4 ms·

In order to increase the housing supply "significantly", you need to increase zoning limits in >10% of the relevant population-weighted land area. However balka

by scythe 9y ago

In order to increase the housing supply "significantly", you need to increase zoning limits in >10% of the relevant population-weighted land area. However balkanization makes it impossible to do this through a single political entity. The solution IMO is a "trigger" law that will increase zoning heights in a suburb when the nearby suburbs pass similar laws. This prevents any one town from becoming gentrified if they raise their growth rate above the regional norm.

kevinburke 9y ago
The biggest impediment to building in CA isn't zoning laws; most areas are zoned for way more density than they are built to. As an example, Habitat for Humanity wants to build 6 stories of below-market-rate condos in Redwood City, which complies with zoning codes, but are being opposed by a lawyer who lives on the block, because it's "out of character" with the other buildings in the neighborhood. It's a byzantine approval process that includes City Councils who are 100% responsible for local housing decisions, and are elected and responsible only to current city residents. Zealous Planning Commission boards who consider things like shadows and wind when making decisions, EIR (environmental impact report) appeals, CEQA lawsuits, a constitutional housing amendment (Prop 13) that incentivizes existing homeowners to oppose new development, and more... (It help if more areas were upzoned, but it's not the reason by any stretch)
- literallycancer 9y ago
  >Zealous Planning Commission boards who consider things like shadows and wind when making decisions, EIR (environmental impact report) appeals, CEQA lawsuits, a constitutional housing amendment (Prop 13) that incentivizes existing homeowners to oppose new development, and more... On the other hand, you don't want to end up with this[1], so considering things like shadows and/or view obstruction has some merits. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking#/media/File:View_of_house_between_two_casinos_-_Town_of_Atlantic_City,_North_end_of_Absecon_Island,_South_of_Absecon_Channel,_Atlantic_City,_Atlantic_County,_NJ_HABS_NJ,1-ATCI,19-3_(CT).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking#/media/File:View_o...
jrapdx3 9y ago
Portland is unique among similar cities in that large tracts of undeveloped land became available for housing construction in the last several years. That means thousands of units will be available in the near future, in addition to the large number recently added to the inventory in the metro area. I'm guessing that would well exceed the 10% zoning limit increase you mention. I haven't checked housing costs recently, but anecdotal data (from people looking for apartments, etc.) is that prices are still through the roof (so to speak). It could be prices will decline later this year or into next year, but pretty soon the supply of new housing will cease to increase so rapidly. It remains to be seen what happens to housing costs. I could be all wrong, but I'll predict there won't be a significant decrease despite the rapid pace of development.
- scythe 9y ago
  Portland is the cheapest city of its size on the West Coast excepting possibly Sacramento (which exports its richest people to Tahoe/Napa/SF). If you ask me the reason people there complain about costs is that the wages aren't high and it used to be even cheaper. I had a friend a few years ago who -- unemployed -- drove across the country to Portland, took a job fixing inventory at a music store, and got a room within walking distance of the train. Try pulling that off in the Bay Area!

by scythe 9y ago

kevinburke 9y ago

The biggest impediment to building in CA isn't zoning laws; most areas are zoned for way more density than they are built to. As an example, Habitat for Humanity wants to build 6 stories of below-market-rate condos in Redwood City, which complies with zoning codes, but are being opposed by a lawyer who lives on the block, because it's "out of character" with the other buildings in the neighborhood. It's a byzantine approval process that includes City Councils who are 100% responsible for local housing decisions, and are elected and responsible only to current city residents. Zealous Planning Commission boards who consider things like shadows and wind when making decisions, EIR (environmental impact report) appeals, CEQA lawsuits, a constitutional housing amendment (Prop 13) that incentivizes existing homeowners to oppose new development, and more... (It help if more areas were upzoned, but it's not the reason by any stretch)

literallycancer 9y ago
>Zealous Planning Commission boards who consider things like shadows and wind when making decisions, EIR (environmental impact report) appeals, CEQA lawsuits, a constitutional housing amendment (Prop 13) that incentivizes existing homeowners to oppose new development, and more... On the other hand, you don't want to end up with this[1], so considering things like shadows and/or view obstruction has some merits. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking#/media/File:View_of_house_between_two_casinos_-_Town_of_Atlantic_City,_North_end_of_Absecon_Island,_South_of_Absecon_Channel,_Atlantic_City,_Atlantic_County,_NJ_HABS_NJ,1-ATCI,19-3_(CT).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking#/media/File:View_o...

jrapdx3 9y ago

Portland is unique among similar cities in that large tracts of undeveloped land became available for housing construction in the last several years. That means thousands of units will be available in the near future, in addition to the large number recently added to the inventory in the metro area. I'm guessing that would well exceed the 10% zoning limit increase you mention. I haven't checked housing costs recently, but anecdotal data (from people looking for apartments, etc.) is that prices are still through the roof (so to speak). It could be prices will decline later this year or into next year, but pretty soon the supply of new housing will cease to increase so rapidly. It remains to be seen what happens to housing costs. I could be all wrong, but I'll predict there won't be a significant decrease despite the rapid pace of development.

scythe 9y ago
Portland is the cheapest city of its size on the West Coast excepting possibly Sacramento (which exports its richest people to Tahoe/Napa/SF). If you ask me the reason people there complain about costs is that the wages aren't high and it used to be even cheaper. I had a friend a few years ago who -- unemployed -- drove across the country to Portland, took a job fixing inventory at a music store, and got a room within walking distance of the train. Try pulling that off in the Bay Area!