4 ms·

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.
- koboll 7y ago
  Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage. Eventually, of course, this will reverse. When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. But not before an entire generation has their net worth leeched by a geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. When the Boomers die, their GenX and Millenial offspring will inherit their homes, oftentimes, in California, without a full-value tax assessment. And, as the relationships between wealth and voting propensity and wealth and homeownersip are both unlikely to switch directions, homeowners will still be overrepresented in the electorate, and there'll be a new generation of the geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing-supply hoarders, and a new generation complaining about them.
  - kofejnik 7y ago
    > geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders. why so salty?
  - generalpass 7y ago
    If I understand it correctly, when people die the state and IRS collect taxes from the estate based on the value. Since most people these days die in debt, it's most likely the property will have to be sold to cover the taxes owed by the estate. This would mean the inheritance in many cases will be the cash left over from the property sale.
- newguy1234 7y ago
  One solution I almost never hear talked about is on the employment side. How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? I've seen some employers offer "remote working" as an option. Quite literally, there is a remote office opened up so the employee doesn't have to either commute into work or they can relocate to a place with affordable housing. I've seen it where a bay area company opened up a remote office in Modesto, CA and over a dozen employees completely relocated out of the bay area entirely. It was mostly older employees that were fed up with all the issues in the bay area. Some even went on to say that the remote office was the best decision the company ever made.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? You mean, what if big cities had higher commercial/industrial rents, higher taxes, higher minimum wages,and more regulation, while less crowded places give massive abatements of their already lower taxes in desperate bids to attract employers? I think that's been tried.
- illumin8 7y ago
  I read that 66% of California voters approve of SB50. It is pretty easy to understand that allowing sensible, 4 story apartment buildings to be built next to transit/BART stations will help increase the housing supply, which should make housing slightly more affordable. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-transit-poll-crisis-ca-yimby https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-trans... Still, California has a 2.5 million housing unit deficit to repay by 2025 or it risks a further escalation of the homelessness epidemic.

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.

koboll 7y ago
Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage. Eventually, of course, this will reverse. When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. But not before an entire generation has their net worth leeched by a geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. When the Boomers die, their GenX and Millenial offspring will inherit their homes, oftentimes, in California, without a full-value tax assessment. And, as the relationships between wealth and voting propensity and wealth and homeownersip are both unlikely to switch directions, homeowners will still be overrepresented in the electorate, and there'll be a new generation of the geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing-supply hoarders, and a new generation complaining about them.
- kofejnik 7y ago
  > geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders. why so salty?
- generalpass 7y ago
  If I understand it correctly, when people die the state and IRS collect taxes from the estate based on the value. Since most people these days die in debt, it's most likely the property will have to be sold to cover the taxes owed by the estate. This would mean the inheritance in many cases will be the cash left over from the property sale.
newguy1234 7y ago
One solution I almost never hear talked about is on the employment side. How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? I've seen some employers offer "remote working" as an option. Quite literally, there is a remote office opened up so the employee doesn't have to either commute into work or they can relocate to a place with affordable housing. I've seen it where a bay area company opened up a remote office in Modesto, CA and over a dozen employees completely relocated out of the bay area entirely. It was mostly older employees that were fed up with all the issues in the bay area. Some even went on to say that the remote office was the best decision the company ever made.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > How about if employers are encouraged to not crowd into dense cities? You mean, what if big cities had higher commercial/industrial rents, higher taxes, higher minimum wages,and more regulation, while less crowded places give massive abatements of their already lower taxes in desperate bids to attract employers? I think that's been tried.
illumin8 7y ago
I read that 66% of California voters approve of SB50. It is pretty easy to understand that allowing sensible, 4 story apartment buildings to be built next to transit/BART stations will help increase the housing supply, which should make housing slightly more affordable. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-transit-poll-crisis-ca-yimby https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-trans... Still, California has a 2.5 million housing unit deficit to repay by 2025 or it risks a further escalation of the homelessness epidemic.