5 ms·

It's supply and demand. During the last decade all new buildings built that I've seen in the sf/bay area are business parks. When both new houses are not buil

It's supply and demand. During the last decade all new buildings built that I've seen in the sf/bay area are business parks. When both new houses are not built, and we're not building up, yet corporations are allowed to build, you're going to get this kind of inequality. In Florida, for example, it's common to see new apartment buildings starting at 10 stories tall. In the bay area, it's rare to see an apartment building past 3 stories. There is massive potential to build up, but communities of home owners who treat their property like an investment are doing everything they can to prevent new real estate. This selfish behavior may benefit them and eventually their kids, but it hurts everyone else. The irony being that the Democratic party is the party of helping the disadvantaged, yet the selfishness we are experiencing, isn't very in line with the dnc. California is a liberal state, believing odd balls should be treated like human beings, expressing creativity for who people are and embracing that. But, contrary to common belief, California isn't very left wing and it isn't even strongly in line with the democratic party. States on the east coast, like New Jersey, are far more left wing than California, but are less liberal. If you go north to Oregon, it's just as liberal as California, but is a Republican state. What Californians need most is to end prop 13, or reduce it to some sort of capacity. This way we would be like every other state. Most of our problems would go away if we did that.

AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
> corporations are allowed to build I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying, but, the issue isn't with "corporations are allowed to build" vs "individuals are not" since, for everything but single-family housing (and even sometimes then), corporations are the ones doing the building. The issue, as I see it, is a lack of building of low-income housing due to a real or perceived (and it's a mix of both) issues that they cause and working against powerful community lobbies in urban/affluent neighborhoods. Doesn't help that some people cry discrimination or segregation of the poor if you suggest to build dense affordable housing far outside the city center and it also doesn't help that we lack the ability to invest in -- or even build on realistic timeframes and for realistic budgets -- the kind of public transit system which would make those kinds of developments work well.
jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago
What people don’t talk about is the consequences of building too much housing. When automotive technology was the big thing, Detroit was just like San Francisco. When google and Apple inevitably decline and “tech” is no longer the platform for a one debt bubble after another, we could end up like Detroit if we recklessly build too much infrastructure on top of it all. But we happen to be in a time when it’s hard to make ends meet elsewhere. There’s no simple good solution. It’s just a bad time. Sometimes you just lose.
foogazi 7y ago
> What Californians need most is to end prop 13 How does Prop 13 inhibit new buildings? Isn’t it an incentive to buy? property taxes on new homes are capped with prop 13
- cameronfraser 7y ago
  From wikipedia: Proposition 13 alters the balance of the housing market because it provides disincentives for selling property, in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members to avoid a new, higher property tax assessment.[36][37] Proposition 13 reduces property tax revenue for municipalities in California. They are forced to rely more on state funding and therefore may lose autonomy and control. The amount of taxes available to the municipality in any given year largely depends on the number of property transfers taking place. Yet since existing property owners have an incentive to remain in their property and not sell, there are fewer property transfers under this type of property tax system. California also has high rates of migrants from other countries and states,[38] which has contributed to more demand for housing, and it has low amounts of moderately priced housing due to the increased property tax liability after a sale.[citation needed] In effect, because the different tax treatment makes real estate more valuable to the current owner than to any potential buyer, selling it makes no economic sense.
freewilly1040 7y ago
Prop 13 isn’t really the cause of our housing shortage, it’s the refusal of existing residents to support development. IMO Anthony Weiner’s proposed reforms which mandate higher density zoning near transit hubs is much more promising. Repealing prop 13 would make taxation more fair but is politically infeasible

AdamJacobMuller 7y ago

> corporations are allowed to build I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying, but, the issue isn't with "corporations are allowed to build" vs "individuals are not" since, for everything but single-family housing (and even sometimes then), corporations are the ones doing the building. The issue, as I see it, is a lack of building of low-income housing due to a real or perceived (and it's a mix of both) issues that they cause and working against powerful community lobbies in urban/affluent neighborhoods. Doesn't help that some people cry discrimination or segregation of the poor if you suggest to build dense affordable housing far outside the city center and it also doesn't help that we lack the ability to invest in -- or even build on realistic timeframes and for realistic budgets -- the kind of public transit system which would make those kinds of developments work well.

jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago

What people don’t talk about is the consequences of building too much housing. When automotive technology was the big thing, Detroit was just like San Francisco. When google and Apple inevitably decline and “tech” is no longer the platform for a one debt bubble after another, we could end up like Detroit if we recklessly build too much infrastructure on top of it all. But we happen to be in a time when it’s hard to make ends meet elsewhere. There’s no simple good solution. It’s just a bad time. Sometimes you just lose.

foogazi 7y ago

> What Californians need most is to end prop 13 How does Prop 13 inhibit new buildings? Isn’t it an incentive to buy? property taxes on new homes are capped with prop 13

cameronfraser 7y ago
From wikipedia: Proposition 13 alters the balance of the housing market because it provides disincentives for selling property, in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members to avoid a new, higher property tax assessment.[36][37] Proposition 13 reduces property tax revenue for municipalities in California. They are forced to rely more on state funding and therefore may lose autonomy and control. The amount of taxes available to the municipality in any given year largely depends on the number of property transfers taking place. Yet since existing property owners have an incentive to remain in their property and not sell, there are fewer property transfers under this type of property tax system. California also has high rates of migrants from other countries and states,[38] which has contributed to more demand for housing, and it has low amounts of moderately priced housing due to the increased property tax liability after a sale.[citation needed] In effect, because the different tax treatment makes real estate more valuable to the current owner than to any potential buyer, selling it makes no economic sense.

freewilly1040 7y ago

Prop 13 isn’t really the cause of our housing shortage, it’s the refusal of existing residents to support development. IMO Anthony Weiner’s proposed reforms which mandate higher density zoning near transit hubs is much more promising. Repealing prop 13 would make taxation more fair but is politically infeasible