4 ms·
In California, there is plenty of land. They just choose not to use it. See Coyote Valley near San Jose. Just empty unused farmland turned into “open space.” Th
by briandear 5y ago
In California, there is plenty of land. They just choose not to use it. See Coyote Valley near San Jose. Just empty unused farmland turned into “open space.” That land is literally a whole lot of nothing while people down the street have to pay millions for a basic house. Even if you did own land, you can’t build anything on it without going to permitting that can take over a year — assuming they let you do anything at all. Look at all that land along the 280 between San Jose and San Francisco.. plenty of land: but they won’t let it be used for housing. Palo Alto and East Palo Alto— plenty of land but East PA has ridiculous rent control and Palo proper has a visceral fear of multi family housing.
The problem in California isn’t land, it’s politicians.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago> The problem in California isn’t land, it’s politicians. You mean the voters who vote for the politicians that do what they want vs. not vote for the politicians who would do what others would prefer? It is no secret that politicians can't act unilaterally or nefariously without being unelected at the ballot box.
- pishpash 5y agoYes, the problem is the classic landowning class vs. serfs. It's just that the USA had a lot of land compared to population for a long time, but one day it will explode in redistribution when too few people own too much land.
- erik_seaberg 5y agoI've never seen a politician openly run on a "I will exacerbate the housing shortage by any means necessary" NIMBY platform. They may have promised key donors they would, but how often do the voters know that?
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoNo, but they still run on what their constituents want, and act on those wants via how they execute their office. Key donors are probably a lot more for growth than key constituents.