6 ms·

California voters are probably totally fine with the housing supply being too low because it drives up the price of their houses.

by mjfl 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IIAOPSW 5y ago
"But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for homeowners." http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/shareholdervalue.jpg http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...
nr2x 5y ago
It's the most economically rational decision for a very large voting block, but it is openly screwing entire generations as well.
grecy 5y ago
Housing can't be both affordable and a good investment.
- swiley 5y ago
  It an be if you're allowed to improve it.
- benrbray 5y ago
  You have that backwards. Housing can only be affordable if it's not a good investment. If it's a good investment, people will buy houses expecting to get much more out of it than just a place to stay. Look at Japan, for example, where houses lose their value after 40 years. I pay cheaper rent in Tokyo than I ever did in even mid-sized American cities.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    Both of these are wrong because they confuse buildings and land. Land can be a good investment even if shelter is affordable. My understanding, for example, is land in Tokyo is quite expensive.
  - kadomony 5y ago
    Random, but what do you do in Tokyo? I’ve been trying to break into their market for two years. Had an offer rescinded from Rakuten because immigration shut down. The housing market boggles my mind how houses don’t appreciate at all there.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Houses are like cars. Nice when they're new, but problems accumulate over time, and eventually with the march of technology and fashion, no one wants an old beater if they can afford otherwise.
- opportune 5y ago
  Why the downvotes? Housing can’t increase in value faster than real wages over time without making future generations measurably poorer. Of course, caveats apply. It’s reasonable that land prices in urban areas will on average grow as the population does, but if no development is allowed to be able to offset those higher prices then essentially nobody benefits from that increase in value besides existing homeowners.
paxys 5y ago
I'd say people in the state being disadvantaged by the housing crisis vastly outnumber those profiting from it. It's just that people in power (richer, older folks, those sitting on local councils, state legislatures, celebrities, corporations, pastors, power brokers, other influential figures) all fall into the latter category.
- Lammy 5y ago
  Don't make the mistake of assuming all people in favor of the status-quo only "profit" monetarily: http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    "Get the poor's out of here!" But they also want a barista to serve them a latte, it doesn't matter if the barista has an hour commute each way and shit benefits. I'd say eat the rich, but this place hates that meme xD
    - erhk 5y ago
      Because if you eat the rich then youre only naturally selecting for the faster and more ellusive rich that you wont be able to catch. With seriousness, a slogan that accomplishes nothing takes the teeth out of a protest. Tax the super wealthy at x% ans enforce minimum corporate taxes simply doesnt have a ring to it.
      - pope_meat 5y ago
        But sir, if you keep exploiting the poor you're only naturally selecting for a meaner hungrier mob. With seriousness.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  "They also vote a lot more, and a lot more predictably" Literally the words out of the mouth of a close friend of mine who sits on city council for a mid-size CA suburb
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Isn't it more reasonable to think that maybe the people in single-family zoned neighborhoods want to live in that kind of neighborhood, completely apart from the price of their houses?
- wyager 5y ago
  Don’t be crazy - everyone wants to live in a pod!
- shuckles 5y ago
  But home values will plummet is a common bogeyman used in local zoning battles, so separating the two concepts is not as trivial as you suggest.
- refurb 5y ago
  Precisely. I don't know of any SF voters who think "oh yeah, I need to fight this new development so the price of my house continues to rise". It's more like "I like the way my neighborhood is and don't want it to change".
  - nine_k 5y ago
    I'm afraid a change is inevitable. But it can be a softer change that mostly preserves what they care for, or a rough and dramatic change if no adaptive measures are taken. I suppose that SF residents probably liked what their city was in, say, 1985, and did not want any change. Has SF changed somehow by 2020? Was in to the better?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 5y ago
  If you talk to people who have lived in Mountain View, CA for 30+ years they aren't thrilled about Google moving in. Sure their property values are huge but quality of life is worse. Property appreciation doesn't mean much if you're not planning to sell and just want a nice place to live.
akira2501 5y ago
People have children, sometimes multiple. They're not exactly thrilled about the outlook for them. Also, people have stories about the types of people who have offered them these outrageous prices for their homes. I don't believe this is a situation that will be strongly supported by the average home owner.
- wyager 5y ago
  I’d be more worried about my children growing up in a world where the only places left to live are zoned and built like termite mounts.
  - z0r 5y ago
    don't question unending economic growth :) it's definitely not the root cause of many modern existential problems!
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    When I think of somebody converting their house to a duplex, termite mound is not the picture that comes to mind.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >People have children, sometimes multiple Legend has it people even have those outside of single family zoned regions in California!
istillwritecode 5y ago
Money is less of a motivator than the preservation of a lifestyle.
peterthehacker 5y ago
Only half of California homes are owner occupied. [0] So, there could be more CA voters renting than home owners. To put that in perspective, Texas has over 60% owner-occupied housing [1]. [0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [1]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX
flaque 5y ago
It's worth noting that while upzoning can help the whole housing market go down in price, it can also unlock value for existing home owners. If you currently own a home and a law is passed that allows you to turn your upstairs into an apartment, then your home may now be worth more, and you actually can access the value stored in your home (by renting it out). Similarly, if any home in your neighborhood can be turned into a fourplex or larger, and there's the demand to do so, then the supply of large single-family homes in your area shrinks. So your house price can increase as it becomes a rarer find. But since the total supply of units is going up, rent goes down. And since rent goes down, you don't need pay people extra just to accommodate for crazy expensive housing. For the home owner, cost of living goes down, as every store and restaurant they go to gets cheaper. Plus, it means that they pay less in taxes, or at least get more for the taxes they're already paying. Places like San Francisco are so inefficient with their tax bases because you need to pay every random bureaucrats $100k+ just to keep up with cost of living. If you stop restricting the size of the pie, it grows and benefits everyone.
neeleshs 5y ago
I live in a single family house, I've lived in apartments. For me quality of life is way better in SFH. Don't care if house price gows down or up, won't sell this house. It's not a popular opinion here, but quality of life is important for many of us.
- cloverich 5y ago
  quality of life is important for all of us. That’s the problem.
- enaaem 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with sfh. The problem is when only sfh’s are allowed.
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    An sfh next to a high density apartment building feels a lot less like a sfh.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      When you don't pull a CA and let things grow organically there isn't much of a discontinuity so you don't get much development like that. It'll be a gradual increase from SFH in the exurbs with more and more mutlifamily and small apartment buildings increasing in density to the city core where it's basically all purpose built apartment buildings with dozens of units at a minimum. A neighborhood that's got a lot of 2/3/4 family homes feels about the same as a SFH neighborhood if those homes have one unit occupied by the owner.
ytpete 5y ago
Depends on what percentage of California voters are renters...

California voters are probably totally fine with the housing supply being too low because it drives up the price of their houses.

by mjfl 5y ago

California voters are probably totally fine with the housing supply being too low because it drives up the price of their houses.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

IIAOPSW 5y ago

"But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for homeowners." http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/shareholdervalue.jpg http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...

nr2x 5y ago

It's the most economically rational decision for a very large voting block, but it is openly screwing entire generations as well.

grecy 5y ago

Housing can't be both affordable and a good investment.

swiley 5y ago
It an be if you're allowed to improve it.
benrbray 5y ago
You have that backwards. Housing can only be affordable if it's not a good investment. If it's a good investment, people will buy houses expecting to get much more out of it than just a place to stay. Look at Japan, for example, where houses lose their value after 40 years. I pay cheaper rent in Tokyo than I ever did in even mid-sized American cities.
- shuckles 5y ago
  Both of these are wrong because they confuse buildings and land. Land can be a good investment even if shelter is affordable. My understanding, for example, is land in Tokyo is quite expensive.
- kadomony 5y ago
  Random, but what do you do in Tokyo? I’ve been trying to break into their market for two years. Had an offer rescinded from Rakuten because immigration shut down. The housing market boggles my mind how houses don’t appreciate at all there.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Houses are like cars. Nice when they're new, but problems accumulate over time, and eventually with the march of technology and fashion, no one wants an old beater if they can afford otherwise.
opportune 5y ago
Why the downvotes? Housing can’t increase in value faster than real wages over time without making future generations measurably poorer. Of course, caveats apply. It’s reasonable that land prices in urban areas will on average grow as the population does, but if no development is allowed to be able to offset those higher prices then essentially nobody benefits from that increase in value besides existing homeowners.

paxys 5y ago

I'd say people in the state being disadvantaged by the housing crisis vastly outnumber those profiting from it. It's just that people in power (richer, older folks, those sitting on local councils, state legislatures, celebrities, corporations, pastors, power brokers, other influential figures) all fall into the latter category.

Lammy 5y ago
Don't make the mistake of assuming all people in favor of the status-quo only "profit" monetarily: http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
- pope_meat 5y ago
  "Get the poor's out of here!" But they also want a barista to serve them a latte, it doesn't matter if the barista has an hour commute each way and shit benefits. I'd say eat the rich, but this place hates that meme xD
  - erhk 5y ago
    Because if you eat the rich then youre only naturally selecting for the faster and more ellusive rich that you wont be able to catch. With seriousness, a slogan that accomplishes nothing takes the teeth out of a protest. Tax the super wealthy at x% ans enforce minimum corporate taxes simply doesnt have a ring to it.
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      But sir, if you keep exploiting the poor you're only naturally selecting for a meaner hungrier mob. With seriousness.
tomc1985 5y ago
"They also vote a lot more, and a lot more predictably" Literally the words out of the mouth of a close friend of mine who sits on city council for a mid-size CA suburb

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

Isn't it more reasonable to think that maybe the people in single-family zoned neighborhoods want to live in that kind of neighborhood, completely apart from the price of their houses?

wyager 5y ago
Don’t be crazy - everyone wants to live in a pod!
shuckles 5y ago
But home values will plummet is a common bogeyman used in local zoning battles, so separating the two concepts is not as trivial as you suggest.
refurb 5y ago
Precisely. I don't know of any SF voters who think "oh yeah, I need to fight this new development so the price of my house continues to rise". It's more like "I like the way my neighborhood is and don't want it to change".
- nine_k 5y ago
  I'm afraid a change is inevitable. But it can be a softer change that mostly preserves what they care for, or a rough and dramatic change if no adaptive measures are taken. I suppose that SF residents probably liked what their city was in, say, 1985, and did not want any change. Has SF changed somehow by 2020? Was in to the better?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nradov 5y ago
If you talk to people who have lived in Mountain View, CA for 30+ years they aren't thrilled about Google moving in. Sure their property values are huge but quality of life is worse. Property appreciation doesn't mean much if you're not planning to sell and just want a nice place to live.

akira2501 5y ago

People have children, sometimes multiple. They're not exactly thrilled about the outlook for them. Also, people have stories about the types of people who have offered them these outrageous prices for their homes. I don't believe this is a situation that will be strongly supported by the average home owner.

wyager 5y ago
I’d be more worried about my children growing up in a world where the only places left to live are zoned and built like termite mounts.
- z0r 5y ago
  don't question unending economic growth :) it's definitely not the root cause of many modern existential problems!
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  When I think of somebody converting their house to a duplex, termite mound is not the picture that comes to mind.
Barrin92 5y ago
>People have children, sometimes multiple Legend has it people even have those outside of single family zoned regions in California!

istillwritecode 5y ago

Money is less of a motivator than the preservation of a lifestyle.

peterthehacker 5y ago

Only half of California homes are owner occupied. [0] So, there could be more CA voters renting than home owners. To put that in perspective, Texas has over 60% owner-occupied housing [1]. [0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [1]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX

flaque 5y ago

It's worth noting that while upzoning can help the whole housing market go down in price, it can also unlock value for existing home owners. If you currently own a home and a law is passed that allows you to turn your upstairs into an apartment, then your home may now be worth more, and you actually can access the value stored in your home (by renting it out). Similarly, if any home in your neighborhood can be turned into a fourplex or larger, and there's the demand to do so, then the supply of large single-family homes in your area shrinks. So your house price can increase as it becomes a rarer find. But since the total supply of units is going up, rent goes down. And since rent goes down, you don't need pay people extra just to accommodate for crazy expensive housing. For the home owner, cost of living goes down, as every store and restaurant they go to gets cheaper. Plus, it means that they pay less in taxes, or at least get more for the taxes they're already paying. Places like San Francisco are so inefficient with their tax bases because you need to pay every random bureaucrats $100k+ just to keep up with cost of living. If you stop restricting the size of the pie, it grows and benefits everyone.

neeleshs 5y ago

I live in a single family house, I've lived in apartments. For me quality of life is way better in SFH. Don't care if house price gows down or up, won't sell this house. It's not a popular opinion here, but quality of life is important for many of us.

cloverich 5y ago
quality of life is important for all of us. That’s the problem.
enaaem 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with sfh. The problem is when only sfh’s are allowed.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  An sfh next to a high density apartment building feels a lot less like a sfh.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    When you don't pull a CA and let things grow organically there isn't much of a discontinuity so you don't get much development like that. It'll be a gradual increase from SFH in the exurbs with more and more mutlifamily and small apartment buildings increasing in density to the city core where it's basically all purpose built apartment buildings with dozens of units at a minimum. A neighborhood that's got a lot of 2/3/4 family homes feels about the same as a SFH neighborhood if those homes have one unit occupied by the owner.

ytpete 5y ago

Depends on what percentage of California voters are renters...