3 ms·
> It requires cities and counties to develop plans every eight years for new home building in their communities. After more than a year of work and spending nea
by IncRnd 9y ago
> It requires cities and counties to develop plans every eight years for new home building in their communities. After more than a year of work and spending nearly $50,000, Foster City had an 87-page housing plan that proposed hundreds of new homes, mapped where they would go and detailed the many ways the city could help make the construction happen. But a crucial element was missing: Foster City was never going to approve all the building called for in the voluminous proposal, Perez said.
Why would a municipality spend $50,000 on a do-nothing report? Instead keep the $50,000 and spend $2.00 on a report that says, "It would be best to do something about housing. Someone should build more houses."
Sure, the law is a failure, but the municipalities that spent that kind of money willy-nilly are just as limited in their success.
- ajmurmann 9y agoTo me the most mystifying part is why the city is involved in any of this planning? I find it utterly appalling that the city is planning housing units. What bizarre planned economy, communist system is this? Americans tend to be very pro-market, but as soon as it's about housing we get this bizarre stuff.
- vkou 9y agoOur economy is already highly planned. Particular behaviours are tax advantaged, particular investment in particular industries is centrally planned through government procurement, healthcare prices are controlled through Medicaid/Medicare, almost every corporation heavily practices centralized planning... The strange part is not that planning happens, its how we are so bad at it when it comes to land ownership.
- cmurf 9y agoAny time there's perceived market failure (or suboptimal outcome) in a democracy, voters will try to legislate alternative outcomes. There's nothing bizarre about it, it's been going on for a while now. And not even cities, but towns of 10,000 have these kinds of issues where there's only so much physical room for them to grow and everyone there asserts the right to a view, so there are height restrictions for buildings. And then they also realize they need people who aren't millionaires to be teachers, waiters, plumbers, lawn care, and so on. And they can't all live in town, so now they live in the next town and commute, leading to traffic problems and a need for regional public transit, and all kinds of really obvious classist side effects. You either want to live in an aristocratic homogeneous society or you want something quite a bit more diverse and less walled garden than that. And for sure not everyone is in agreement. Hence there's a problem and there's arguing about it.
- Decade 9y agoProducing the report is tied to funding. If they don’t produce the report, then the city is ineligible for certain housing and infrastructure funds from the state or federal governments, or it gets fewer points in its applications for funds. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/... http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/loan_grant_hecompl011708.pdf http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/...
- IncRnd 9y ago> Producing the report is tied to funding. If they don’t produce the report, then the city is ineligible for certain housing and infrastructure funds from the state or federal governments, or it gets fewer points in its applications for funds. That is why I wrote that a report costing $2.00 should have been created. Spending $50,000 on such a report is foolish and an utter waste that occurs when people don't value taxpayer money and don't consider why their public employment position exists.