3 ms·

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

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?

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?