people. Companies should care about this.
Companies should move out of the Bay Area.
Yup. The more that move out of the Bay Area the better. There are a lot of other nice places to live. It would be awesome for those nice places to get good tech jobs.
Aren’t they already biased against older workers, though? Older workers and startups don’t fit together well.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thanks for writing. A veteran who has VA loan entitlement wouldn't be extending this benefit to anyone else, but he or she could look to have the new spouse as a co-borrower on a new VA loan. You can talk with a Veterans United loan specialist in more detail at (431) 300-7649 [email protected]
[deleted]
If defeating NIMBYs was easy, it would have been done a long time ago.
Really insightful story. I do hope that we'll soon find a way to solve the California housing crisis!
I have seen a lot of luxury apartments springing up but, not actual homes people can buy. That is a problem.
It's largely illegal to build units that are sufficiently small to be affordable. Zoning requirements in most places have square foot minimums and amenity requirements (such as parking).
That said, even "luxury apartments" give the wealthy a place to live rather than bidding on existing housing stock, and so do relieve price pressure on older buildings.
That said, even "luxury apartments" give the wealthy a place to live rather than bidding on existing housing stock, and so do relieve price pressure on older buildings.
Url changed from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-single-fa... to one that seems to contain more info and is less paywalled.
"We'll do anything to solve the housing crisis!"
"How about building more housing?"
"Anything but that!"
"How about building more housing?"
"Anything but that!"
People currently living there don't see it as a "housing crisis". They see it as "too many people coming here, trying to change our single family house peaceful residential neighborhood into bigger buildings".
So "how about limiting influx of new people / new development?"
"Sure, let's do that"
I understand newcomers may disagree with that approach, out of understandable self interest.
But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?? Trying to make newcomers sound morally superior? Come on.... You can do better that than that.
So "how about limiting influx of new people / new development?"
"Sure, let's do that"
I understand newcomers may disagree with that approach, out of understandable self interest.
But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?? Trying to make newcomers sound morally superior? Come on.... You can do better that than that.
So their plan to solve the housing crises essentially involves trying to keep new people out of the SF Bay area? Keep in mind that this is an area that heavily prides itself on being diverse and inclusive.
People aren't clueless for defending their interests, but they absolutely are being highly deceptive in the way they are going about it. Many even go so far as to try and claim that increasing housing supply will actually increase prices. There was even a ballot initiative to ban market rate housing construction in central San Francisco.
People aren't clueless for defending their interests, but they absolutely are being highly deceptive in the way they are going about it. Many even go so far as to try and claim that increasing housing supply will actually increase prices. There was even a ballot initiative to ban market rate housing construction in central San Francisco.
Again, from the people living there, what's the housing crisis?? Yes, they are trying to limit how many people are coming in, that's obvious. This is different from inclusive and diversity issues. This is about 100 new diverse people rather than 1,000.
Again you can disagree with them, it is fair, but I think their approach is perfectly understandable, and if you want to argue and debate, no one should assume they are hypocritical or morally inferior. I read thosr comments all the time on HN.
The minute you say "housing crisis", you show which situation/point of view you're coming from. It's not a crisis that "needs" to be solved with more housing, it is just your viewpoint.
Again you can disagree with them, it is fair, but I think their approach is perfectly understandable, and if you want to argue and debate, no one should assume they are hypocritical or morally inferior. I read thosr comments all the time on HN.
The minute you say "housing crisis", you show which situation/point of view you're coming from. It's not a crisis that "needs" to be solved with more housing, it is just your viewpoint.
It's not an assumption of hypocrisy. It genuinely is hypocrisy. A group of people are praising themselves for their inclusivity, while pushing for exclusionary policies. If they want to pursue these policies without being hypocritical then they need to change their messaging to be transparent about their desire for exclusion rather than inclusion.
Are you saying that unless one welcomes an infinity of people in their backyard, one cannot be inclusive?
I think you should explain and defend the policy you wish, instead of critizing an imaginary adversary by putting words in their mouth.
If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC. And prices are also very high there.
Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
(whose incumbent said "we will do anything to solve the housing crisis?" in your original point?)
I think you should explain and defend the policy you wish, instead of critizing an imaginary adversary by putting words in their mouth.
If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC. And prices are also very high there.
Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
(whose incumbent said "we will do anything to solve the housing crisis?" in your original point?)
I'm saying that if one supports policies with the intended effect of excluding people from moving into one's neighborhood, it's hypocrisy to call oneself inclusive.
> If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC.
Yes, absolutely. Build more housing and build denser housing. This is what pro-housing people have been saying for years.
> And prices are also very high there.
There's 8 million people in NYC instead of 800,000 in San Francisco.
> Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
Pointing out the contradiction of one's purported values with their actions is not an attack. When people support exclusory policies like rent control and curbing housing development with the goal of reducing the ability of people to move there, they are being exclusive. This is not a misrepresentation. People who support said policies while simultaneously purporting to foster an inclusive community are indeed being hypocritical. This is not an attack, this is a factually correct observation.
> If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC.
Yes, absolutely. Build more housing and build denser housing. This is what pro-housing people have been saying for years.
> And prices are also very high there.
There's 8 million people in NYC instead of 800,000 in San Francisco.
> Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
Pointing out the contradiction of one's purported values with their actions is not an attack. When people support exclusory policies like rent control and curbing housing development with the goal of reducing the ability of people to move there, they are being exclusive. This is not a misrepresentation. People who support said policies while simultaneously purporting to foster an inclusive community are indeed being hypocritical. This is not an attack, this is a factually correct observation.
> Are you saying that unless one welcomes an infinity of people in their backyard, one cannot be inclusive?
San Francisco is a sanctuary city so officially they do encourage more newcomers to come.
San Francisco is a sanctuary city so officially they do encourage more newcomers to come.
> Again, from the people living there, what's the housing crisis??
Well, their children can't afford to live here so that's going to be a problem.
Well, their children can't afford to live here so that's going to be a problem.
The thing that I will never understand is that the incumbents with this attitude are still hurting themselves with these policies. Even if they own a home and are protected by Prop 13 from large property tax increases, they still have to contend with all the rest of the problems that the housing crisis brings. Perhaps the fear of change overrides common sense, but I find it hard to believe that, rationally, the neighborhood "changing in character", or home values dipping the slightest bit, would be worse than the other negative realities that NIMBYs still experience here.
I think a lot of it boils down to an ingrained belief that real estate should be an investment. Everyone buys a house with the expectation that its value will go up. This means that homeowners are extremely adverse to policies that might reduce home prices (like building more housing).
Contrast this with houses in Japan, where it's expected that a home is a depreciating asset. Houses in the Special Wards of Tokyo can be bought for $300-400k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
Contrast this with houses in Japan, where it's expected that a home is a depreciating asset. Houses in the Special Wards of Tokyo can be bought for $300-400k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
That's a very good point. I'm of the opinion that a primary residence is a liability, not an investment, but it's true that I'm in the minority when it comes to the US.
> But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?
Somebody defending their interests doesn't make them not selfish.
Somebody defending their interests doesn't make them not selfish.
True. But it does not make them "more" selfish because they just disagree with one's just as selfish opinion. (My point) Let's stop calling people names, and all argue what evolution we want, and possibly respectfully disagree.
This can go for just about any social problem.
"We have to do something about X!"
"Here's what sacrifices you can make to help..."
"Oh, I meant we need to help, not me."
"We have to do something about X!"
"Here's what sacrifices you can make to help..."
"Oh, I meant we need to help, not me."
I'm totally fine with apartment buildings going up next door. That was literally the case 2 months ago. I was happy to see more housing stock being added.
The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive.
It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds.
People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.
It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds.
People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.
> People need houses to live in
I'm sure very few owners of multiples houses let them empty and not rent them out so that people can live in them.
Houses are expensive, even outside their speculative value, in terms of raw materials, workmanship etc. So expensive that few people can afford to buy houses with cash.
If someone is paying that cash to build a house, then offering it for an affordable rent so that other people can live in them, they are providing a valuable service.
I'm sure very few owners of multiples houses let them empty and not rent them out so that people can live in them.
Houses are expensive, even outside their speculative value, in terms of raw materials, workmanship etc. So expensive that few people can afford to buy houses with cash.
If someone is paying that cash to build a house, then offering it for an affordable rent so that other people can live in them, they are providing a valuable service.
as I posted somewhere else as well:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...
There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments.
So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.
There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments.
So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.
This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.
Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.
I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right.
If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?
No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.
We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.
How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).
Isn't that a better world?
If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?
No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.
We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.
How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).
Isn't that a better world?
No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you?
If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees.
Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
What are you getting at? Are you saying that restaurants won't pay their staff very high wages to entice them to commute for several hours, and that the restaurant will go out of business?
How exactly is this a problem?
Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily.
Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
How exactly is this a problem?
Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily.
Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
> I think access to shelter is a human right.
Products and services can't be human rights.
Products and services can't be human rights.
This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.
I guess I'm flattered, but you understand the point, right? If you have 'rights' to a product or service (i.e. something that requires another person to work for you in order to satisfy) then you effectively have 'rights' to their labor and goods, also known as slavery.
It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize.
When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.
When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.
It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.
I don't really want to get drawn into this because – again – I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I have to point out that just because you're able to do something today doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" that needs to be "stripped" from you. We adopt reasonable legislation all of the time which restricts legal activity in various ways. When the SEC issues guidance on some little-known regulation that affects the way that hedge funds are allowed to account for certain trading costs, nobody worries that important rights are being eroded. Their investment activities will be a little bit more restricted, but they have tons of money anyway and they have plenty of other options. Maybe you can see by analogy why I wouldn't be terribly impressed by owners of multiple California properties crying about their rights if some reasonable light-touch restrictions were added that slightly threatened their future revenues.
Yes I've noticed that many times people don't feel the need to defend other people's rights because it wouldn't also affect them directly.
I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented.
I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
You definitely have rights to your property, it's one of the most important ideas established in the Constitution.
It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
You need to consider the difference between something being right and something being a right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]”
-- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]”
-- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.
Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people.
It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all.
No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all.
No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
You're fine then with one person owning all the property?
If they acquire it legally, then who are any of us to object?
If one person onws everything, he is de facto the government.
I don't see why it's the government's job (at state/federal levels) to fix a local problem like this.
If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.
If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.
It's a chicken/egg problem. The jobs are in the cities. The population density in other areas makes it even harder. People move to the cities for jobs because there aren't any where they are from.f
Incorrect. Yes, the jobs are in the cities, but there are many other cities besides the Bay Area. In most other cities, lower-paid people (e.g. service workers) are able to find places to live. What we're talking about here is a problem mostly unique to the Bay Area.
I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.
I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.
I don't think multiple-home-ownership is the driver of the housing crisis. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, most homes are either owner-occupied or being rented out by the owner that owns one other house. So are you suggesting that the problem is solved in my neighborhood?
Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.
The thing is, my observation is true about the broader housing market in the Bay Area. Most homes are not homes owned by individuals with multiple homes. And at worst, they're homes on the rental market, and so still help to meet housing demand. Vacant houses are such a small fraction of the housing stock, that even if all of them were full of resident owners, the price problem would still exist.
The data suggest otherwise:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...
To expand further why I think you haven't made a good argument: if high vacancy rates are the problem, and the Bay Area has especially low vacancy rates, why is the Bay Area the least affordable region in the US? High vacancy rates are obviously not the cause of the housing crisis. Maybe you can make the argument that high vacancy rates _coupled with something else_ is the problem, but you don't seem to be making that argument -- and the "something else" is probably the more important factor anyway, since SF doesn't have high vacancy rates.
The bay area has a high concentration of wealth where average salaries are almost twice the rest of the country. Programmers there make $300,000 or more. That's a doctor or lawyer in other areas of the nation.
I don't think high vacancy rates are the problem, I think they are a symptom.
Most of the people in this thread are only looking at the bay area from the past dozen years or so. In 2002, the picture was much different. In 1999, it was the opposite of 2002.
When you've lived in an area for decades, you can pick and choose where and when you buy. If you just moved there for a job, you're stuck without that time diversification and leverage ladder used by the folks who have lived there for a long time and accumulated many properties.
I don't think high vacancy rates are the problem, I think they are a symptom.
Most of the people in this thread are only looking at the bay area from the past dozen years or so. In 2002, the picture was much different. In 1999, it was the opposite of 2002.
When you've lived in an area for decades, you can pick and choose where and when you buy. If you just moved there for a job, you're stuck without that time diversification and leverage ladder used by the folks who have lived there for a long time and accumulated many properties.
No, the data does not suggest otherwise. I won't be surprised if Vancouver is very different from San Francisco, which has extremely low vacancy rates.
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo...
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo...
The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty"
So, yes -- it does.
So, yes -- it does.
This is a lower rate than elsewhere in the US.
There are fewer than 10,000 homes for sale in the SF Metro area. That means, there are 10x as many homes vacant as are for sale.
If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area?
Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...
If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area?
Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...
> limiting the number of houses a person can own
So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting??
Why?
So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting??
Why?
No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.
In order to rent, you need to rent from someone. If everyone can own at most two pieces of real property, that means that at most only half the population can rent, because the property owners will live in one home, and will rent out the other (well, sure, some will rent out rooms in their primary residence).
In reality, half of the population will not want to (or be able to) own two properties (and many will not even be able to own one), so you end up with a nominal amount of home ownership, a very tiny rental market, and a bunch of people who both can't afford homes and have nowhere to rent because of the aforementioned very tiny rental market.
In reality, half of the population will not want to (or be able to) own two properties (and many will not even be able to own one), so you end up with a nominal amount of home ownership, a very tiny rental market, and a bunch of people who both can't afford homes and have nowhere to rent because of the aforementioned very tiny rental market.
SO... the only way someone can rent a "house" is to rent a room in one that is currently occupied? There would be not SFR rentals if you limit ownership to 1.
Not just limiting but banning people that don't live in the country more than 70% of the time from living here. We n2eed to ban foreign investment.
If a real estate agent in Australia helps a foreign buyer buy a house in Australia, it's a $400,000 fine, iirc. We are talking about stiff penalties.
It was an awful bill. It removed density limits in any jobs-rich area (so basically all of the Bay Area). It forced any single family zoned area to allow fourplexes.
This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.
This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.
what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.
That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you.
I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.
I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.
This argument always seemed like a fantasy to me. Cities and neighborhoods change over time. Legally forcing them to stay one way and not letting them adapt to the changing demands of the market seems petty and childish.
When you buy a house, you don't buy the neighborhood.
When you buy a house, you don't buy the neighborhood.
What was the growth rate of the region when they moved in? They chose to buy a house in an area where this kind of growth was foreseeable. For many that growth and the increasing home values that come with it was probably the reason they moved there.
I'm sure you wouldn't have appreciated somebody saying you cant live where you do now, before you moved there.
However you are completely onboard with doing the same to others.
However you are completely onboard with doing the same to others.
If you don't want to live in a high density area, then why did you choose to live in a city?
fourplexes fit in with single family homes[0]. what makes you averse to a fourplex in your neighborhood?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAvinney_Fourplex
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAvinney_Fourplex
More people - more noise - more traffic - more fuss.
Your explanation may be a reason why it failed, but doesn’t explain why it’s a bad bill.
Don’t you want to put more housing where the jobs are?
Don’t you want to put more housing where the jobs are?
Jobs can move as well. And there's a good argument that more housing won't significantly ameliorate California's housing crisis: More housing results in lower prices only if it reduces demand. But if the pool of people competing to live there is much larger than the increase in housing (drawn from the entire US, plus some immigrants), then it won't make a dent in demand, and the prices will stay high.
[deleted]
This bill would have created enormous resentment on behalf of homeowners, the ones who would have watched ugly four-story boxes go up in their neighborhoods. They would have wondered why the problems of the big cities were being dumped onto them, and the answer is found no farther then Weiner's list of campaign contributors.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...
If it were truly only addressing the problems of big cities, then why would developers feel the demand to build in more suburban areas? Clearly this isn't only a big city problem.
Oh no not the poor homeowners that are being heavily subsidized via Prop 13. I'll be sure to shed a tear for them.
The McMansions are uglier anyway. Is your right to not look at ugly boxes more important than other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?
This bill doesn't propose upzoning the kinds of neighborhoods where the "McMansions" are. Those houses are generally speaking way out in the suburbs and exurbs. SB 50 targets regions close to major cities, and most of that are "old growth" neighborhoods.
And, to your second statement: if people do indeed have a "right" to a home less than $2 million, they can exercise that right. It just might not be in Palo Alto.
And, to your second statement: if people do indeed have a "right" to a home less than $2 million, they can exercise that right. It just might not be in Palo Alto.
Except that NIMBYISM is everywhere. Trlling people to “just move” is not only unfair (see Katrina aftermath) it’s not reasonable since you are exerting undue influence over your neighborhood and essentially the right of others to live near you, but not on you.
Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.
That’s exactly what people did ~60 years ago. Bought some farmland way outside San Francisco, built houses and a community. No because a few billionaire execs want to keep their companies close to their houses, we are going to tear it all down? By all means, densify downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. But I don’t understand the perverse desire to add density to far suburbs.
One big reason to densify the suburbs (speaking of the bay area in particular) is that they're in Silicon Valley and that's where most of the tech jobs are (e.g., Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.). These cities are willing to let companies come in and collect that sweet tax revenue but are not willing to allow sufficient housing to be built to house all of those workers.
What sweet tax revenue are you talking about? Cities would make more from a car dealership or an Apple store than a mega office complex. Regardless, it is easier to move the office than build housing for the office. Incentivize companies to be downtown SF/SJ/Oak near transit if density is the goal. Building medium density mid-peninsula is a mess of an idea that will end up creating as many commuters as local workers.
People also did that ~60 years ago right in the middle of San Francisco. There was plenty of cheap empty land. I have a relative there who bought her 4-bedroom house in 1963 for $9000. She likes her neighborhood. There is plenty of free parking. If there were still any kids, they could play in the street. Normally there is zero traffic of any kind. There is no trash and certainly no biohazard problem.
I guess she votes to keep it that way. Wouldn't most people do so? She helped create the neighborhood that so many people envy. Anybody else who wants a similar neighborhood can go do the same thing: build a house in a cheap area with open land, then live there for 56 years. What people are demanding is to skip that effort. People don't want to build out on empty hills and then wait 56 years. They just want to take what people like her created, degrading it with excess traffic.
I guess she votes to keep it that way. Wouldn't most people do so? She helped create the neighborhood that so many people envy. Anybody else who wants a similar neighborhood can go do the same thing: build a house in a cheap area with open land, then live there for 56 years. What people are demanding is to skip that effort. People don't want to build out on empty hills and then wait 56 years. They just want to take what people like her created, degrading it with excess traffic.
>> other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?
No one has such a right. If you want to buy a home for under $2 million, there are plenty of these in the East Bay and East San Jose. No shortage at all.
No one has such a right. If you want to buy a home for under $2 million, there are plenty of these in the East Bay and East San Jose. No shortage at all.