4 ms·

A lot of reasons but two fundamental parts as I see it First population growth, California's population is 10x what it was 100 years ago, so a family had an ac

by rb808 7y ago

A lot of reasons but two fundamental parts as I see it First population growth, California's population is 10x what it was 100 years ago, so a family had an acre, now you have ten families on the same piece of land. That makes the land much more valuable. Secondly people spend a stable fraction of their earnings on housing, so income growth is important, and why a house in California costs much more than a house in say Peru. And why a house in NYC costs much more than it did 100 year ago - with stable population. If you look at places with stable/falling populations and stable/falling incomes, house prices are stable/falling too, see Rural America, Midwest, Argentina, Russia etc

aidenn0 7y ago
And at least where I live in California, housing is much more expensive to build in real terms than it used to be. I lived in a house that would be illegal to build today (the house was too large for the lot; note that it's total square footage, not the housing footprint that is the problem, which might explain why ranches seem to be so popular around here). That's ignoring things like tighter building regulation for safety and environmental reasons. It also means that the house itself will appreciate because if you tore down the house, you would have to build a much smaller house on the lot. I looked into buying a lot and building, and estimates were showing that the permitting process could cost more than the lot itself.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The fact that land having structures that are "grandfathered in" is a major selling point for any piece of property with said structures tells you all you need to know about how much of a success curtailing people's freedom to build what they want on their own property has been. >I looked into buying a lot and building, and estimates were showing that the permitting process could cost more than the lot itself. That's the point. The city is creating an artificial wealth minimum for people developing properties. If you don't have at least $X to burn on their whims then you are not allowed to build in their city.

by rb808 7y ago

aidenn0 7y ago

And at least where I live in California, housing is much more expensive to build in real terms than it used to be. I lived in a house that would be illegal to build today (the house was too large for the lot; note that it's total square footage, not the housing footprint that is the problem, which might explain why ranches seem to be so popular around here). That's ignoring things like tighter building regulation for safety and environmental reasons. It also means that the house itself will appreciate because if you tore down the house, you would have to build a much smaller house on the lot. I looked into buying a lot and building, and estimates were showing that the permitting process could cost more than the lot itself.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The fact that land having structures that are "grandfathered in" is a major selling point for any piece of property with said structures tells you all you need to know about how much of a success curtailing people's freedom to build what they want on their own property has been. >I looked into buying a lot and building, and estimates were showing that the permitting process could cost more than the lot itself. That's the point. The city is creating an artificial wealth minimum for people developing properties. If you don't have at least $X to burn on their whims then you are not allowed to build in their city.