3 ms·

Land would appreciate significantly less if housing and zoning regulations were eliminated. While there is value in being near a city core, land isn't a strong

Land would appreciate significantly less if housing and zoning regulations were eliminated. While there is value in being near a city core, land isn't a strongly constrained resource. Meeting the onerous requirements to build a home near this city core continually grandfathers in present-day land owners with buildings from the early 1900s while requiring entirely different standards for the next generation. We have intentionally sabotaged the ability for our youth to afford houses under guise of safety while simultaneously grandfathering in our own shitty run down structures that were built under much looser requirements. The result is land with a shitty old structure can be worth almost as much as a new one, under this restrained and captured supply.

tagami 5y ago
A bit off OP's topic, but in California ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) are now legal in all residential zoning districts. This effectively opens up the urban core for homeowners that wish to develop out their property. A smart first time owner will take advantage of this and effectively create an additional 1 or 2 living units (Primary residence+JADU+ADU) that can cover the new mortgage.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  There was just a Chronicle article on this https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-ADUs-are-being-built-mostly-in-the-16758730.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-AD... Honestly, I agree with one of the quoted people that ADUs are just a political hack to get a half-measure by the NIMBYs. Even if we converted all the garages it would an extremely inefficient way to construct more housing. There was talk of trying to do financing for poor people to do the conversions, but insofar that that works I think it is likely to push up construction prices because ADUs are so inefficient. (Conversely, the externality of decreased parking is quite good. I don't want to neglact that.) If we really care about housing and equity for the poor, we should allow poor homeowners to trade in for a new condo if the entire block agrees, and then redevelop it at a massive scale. Far more housing, still equity for them, and once you bootstrap the process no one even need be displaced out of the neighborhood. Win-win

tagami 5y ago

A bit off OP's topic, but in California ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) are now legal in all residential zoning districts. This effectively opens up the urban core for homeowners that wish to develop out their property. A smart first time owner will take advantage of this and effectively create an additional 1 or 2 living units (Primary residence+JADU+ADU) that can cover the new mortgage.

Ericson2314 5y ago
There was just a Chronicle article on this https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-ADUs-are-being-built-mostly-in-the-16758730.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-AD... Honestly, I agree with one of the quoted people that ADUs are just a political hack to get a half-measure by the NIMBYs. Even if we converted all the garages it would an extremely inefficient way to construct more housing. There was talk of trying to do financing for poor people to do the conversions, but insofar that that works I think it is likely to push up construction prices because ADUs are so inefficient. (Conversely, the externality of decreased parking is quite good. I don't want to neglact that.) If we really care about housing and equity for the poor, we should allow poor homeowners to trade in for a new condo if the entire block agrees, and then redevelop it at a massive scale. Far more housing, still equity for them, and once you bootstrap the process no one even need be displaced out of the neighborhood. Win-win