4 ms·

Well, i disagree with your opinion. Silicon Valley has been attracting a lot of people from lot of states, who all need housing. Remember , size of California i

Well, i disagree with your opinion. Silicon Valley has been attracting a lot of people from lot of states, who all need housing. Remember , size of California is fixed. Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here. Added to that, foreigners living in foreign countries ( who have never visited USA, who have no intention of living in USA) are able to own land/houses in silicon valley , and do that purely for monetary reasons, ie get more money out of the property , jacking up prices even more. An ordinary American who wants to live in California is suffering as a result of this. rent control or low income housing are essential tools to make ordinary Americans’ lives better.

jmpman 7y ago
The solution is more housing, not deincintivizing apartment construction.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zamfi 7y ago
> Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here Bingo. And why not?
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Bingo. And why not? Because California property owners don't want it to. The artificial scarcity drives up property values. Take a look at Brisbane, they fought residential development tooth and nail claiming that people should just work in Brisbane but live in San Francisco.
  - KibbutzDalia 7y ago
    Not true. We have a house and commercial rental property in Sunnyvale California. I’d love to tear down my commercial building and build something with an additional story but zoning won’t allow it. And is welcome all single family zoning being upgraded to 2 family zoning. I’d build a second unit in a heartbeat.
- aswanson 7y ago
  Existing homeowners don't want their living space turned into downtown Manhattan because there's a temporary exorbitant demand for ad click optimization and pic sharing networks.
  - zamfi 7y ago
    There's a whole spectrum between single family homes and "Manhattan". It's not a binary! The Bay Area's population has grown by 8.5% in the last 10 years. [0] Please, that's not "Manhattan". That's one person on your block converting their garage into a rentable unit. Those "existing homeowners" are really messing things up for everyone because they don't want Bob to turn his garage into a rental? Somehow I think there's more to it than that. [0]: https://www.kqed.org/news/11741275/map-the-bay-area-leads-california-in-population-growth https://www.kqed.org/news/11741275/map-the-bay-area-leads-ca...
    - pacala 7y ago
      Full quote: The population of the nine-county region grew by over 600,000 people since 2010 — a nearly 8.5% increase — outpacing the growth rate in any other part of California, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Thursday. 600k people is about as much as Seattle proper. Which happens to span 83.94 sq mi. In less than 10 years. That's _a lot_ of construction.
      - zamfi 7y ago
        Huh? 600,000 people in the Bay Area's 7,000 square miles -- I don't see how the Seattle comparison of "83.94" square miles is related. No residential neighborhood in the Bay Area needs to turn into "Manhattan" to house 600,000 extra people. If every block added a house we'd have extra housing to spare. Zoning prevents a ton of development, and everyone pretends they're fighting "Manhattan". At Manhattan densities, the Bay Area would house 468 million people. That's not what's happening, and no one is advocating for that. We don't need to build Seattle in the Bay to house everyone. We just need cities to stop dragging permits out years and every planning committee to stop saying "no" to any small increases in density. How much construction it is isn't super relevant -- if it's profitable, it will happen!
ralusek 7y ago
Housing in California is fixed because of zoning and construction regulations. Also, more people can't move here than can be supported...and how does putting arbitrary limits on maximum rent increase the amount of people that can live here if we're already dealing with the limitation of too many people wanting to live here? That will just increase the demand... Otherwise, there is a natural equilibrium. Many people want to live here, housing scarcity goes up. Prices go up, less people want to live here (this is already happening). What you're left with is the price reflecting precisely the degree to which people are willing to pay to live here.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Housing in California is fixed because of zoning and construction regulations. And who decides these zoning laws? Typically cities and counties. Unfortunately Prop 13 has incentivized building out retail properties (sales tax revenue) over all else. So let's start by doing away with Prop. 13 protections for everything but primary residences. Then, change the statewide zoning laws to encourage/require available housing before non-residential property can be built. Want 2,500 office units? Fine, but if you don't have 2,500 residences available those need to be built first. Or maybe have the state keep 75% of the property tax revenue of new developments until the housing requirements are met. That money can then be used to subsidize affordable housing.
  - fountainofage 7y ago
    I mostly agree, but we should get rid of prop 13 completely. Just put a lien on the property rather than having the state seize the property if the "concern" is that we don't want people kicked out of their homes for property taxes.
    - averros 7y ago
      Why do you hate pensioners who worked all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and paid for the roads and such you youngsters use for free? Repealing Prop 13 will result in hundreds of thousands of old people being evicted from their homes. (Liens? Quite a lot of these same people sustain their living by reverse mortgages. Liens will destroy it.) And techies are wondering why they're seen as a*les by those without fancy degrees. You only need to look in the mirror to see a prime example.
dehrmann 7y ago
> Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here To be clear, the population is growing faster than the housing stock. > Rent control or low income housing are essential tools to make ordinary Americans’ lives better. How exactly does this address the problem that there are more people than housing? It addresses it for some (the select few low-income residents who were lucky enough to get a below-market rate unit and people already renting), but squeezes everyone else into even fewer units. It doesn't even help "ordinary" people; it helps two specific groups.
curiousgal 7y ago
I literally laughed out loud! This is the first time I've seen Silicon Valley's housing/rent issues blamed on foreigners! Poor poor American victims! The problem is much simpler, it's one of supply and demand. That's it. Moreover, ironically, one could argue that waiting for the government to step in and save the people from the, gamed by the foreigners apparently, market is very unAmerican.
xoa 7y ago
>Remember , size of California is fixed Yeah, fixed at ~164 thousand square miles (~400,000 km^2). Are you for real? Los Angeles and New York City proper (not the metropolitan areas) are interestingly nearly identical in official area at around 468 square miles each. But LA has a density of around 8000/mi^2 while NYC is well over 27000/mi^2. If LA merely matched NYC that'd cover another 10 million or so population by itself. The size of freaking California is not remotely a limiting factor, the limiting factor is not enough high density buildings.
- gleenn 7y ago
  While your are technically correct, there are significant issues getting water. Just because there is a spare part of land also doesn't mean it's not in the middle of one of our huge deserts or is connected in any meaningful way to roads. Empty land doesn't equal inhabitable land.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Nope, as long as almonds are still being grown in CA, there is plenty of water. Residential water consumption is nothing compared to farming.

jmpman 7y ago

The solution is more housing, not deincintivizing apartment construction.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zamfi 7y ago

> Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here Bingo. And why not?

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Bingo. And why not? Because California property owners don't want it to. The artificial scarcity drives up property values. Take a look at Brisbane, they fought residential development tooth and nail claiming that people should just work in Brisbane but live in San Francisco.
- KibbutzDalia 7y ago
  Not true. We have a house and commercial rental property in Sunnyvale California. I’d love to tear down my commercial building and build something with an additional story but zoning won’t allow it. And is welcome all single family zoning being upgraded to 2 family zoning. I’d build a second unit in a heartbeat.
aswanson 7y ago
Existing homeowners don't want their living space turned into downtown Manhattan because there's a temporary exorbitant demand for ad click optimization and pic sharing networks.
- zamfi 7y ago
  There's a whole spectrum between single family homes and "Manhattan". It's not a binary! The Bay Area's population has grown by 8.5% in the last 10 years. [0] Please, that's not "Manhattan". That's one person on your block converting their garage into a rentable unit. Those "existing homeowners" are really messing things up for everyone because they don't want Bob to turn his garage into a rental? Somehow I think there's more to it than that. [0]: https://www.kqed.org/news/11741275/map-the-bay-area-leads-california-in-population-growth https://www.kqed.org/news/11741275/map-the-bay-area-leads-ca...
  - pacala 7y ago
    Full quote: The population of the nine-county region grew by over 600,000 people since 2010 — a nearly 8.5% increase — outpacing the growth rate in any other part of California, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Thursday. 600k people is about as much as Seattle proper. Which happens to span 83.94 sq mi. In less than 10 years. That's _a lot_ of construction.
    - zamfi 7y ago
      Huh? 600,000 people in the Bay Area's 7,000 square miles -- I don't see how the Seattle comparison of "83.94" square miles is related. No residential neighborhood in the Bay Area needs to turn into "Manhattan" to house 600,000 extra people. If every block added a house we'd have extra housing to spare. Zoning prevents a ton of development, and everyone pretends they're fighting "Manhattan". At Manhattan densities, the Bay Area would house 468 million people. That's not what's happening, and no one is advocating for that. We don't need to build Seattle in the Bay to house everyone. We just need cities to stop dragging permits out years and every planning committee to stop saying "no" to any small increases in density. How much construction it is isn't super relevant -- if it's profitable, it will happen!

ralusek 7y ago

Housing in California is fixed because of zoning and construction regulations. Also, more people can't move here than can be supported...and how does putting arbitrary limits on maximum rent increase the amount of people that can live here if we're already dealing with the limitation of too many people wanting to live here? That will just increase the demand... Otherwise, there is a natural equilibrium. Many people want to live here, housing scarcity goes up. Prices go up, less people want to live here (this is already happening). What you're left with is the price reflecting precisely the degree to which people are willing to pay to live here.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Housing in California is fixed because of zoning and construction regulations. And who decides these zoning laws? Typically cities and counties. Unfortunately Prop 13 has incentivized building out retail properties (sales tax revenue) over all else. So let's start by doing away with Prop. 13 protections for everything but primary residences. Then, change the statewide zoning laws to encourage/require available housing before non-residential property can be built. Want 2,500 office units? Fine, but if you don't have 2,500 residences available those need to be built first. Or maybe have the state keep 75% of the property tax revenue of new developments until the housing requirements are met. That money can then be used to subsidize affordable housing.
- fountainofage 7y ago
  I mostly agree, but we should get rid of prop 13 completely. Just put a lien on the property rather than having the state seize the property if the "concern" is that we don't want people kicked out of their homes for property taxes.
  - averros 7y ago
    Why do you hate pensioners who worked all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and paid for the roads and such you youngsters use for free? Repealing Prop 13 will result in hundreds of thousands of old people being evicted from their homes. (Liens? Quite a lot of these same people sustain their living by reverse mortgages. Liens will destroy it.) And techies are wondering why they're seen as a*les by those without fancy degrees. You only need to look in the mirror to see a prime example.

dehrmann 7y ago

> Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here To be clear, the population is growing faster than the housing stock. > Rent control or low income housing are essential tools to make ordinary Americans’ lives better. How exactly does this address the problem that there are more people than housing? It addresses it for some (the select few low-income residents who were lucky enough to get a below-market rate unit and people already renting), but squeezes everyone else into even fewer units. It doesn't even help "ordinary" people; it helps two specific groups.

curiousgal 7y ago

I literally laughed out loud! This is the first time I've seen Silicon Valley's housing/rent issues blamed on foreigners! Poor poor American victims! The problem is much simpler, it's one of supply and demand. That's it. Moreover, ironically, one could argue that waiting for the government to step in and save the people from the, gamed by the foreigners apparently, market is very unAmerican.

xoa 7y ago

>Remember , size of California is fixed Yeah, fixed at ~164 thousand square miles (~400,000 km^2). Are you for real? Los Angeles and New York City proper (not the metropolitan areas) are interestingly nearly identical in official area at around 468 square miles each. But LA has a density of around 8000/mi^2 while NYC is well over 27000/mi^2. If LA merely matched NYC that'd cover another 10 million or so population by itself. The size of freaking California is not remotely a limiting factor, the limiting factor is not enough high density buildings.

gleenn 7y ago
While your are technically correct, there are significant issues getting water. Just because there is a spare part of land also doesn't mean it's not in the middle of one of our huge deserts or is connected in any meaningful way to roads. Empty land doesn't equal inhabitable land.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Nope, as long as almonds are still being grown in CA, there is plenty of water. Residential water consumption is nothing compared to farming.