13 ms·
California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked
- crimsonalucard 8y agoIn 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.
- mullingitover 8y agoCalifornia'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.
- i_am_nomad 8y agoWhat 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.
- mullingitover 8y agoBy '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.
- glitchc 8y agoHasn’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.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoProperty crashes do happen from time to time. Even in HK, Mumbai, London, etc...
- glitchc 8y agoOther than minor blips, long-term trend is positive. Check out the ten year trend at [1] [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/housing-index 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 :)
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoSF 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.
- helen___keller 7y ago> 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.
- magduf 8y ago>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.
- KptMarchewa 7y agoThe problem is that many people can't afford to live there in the period of bubble.
- magduf 7y agoRight, 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.
- village-idiot 7y agoI 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.
- jjeaff 7y agoIt'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.
- conanbatt 8y agoIts 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.
- imtringued 8y agoAmericans are fleeing SF in masses already.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> 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.
- B-Con 8y agoAlso because they exist. People who would move to CA but don't because of the housing problem can't vote to fix the issue.
- tomatotomato37 8y agoTo 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
- mochomocha 8y agoIn immigration-heavy places like the Bay Area, a lot of renters don't have the right to vote.
- conanbatt 8y agoLarge 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)
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoAdd "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.
- notJim 8y agoThe 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.
- cgy1 8y agoAnd 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.
- gph 8y agoProbably 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.
- kazinator 8y agoNot much room for "servant's quarters", when your multi-million-dollar condo is like 1200 sq. ft.
- nomnomnom01 8y agoFirst of all, plumbers make good money. Second, expensive new developments that are unaffordable won't work. Ever seen the prices on them? Here in Los Angeles which isnt nearly as expensive, its about $3000+ but usually even more for new developments because they are high end. Please do some basic research beforehand.
- magduf 8y agoI 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.
- xvedejas 8y agoUpzoning 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.
- yholio 8y agoUpzoning 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.
- clairity 8y agoyes, 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.
- gph 7y ago>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.
- nomnomnom01 8y agoYou do realize its not a smart move, right? Costs have gone up insanely because we have too many people. Don't pretend it will make things affordable because new developments aren't. And if you forget we have a power shortage, water shortage, and our streets are already overburdened? Common sense and critical thinking are something most people in California lack. Cause and effect are a wonderful thing to learn, too bad most people don't understand it
- 01100011 8y agoI'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners. With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.
- conanbatt 8y agoI can tell you what the turnout of CA foreigners that vote: 0%. And CA is 27% foreign born population.
- dannyr 8y agoHomeowners 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.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoI 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)
- hedora 8y agoI 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.
- rcpt 7y agoAnthony J. Portantino
- manfredo 8y ago"We'll do anything to solve the housing crisis!" "How about building more housing?" "Anything but that!"
- 5trokerac3 8y agoThis 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."
- manfredo 8y agoI'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.
- Zombiethrowaway 8y agoPeople 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.
- manfredo 8y agoSo 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.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- i_am_nomad 8y agoThis 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/scott-wiener#.XN3G26Z7mV4 https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...
- esoterica 8y agoThe 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?
- i_am_nomad 8y agoThis 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.
- chrischen 8y agoExcept 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.
- esoterica 8y agoAlternately, 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.
- 8y ago
- mnm1 8y ago> 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.
- notJim 8y agoBased 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.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoYes, and the effects of that on local schools as well.
- sbov 8y agoOur 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.
- thowfaraway 8y ago
- dangjc 8y agoThe 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.
- drivingmenuts 8y agoAren’t they already biased against older workers, though? Older workers and startups don’t fit together well.
- conanbatt 8y agoSelf-fulfilling prophecy.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoCompanies should move out of the Bay Area.
- malandrew 8y agoYup. 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.
- anon1m0us 8y agoThe 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.
- xvedejas 8y agoI 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?
- anon1m0us 8y agoYes, 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.
- xvedejas 8y agoThe 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.
- anon1m0us 8y agoThe data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments-could-ease-the-housing-crisis https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...
- just_myles 8y agoI have seen a lot of luxury apartments springing up but, not actual homes people can buy. That is a problem.
- xvedejas 8y agoIt'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.
- chrischen 8y agoWho blocked this? I am a California voter and I do not recall having any say over this blockage.
- rflrob 8y agohttp://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ 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.
- masonic 7y agolegislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters The opposite is true. Written letters prioritize over phone calls and they over emails. But overall, constituent communications on current legislation are largely ignored.
- yonran 8y agoFrom 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/1129112126017028096 https://twitter.com/BryanRAnderson/status/112911212601702809...
- chrischen 8y agoAs Chairman he blocked it from even being voted on... looks like I know who to axe on the next elections.
- rcpt 7y agoTell 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/ https://cayimby.org/call/
- neonate 8y agohttp://archive.is/KUDl1 http://archive.is/KUDl1
- jiveturkey 8y agolol for all the 1.1.1.1 users!
- dang 8y agoUrl changed from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-single-family-zoning-senate-bill-50-dead-20190516-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-single-fa... to one that seems to contain more info and is less paywalled.
- baggy_trough 8y agoIt 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.
- clairity 8y agowhat'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.
- baggy_trough 8y agoThat'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.
- flaque 8y agoThis 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.
- throwaway2048 8y agoI'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.
- clairity 8y agofourplexes 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAvinney_Fourplex
- fmajid 8y agoIf defeating NIMBYs was easy, it would have been done a long time ago.
- steven111 7y agoThanks 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 elijahcapitals@gmail.com
- profreez 7y agoReally insightful story. I do hope that we'll soon find a way to solve the California housing crisis!