4 ms·

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive now? Because California government says no more future supply. I get the urgency on addressing the housing situation in California, but this feels to me like “we must do something, and this is something, so we will do it”.

javagram 5y ago
I think you're confusing "Banning single family homes" and "Banning single family zoning". Nothing about this law prevents you buying land and building a SFH on it, so your characterization as "no more future supply" is inaccurate. It simply gives you the right to, in certain circumstances, build an additional home on your property.
- tcmart14 5y ago
  Wouldn't it also allow developers to build apartments in places that previously they couldn't have because the ritzy neighborhood down the street can't bear the site of 'em?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    There are still lot-size restrictions as to how many units you can build. But if a lot is large enough, and the owner of a SFH wants to sell to a developer that wants to build a 4- or 8- or whatever-is-allowed-unit building, IMO they should be allowed to do so. And maybe that will reduce property values in some places like that ritzy neighborhood down the street. It may also increase property values in others. That's just life. Buying property shouldn't give you an immutable ticket to guaranteed value improvement. If you're lucky, it might, but as a property owner in CA myself, I would certainly give up value appreciation if it meant homes became affordable again. I get that some people wouldn't make that choice, but... tough luck; that's life. Your "right" to make money off of your primary residence shouldn't trump someone else's right to have a stable place to live.
    - tcmart14 5y ago
      I agree with you a lot here. Not in California, so have not looked at the bill so was curious as to if this applied to developers or just homeowners with large lots? Housing has a lot of regulatory capture that benefits already existing property holders unproportionally. I see it here in Central Oregon. Especially as home ownership is the primary way in which families build wealth or reserve wealth. It can also be a very costly venture to re-zone properties. Even though in a lot of cases, the barrier to re-zone does not make much sense. SFH and MFH, it is not like these are based on some premise of the land has to be a certain quality. The same applies to business zoning. Why does it even make sense to say, you can build a restaurant here, but not a house?
kangaroozach 5y ago
Thanks kinda the point. System is rigged in favor of the land owners, at the expense of renters and future owners. Perfect example of legislating supply constraints is Prop 13, which fixes the tax basis to the purchase price making people stay in their homes to avoid a huge increase in property taxes were they to move. This drives up asset values and land owners love it! Boomers retirement is based on this! And it’s even better for commercial property owners who can charge 2021 sky high rents while paying taxes as if it were still 1978.
ehutch79 5y ago
You're part of the problem. They're not banning single family homes. Just zoning for them. THere's a housing shortage, especially in urban areas right around what little public transit there is. Insisting that only a few people live on lots in this area is insane.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Respectfully, I think you are. I asked a question about the potential impact of this change on prices, and speculated about what might happen if single family homes become a rare (or rarer) commodity. I’m sorry that places like SF are managed so terribly, but it might have something to do with how hostile people there get when this issue comes up.
  - ehutch79 5y ago
    SF isn't the only city in california.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    A bigger city supports a bigger suburban ring around it since you don't have to live so close to the city center anymore to get high paying jobs.
imtringued 5y ago
If there are 10 people and 5 of them want to live in a single family home and 5 of them want to live in a multi family home then forcing all 10 people to live in a single family home will mean that single family housing is more expensive than it needs to be since people who don't want it are forced to live in it.

javagram 5y ago

I think you're confusing "Banning single family homes" and "Banning single family zoning". Nothing about this law prevents you buying land and building a SFH on it, so your characterization as "no more future supply" is inaccurate. It simply gives you the right to, in certain circumstances, build an additional home on your property.

tcmart14 5y ago
Wouldn't it also allow developers to build apartments in places that previously they couldn't have because the ritzy neighborhood down the street can't bear the site of 'em?
- kelnos 5y ago
  There are still lot-size restrictions as to how many units you can build. But if a lot is large enough, and the owner of a SFH wants to sell to a developer that wants to build a 4- or 8- or whatever-is-allowed-unit building, IMO they should be allowed to do so. And maybe that will reduce property values in some places like that ritzy neighborhood down the street. It may also increase property values in others. That's just life. Buying property shouldn't give you an immutable ticket to guaranteed value improvement. If you're lucky, it might, but as a property owner in CA myself, I would certainly give up value appreciation if it meant homes became affordable again. I get that some people wouldn't make that choice, but... tough luck; that's life. Your "right" to make money off of your primary residence shouldn't trump someone else's right to have a stable place to live.
  - tcmart14 5y ago
    I agree with you a lot here. Not in California, so have not looked at the bill so was curious as to if this applied to developers or just homeowners with large lots? Housing has a lot of regulatory capture that benefits already existing property holders unproportionally. I see it here in Central Oregon. Especially as home ownership is the primary way in which families build wealth or reserve wealth. It can also be a very costly venture to re-zone properties. Even though in a lot of cases, the barrier to re-zone does not make much sense. SFH and MFH, it is not like these are based on some premise of the land has to be a certain quality. The same applies to business zoning. Why does it even make sense to say, you can build a restaurant here, but not a house?

kangaroozach 5y ago

Thanks kinda the point. System is rigged in favor of the land owners, at the expense of renters and future owners. Perfect example of legislating supply constraints is Prop 13, which fixes the tax basis to the purchase price making people stay in their homes to avoid a huge increase in property taxes were they to move. This drives up asset values and land owners love it! Boomers retirement is based on this! And it’s even better for commercial property owners who can charge 2021 sky high rents while paying taxes as if it were still 1978.

ehutch79 5y ago

You're part of the problem. They're not banning single family homes. Just zoning for them. THere's a housing shortage, especially in urban areas right around what little public transit there is. Insisting that only a few people live on lots in this area is insane.

remarkEon 5y ago
Respectfully, I think you are. I asked a question about the potential impact of this change on prices, and speculated about what might happen if single family homes become a rare (or rarer) commodity. I’m sorry that places like SF are managed so terribly, but it might have something to do with how hostile people there get when this issue comes up.
- ehutch79 5y ago
  SF isn't the only city in california.
- imtringued 5y ago
  A bigger city supports a bigger suburban ring around it since you don't have to live so close to the city center anymore to get high paying jobs.

imtringued 5y ago

If there are 10 people and 5 of them want to live in a single family home and 5 of them want to live in a multi family home then forcing all 10 people to live in a single family home will mean that single family housing is more expensive than it needs to be since people who don't want it are forced to live in it.