3 ms·

> There have been good solutions run up through the state house What are the best solutions you've seen? > They only want to help poor people if it doesn't af

> There have been good solutions run up through the state house What are the best solutions you've seen? > They only want to help poor people if it doesn't affect their property value. I'm sure there are some unsavory high net worth individuals who are happy to support policies keeping housing expensive just to keep assets inflated even if it means access to housing is harder for everyone. But I'd guess for a lot of people it's more practical: when most of your net worth has become accidentally tied up in your home, some changes may mean you risk becoming one of the poor or homeless. Or visceral: you perceive risk, even though it isn't there (some folks fear a neighborhood light rail stop only to find their property values jump). Or just seeing your community change can be uncomfortable And while I don't know if the solutions you're thinking of are of the "bring more supply online" kind... there's something weird with the issues in California if the story of net outflow is true. The fact that rents can jump over 60% in a decade while the demand pool is stable or shrinking means that this isn't an ordinary supply problem. Either the existing supply is being manipulated in some way, or some portions of the demand pool can offer a lot more than others pricing the rest out of the market. Solutions that are entirely focused on MOAR SUPPLY may be just as likely allow present dynamics to happen at a somewhat larger scale as they are to fix a macro problem.

jedberg 7y ago
> What are the best solutions you've seen? SB 827 was pretty good. [0] SB 50 was a good idea with a bad execution [1] > if the story of net outflow is true. The article says that California still saw a net inflow due to births and incoming foreign migrants. > Either the existing supply is being manipulated in some way, It is, via rent control, which has shown time and again to only help people who already have housing at the expense of those who don't already have it when it's enacted. It also helps wealthy people more than poor people by constraining rent raises even though they could afford market rates. It is also manipulated by prop 13, which allows people to rent out properties they've owned for a long time at a profit when similar properties can not be. The natural market rate of rent is all inclusive of current costs including tax. But if your tax rate is artificially low, then that difference is increased profit for you, which encourages people not to sell their properties. For example, I'd had my home for 10 years, and if I were to rent it out, my profit would be about $1,200 a month at current market rates. My property tax is artificially low by about $1,100 a month. So my entire profit would come from Prop 13. Why would I sell my house if I can rent it for profit only because of the lower tax rate? > or some portions of the demand pool can offer a lot more than others pricing the rest out of the market. Yes, there is a lot of foreign investment in California real estate which just sits empty. I get ads from agents that "specialize in finding Chinese buyers" which is code for "people who will pay more than asking and not care what condition the house is in". [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- andrewprock 7y ago
  Prop 13 is essentially "rent control" for homeowners, and largely has the same effects as rent control for renters.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  > Yes, there is a lot of foreign investment in California real estate which just sits empty. I get ads from agents that "specialize in finding Chinese buyers" which is code for "people who will pay more than asking and not care what condition the house is in". Or more simply, “money laundering”.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Well not exactly. A lot of it is that China only allows their citizens to hold so much private wealth, so the wealthy find ways to get their money out and hold it elsewhere. California real estate (and western real estate in general) is a good place to hold it because of our stable economy, solid legal system, and you get something tangible (the land and building).
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      So as a rich Chinese person, you invest in western real property as a vehicle to make it appear that you don’t control money that you are not entitled to by law, or move it out the reach of the banking or taxing authority. ... that’s money laundering!
  - micmil 7y ago
    That is not money laundering. If you want money laundering go have a look at what goes on with Trump properties. Real estate changing hands with massive variances in value, well out of step with market influence. The entire concept of money laundering requires the money be illegally obtained. Simply moving money that you legally acquired around is not money laundering. Stop using words you do not know the meaning of.

jedberg 7y ago

> What are the best solutions you've seen? SB 827 was pretty good. [0] SB 50 was a good idea with a bad execution [1] > if the story of net outflow is true. The article says that California still saw a net inflow due to births and incoming foreign migrants. > Either the existing supply is being manipulated in some way, It is, via rent control, which has shown time and again to only help people who already have housing at the expense of those who don't already have it when it's enacted. It also helps wealthy people more than poor people by constraining rent raises even though they could afford market rates. It is also manipulated by prop 13, which allows people to rent out properties they've owned for a long time at a profit when similar properties can not be. The natural market rate of rent is all inclusive of current costs including tax. But if your tax rate is artificially low, then that difference is increased profit for you, which encourages people not to sell their properties. For example, I'd had my home for 10 years, and if I were to rent it out, my profit would be about $1,200 a month at current market rates. My property tax is artificially low by about $1,100 a month. So my entire profit would come from Prop 13. Why would I sell my house if I can rent it for profit only because of the lower tax rate? > or some portions of the demand pool can offer a lot more than others pricing the rest out of the market. Yes, there is a lot of foreign investment in California real estate which just sits empty. I get ads from agents that "specialize in finding Chinese buyers" which is code for "people who will pay more than asking and not care what condition the house is in". [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

andrewprock 7y ago
Prop 13 is essentially "rent control" for homeowners, and largely has the same effects as rent control for renters.
Spooky23 7y ago
> Yes, there is a lot of foreign investment in California real estate which just sits empty. I get ads from agents that "specialize in finding Chinese buyers" which is code for "people who will pay more than asking and not care what condition the house is in". Or more simply, “money laundering”.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Well not exactly. A lot of it is that China only allows their citizens to hold so much private wealth, so the wealthy find ways to get their money out and hold it elsewhere. California real estate (and western real estate in general) is a good place to hold it because of our stable economy, solid legal system, and you get something tangible (the land and building).
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    So as a rich Chinese person, you invest in western real property as a vehicle to make it appear that you don’t control money that you are not entitled to by law, or move it out the reach of the banking or taxing authority. ... that’s money laundering!
- micmil 7y ago
  That is not money laundering. If you want money laundering go have a look at what goes on with Trump properties. Real estate changing hands with massive variances in value, well out of step with market influence. The entire concept of money laundering requires the money be illegally obtained. Simply moving money that you legally acquired around is not money laundering. Stop using words you do not know the meaning of.