Just look at northern Cal's Eastbay, once beautiful and rural towns from Walnut Creek to Alamo have been strangled with traffic from urbanization.
Building the middle class is important but its a crime to violate the environment. Why is it fair to strip a town of what makes its special?
Chelsea Clinton and her Goldman Sach's husband live in a 10 million dollar flat in Manhattan. You live where your live takes you, a place you can afford.
Building the middle class is important but its a crime to violate the environment. Why is it fair to strip a town of what makes its special?
Chelsea Clinton and her Goldman Sach's husband live in a 10 million dollar flat in Manhattan. You live where your live takes you, a place you can afford.
5
Oh give me a break. Anyone making six figures can afford a house in Oakland or one of several other Bay Area communities.
I suggest you browse some mid Western real estate sites. 100K gets you a small house and maybe a garage.
5
Regarding older CA homeowners feeling "trapped" in homes with low property taxes because of Prop. 13, the following information is from:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/How-older-CA-homeow...
Under Prop. 60, homeowners who are older than 55 or permanently disabled can sell their primary residence and transfer its assessed value to a replacement home in the same county of equal or lesser value.
Prop. 90 lets them transfer their assessed value to a replacement home of equal or lesser value in a different county, but only if that county accepts incoming transfers. Only 10 counties do, including San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara.
There is some wiggle room: Seniors who sell their home before buying a replacement can spend up to 5 percent more on the new home if they buy it within a year, or up to 10 percent more if they buy within two years. But if they buy first and sell later, they cannot spend even $1 more on the new home. For more rules, see http://bit.ly/1nVHYXS.
If married, only one spouse must be older than 55 to qualify. Once you have used this transfer, neither you nor your spouse can get it again, unless one of you becomes disabled, in which case you can transfer again because of the disability.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/How-older-CA-homeow...
Under Prop. 60, homeowners who are older than 55 or permanently disabled can sell their primary residence and transfer its assessed value to a replacement home in the same county of equal or lesser value.
Prop. 90 lets them transfer their assessed value to a replacement home of equal or lesser value in a different county, but only if that county accepts incoming transfers. Only 10 counties do, including San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara.
There is some wiggle room: Seniors who sell their home before buying a replacement can spend up to 5 percent more on the new home if they buy it within a year, or up to 10 percent more if they buy within two years. But if they buy first and sell later, they cannot spend even $1 more on the new home. For more rules, see http://bit.ly/1nVHYXS.
If married, only one spouse must be older than 55 to qualify. Once you have used this transfer, neither you nor your spouse can get it again, unless one of you becomes disabled, in which case you can transfer again because of the disability.
4
It is difficult to ignore that personal financial sacrifice is occurring to live in these in-demand, high priced locations.
Recent articles indicate the average rate of retirement savings is very low.
Are these unaffordable properties and commuting costs at the expense of the retirement savings of California's citizens?
That would be a great tragedy, and from where will the money come to later pay that bill when it comes due?
Recent articles indicate the average rate of retirement savings is very low.
Are these unaffordable properties and commuting costs at the expense of the retirement savings of California's citizens?
That would be a great tragedy, and from where will the money come to later pay that bill when it comes due?
3
You get what you vote for. In 1978 proposition 13 was voted into law in California. The result almost 40 years later, is a taxation fiasco. Property tax is based on the value of a property when purchased, not what it is worth today.
A house that was worth 90,000 in 1978 might well be worth over a million today. That would imply that owners of two identical tract houses, one purchased in 1978 and one purchased in 2017, might have a 10x difference in property tax. Every neighborhood in CA is an example of inequitable taxation.
Not only is this situation fundamentally unfair (this is an important parallel issue), but it creates strong a disincentive to sell property and there are many, many property owners who own multiple properties and will probably never sell them because the carrying costs are unrealistically low (due to the low taxes). As we know, rents are quite high so its just good business. Corporations play this game, too. The result is lower inventory and higher prices.
Why should new house buyers pay a different tax structure than their neighbor who bought earlier? They shouldn't.
The government is effectively subsidizing landlords and businesses by giving them low tax rates. All thanks to the voters. Needless to say, there is little political will anywhere to make a more fair tax environment.
So, Californians, if you want this to start changing, make your voices heard.
A house that was worth 90,000 in 1978 might well be worth over a million today. That would imply that owners of two identical tract houses, one purchased in 1978 and one purchased in 2017, might have a 10x difference in property tax. Every neighborhood in CA is an example of inequitable taxation.
Not only is this situation fundamentally unfair (this is an important parallel issue), but it creates strong a disincentive to sell property and there are many, many property owners who own multiple properties and will probably never sell them because the carrying costs are unrealistically low (due to the low taxes). As we know, rents are quite high so its just good business. Corporations play this game, too. The result is lower inventory and higher prices.
Why should new house buyers pay a different tax structure than their neighbor who bought earlier? They shouldn't.
The government is effectively subsidizing landlords and businesses by giving them low tax rates. All thanks to the voters. Needless to say, there is little political will anywhere to make a more fair tax environment.
So, Californians, if you want this to start changing, make your voices heard.
21
It is time to tell the towns and cities they have to their fair share to build more houses and stop putting up road blocks against development plans. I always supported building 320 units in Los Gatos but we cannot stop there. More housing is needed. Housing crises is limiting California's potential for economic growth.
1
Articles about this issue are always met with a chorus of, "If you can't afford to live there, no one's forcing you to stay! Not everyone can live in desirable places!"
That might sound reasonable at first blush, but it's directly at odds with the practical aspects of how civilization functions. Cities always have a socioeconomic gradient, because the wealthy require non-wealthy people to do all of the jobs that aren't glamorous or well-compensated. The Bay Area is reaching a point where teachers, janitors, bus drivers, retail clerks, administrative support, etc, can't live within a 100 mile radius of the city where they work.
That's not just bad for those people; it's bad for everyone. It's a completely untenable situation. Those people ARE moving away, because there's absolutely no incentive to stick around and work a low-wage job that requires the extreme sacrifice of time and money involved in a four hour daily commute. Eventually, there won't be anyone willing to do these jobs at all – it's been happening for a few years now, and the rents are still only climbing and forcing people further and further away from the city.
That might sound reasonable at first blush, but it's directly at odds with the practical aspects of how civilization functions. Cities always have a socioeconomic gradient, because the wealthy require non-wealthy people to do all of the jobs that aren't glamorous or well-compensated. The Bay Area is reaching a point where teachers, janitors, bus drivers, retail clerks, administrative support, etc, can't live within a 100 mile radius of the city where they work.
That's not just bad for those people; it's bad for everyone. It's a completely untenable situation. Those people ARE moving away, because there's absolutely no incentive to stick around and work a low-wage job that requires the extreme sacrifice of time and money involved in a four hour daily commute. Eventually, there won't be anyone willing to do these jobs at all – it's been happening for a few years now, and the rents are still only climbing and forcing people further and further away from the city.
20
Even with the Rent Stabilization Ordinance in Los Angeles, which limits yearly rent increases to 3-5%, tenants are being priced out of their apartments or being forced to cut back to essentials. After 6 years of increases my rent was raised 28%. Unfortunately my income was flat. I have no choice but to hold on to an apartment the landlord has no desire maintaining, because he can raise it to market level if I move. Nearby apartments are out of reach financially. I have seen firsthand my landlord bypass regulations and permits, because he greases the palm of those who are suppose to enforce building codes. The tenants of California need more protection and better enforcement of existing laws. In the near future, wealthy Californians will have no one to serve them, as the working class will be priced out of this region.
7
The same thing is happening here on the east coast in Brooklyn, NY. You cannot find a home for under 550K ANYWHERE. We bought our home 20 years ago and paid 199K. Now the houses on my block sell for over 700K. Where are our children going to live? You need a roommate just to afford a rental! Young millennials will move to the middle of the country where 100K buys you a mansion, land, and a 3 car garage. The question is, will there be jobs?
7
Living in California: if you don't have a lot of dollars then you don't have a lot of sense.
4
I do find it ironic that so many Chinese are buying up real estate like crazy. What happens when they own the majority of it in certain areas? I'm not sure that they'll be pleased with the result after all they don't particularly care for what they've done with their own country
11
The cost of living in California actually has helped other markets. Although California is a desired area to live, many are seeing that it is just too expensive to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. Many large companies, such at Toyota, are in the process of making their move to North Texas. Although the loss of major corporations is not good for the California job market, it has been a boon in the Dallas area. The good news for people in California is that many can still get a piece of the pie in Texas without actually moving. Investing in Texas real estate will give a good return and possibly offset the large hike in the cost of living in terms of housing in California.
3
It's not true that someone making $180,000 a year cannot afford to live in SF. Even if she pays 1/4 in taxes that leaves $11,000 a month take home pay. You can get a nice apartment in SF for less than half of that. If you want to buy a home, that's different. But maybe people want too much.
4
"You know, this California town was just the right size until about two weeks after I moved in." Seems to be a common comment in every California town.
Only folks with their tubes tied or vasectomies should be allowed to sign anti-development petitions.
Our zoning and planning departments often over restrict and create huge obstacles to any growth while remaining enamored of the private single occupancy automobile.
Facing the reality of our population size we need to ignore NIMBY's and make the decisions needed to locate housing and jobs in close proximity or adjacent to mass public transit.
Outdated ideas of minimum lot sizes restricts innovative ideas and concepts. Permitting builders to "buy" out of constructing and locating affordable housing in every development is a huge failure for the population as a whole while increasing the sense of disparity in our economic classes.
As for water issues: were we to require statewide the use of the Dry Toilets would cut consumption by dozens of gallons per day per person.
The problem is due to fearful politicians unwilling to do the job they are elected to, making decisions for the best interest of the population, not just the campaign donors.
Only folks with their tubes tied or vasectomies should be allowed to sign anti-development petitions.
Our zoning and planning departments often over restrict and create huge obstacles to any growth while remaining enamored of the private single occupancy automobile.
Facing the reality of our population size we need to ignore NIMBY's and make the decisions needed to locate housing and jobs in close proximity or adjacent to mass public transit.
Outdated ideas of minimum lot sizes restricts innovative ideas and concepts. Permitting builders to "buy" out of constructing and locating affordable housing in every development is a huge failure for the population as a whole while increasing the sense of disparity in our economic classes.
As for water issues: were we to require statewide the use of the Dry Toilets would cut consumption by dozens of gallons per day per person.
The problem is due to fearful politicians unwilling to do the job they are elected to, making decisions for the best interest of the population, not just the campaign donors.
1
This article omits a critical word - "infrastructure "
Public systems such as water, sewer, transportation facilities, roads, fire protection, police, electrical grid, schools and s host of others are at utilization at or above capacity in most of the state. And after a multi year drought water allocations are limited, if available at all
By law new development is supposed to pay its own way through fee and bonding mechanisms, but often does not. And allocating regional costs created by a local action often results in just regional burdens with no mitigation
Local and regional circumspection about increased density is quite rational considered in this light. The existing residents have legitimate concerns about strained access to public goods, higher taxes allocated for the benefit of new residents, or a toxic stew of both
Public systems such as water, sewer, transportation facilities, roads, fire protection, police, electrical grid, schools and s host of others are at utilization at or above capacity in most of the state. And after a multi year drought water allocations are limited, if available at all
By law new development is supposed to pay its own way through fee and bonding mechanisms, but often does not. And allocating regional costs created by a local action often results in just regional burdens with no mitigation
Local and regional circumspection about increased density is quite rational considered in this light. The existing residents have legitimate concerns about strained access to public goods, higher taxes allocated for the benefit of new residents, or a toxic stew of both
6
As a native Californian who lived and owned housing in the Los Angeles area I think people are missing a large component of what will cause people to leave the state. It isn't just the cost of housing but the quality of all that goes with it. My family left to take advantage of the better public schools on the east coast. They have more than lived up to their reputation. My children are in classes of 15-18 students. Surely beats the 36 they were thrust in the schools they attended in Southern California. Also, the ability to commute, while not perfect, has been worked into the culture here. Building more roads just leads to more traffic and sprawl. The quality of life diminishes and dictates when you can travel. While I do miss the year round sunny days I don't miss what that tradeoff meant to our family. A vacation to visit family is enough to convince us we made the right decision.
7
Just throwing more housing at the problem is not a solution. In a new housing development just erected in El Cerrito, a one-bedroom rents for $2700 per month. (And this is for a location in the unsightly parking lot of a nondescript shopping center, right next to noisy, elevated BART train tracks.) To truly create affordable housing, we need rent control and a repeal of Prop 13.
4
To those whose self-interest blinds them to the fairness of Proposition 13, I offer this on your own terms. We bought our house in coastal Southern California in 1983. The property taxes were a little above $2,000. a year. If the taxes were based on valuation, the property taxes today would be about $12,000.00, a year and growing. So based on history, along with planning to pay for your children's education, health care and other necessities, without Proposition 13 you'd better get to work figuring out how you're going to pay $72,000.00 a year in property taxes in retirement.
4
A good way to make millions of affordable housing units instantly available in California? Deport all of the illegal aliens.
9
So, who wants to live in a city like New York City? Or, Hong Kong, or any other vertical canyon grid of stacked boxes approaching a Japanese bunk-hotel. No thanks. No real estate developers who profit from density live in the squalor they cause. Witness Trump on top of the rabbit hutches he owns.
How about this solution? No one can own a dwelling they don't live in: house, condo, apartment, etc.. That would stop all the foreign real estate conglomerates, housing speculators, house-flippers, Air BNB hoteliers, rent-gougers... in short all the greedy non-value-add parasites that profit from others. Over-night the cost of housing would plummet to a rational level.
How about this solution? No one can own a dwelling they don't live in: house, condo, apartment, etc.. That would stop all the foreign real estate conglomerates, housing speculators, house-flippers, Air BNB hoteliers, rent-gougers... in short all the greedy non-value-add parasites that profit from others. Over-night the cost of housing would plummet to a rational level.
14
How is there a crisis when home values soar? Homeowners are rejoicing at the fruits of supply and demand capitalism. Of course this is not a crisis. Rather, it is a windfall, a triumph for the future of civilized humanity. Home buyers who can afford California housing are precisely the demographic any area would desperately desire to attract. Mongrelized hoi polloi riff raff will not find California suitable. It's simply not where they feel comfortable or belong. And they will self deport, leave the area. Only the most qualified, highly educated evolved ethnic/racial types will become the face of California. This is a very good thing, a time to aspire, to rejoice!
1
You forgot to mention the homeless encampments that we get to experience daily!
3
For us living in the bay area has already become too crowded for the infrastructure. Traffic and congestion will only worsen with added housing. Sure the traffic planners say the problems can be solved - but not in our generation I'm afraid. We are fortunate to have job flexibility and are leaving this once wonderful place. It used to be a step down in all directions leaving the Bay Area - now not so much.
8
Here in Seattle the developers are building at record rates for another year. And yet, with all the new apartments, the city is less affordable than ever. We have the pressure of tech people moving from the Bay Area, foreign investors, and Amazon, who are apparently hiring the entire Midwest. Like California, houses sell for more than asking price. But what good is urban densification if the prices are as high as if there'd been no development? Particularly when the infrastructure can't keep up with the influx of population. We have similar physical limits to growth as San Francisco, and in an effort to move towards a car-free future, developers aren't required to provide parking. A figure released yesterday shows that we spend 58 hours per year looking for parking compared to the national average of 17. Unlike other major cities in the US, we're only now building our light rail system, so the buses are overcrowded and stuck in traffic.
So all I can say is - it may seem as if you're getting more for your money, but please don't move to Seattle, Californians! We can't hold any more people right now!
So all I can say is - it may seem as if you're getting more for your money, but please don't move to Seattle, Californians! We can't hold any more people right now!
10
If housing density increases, the San Francisco Bay area is doomed. What good is affordable housing when you can't drive without getting stuck in 15 MPH traffic? Surrounded by water on three sides, the transportation options are nil. San Francisco has reached its capacity. And the quality of life is in limbo. Intel and Microsoft made their exit years ago. Word on the street is that Facebook is planning its exodus. That is intelligent.
8
If the US and states do not stop allowing foreign ownership and no taxes, all major cities and states will be facing this problem. What makes things worse in CA is Proposition 13. I realize that once you give something away, it's hard to pull back, but one cannot have a discussion on housing and pricing in CA without seeing that Proposition 13 is a big driver.
Lastly, because we do allow foreign ownership, since the housing bust our countries homes are up for sale to low bidders (or relatively low bidders) who buy large groups of homes across the country and then rent them at ridiculous rates, refusing to sell a cash cow. Many may not know this, but groups of foreign buyers join forces under an investment vehicle and bleed US citizens dry. We see this in GA, FL, and any state where cities are heavily populated.
Please, someone in Congress consider this issue? Oh, you won't because you offer free citizenship to those that invest in real estate and our current president makes a fortune this way (not to mention many in Congress)?
Lastly, because we do allow foreign ownership, since the housing bust our countries homes are up for sale to low bidders (or relatively low bidders) who buy large groups of homes across the country and then rent them at ridiculous rates, refusing to sell a cash cow. Many may not know this, but groups of foreign buyers join forces under an investment vehicle and bleed US citizens dry. We see this in GA, FL, and any state where cities are heavily populated.
Please, someone in Congress consider this issue? Oh, you won't because you offer free citizenship to those that invest in real estate and our current president makes a fortune this way (not to mention many in Congress)?
9
I continue to wonder how Google, Facebook and Apple were allowed to build ginormous new campuses in the last couple of years and locate jobs here when there is no place for these people to live. Lots of jobs at tech companies don't have to be located here.
7
It just goes to show how disfunctional and broken our government and system There should be 10-20 story blocks of apartments like you see in Stockholm or Helsinki. Light rail and bike lanes connect these to business and downtown areas. Not row after row of little cracker boxes with little lawns soaking up water better used in agriculture and industry.
9
There is a big homeless problem across California that includes people living in RVs in both industrial and residential neighborhoods. This article gives the mostly false cause as a lack of affordable housing. Almost all of the homeless have only tenuous connections to any community and are mostly unemployed and suffering from problems that cause them to be social outsiders. Somebody is misrepresenting the facts, here.
2
That's just categorically untrue. In the Oakland area, detailed census information has been collected in recent years by people who go out and visit each homeless camp in the area. It indicates that most people living in these vehicles and tents are not suffering from addictions or mental health issues, and a significant percentage of them were living in normal, stable housing arrangements for at least ten years prior to their recent collapse into homelessness.
A city worker tasked with clearing debris from these camps was quoted recently in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that a lot of people on his crew grew actually grew up with people they see living in these camps, which makes it really emotionally draining work.
A city worker tasked with clearing debris from these camps was quoted recently in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that a lot of people on his crew grew actually grew up with people they see living in these camps, which makes it really emotionally draining work.
4
Sure some people who are homeless are temporarily down and out and will get back on their feet but the way this article presented the issue it implied that homelessness was due to unaffordable housing and that it just not true. In Los Angeles the people living in RVs are not the employed poor they are the unemployed poor who are getting by on the fringes. Most cannot afford any rents, even very low rents, because their income just is not steady and great enough.
We've owned our home in coastal San Diego County for 34 years. Prices up 75% over 5 years ago? No way. That is a ridiculous overstatement. And explain to me how forcing us out of our home because we can no longer afford the property taxes is going to increase the housing stock. Oh, I get it. We're forced to move to Arizona. Addition by subtraction.
7
If a metro region has jobs, it must allow for housing. The housing should be local and affordable for all incomes. Surely progressive California should be able to handle this. There is plenty of land and plenty of air space. Most of the water goes to agriculture which is as non-native as the residents. None of the cities are as densely populated as most of my hometown of Chicago to say nothing of most New York City. Density adds to the richness of the urban environment. Embrace it and emphasize rapid transit (you have wonderful weather) and multi-unit dwellings for easier commutes and cleaner air.
4
San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the U.S. after New York City and is surrounded by water on three sides. Not sure where we're going to find "plenty of land".
4
And by some measures Los Angeles is the most densely populated city in the country
It's easy to confuse the dense and small cores of older cities with the more diffuse but larger scale densities of newer conurbations- worldwide
It's easy to confuse the dense and small cores of older cities with the more diffuse but larger scale densities of newer conurbations- worldwide
1
My late spouse and I lived in the Bay Area for 15 yrs. We initially moved to Larkspur in Marin County Nov. 2002. We both worked in the city. We planned to take the BART to work until we got there and found out that Marin voted not to have BART service. Huh. So I took the bus and my husband drove (his hours were longer). Eventually the daily commute was just too much, so we moved to the East Bay where BART runs like a charm and we were both able to commute to the city. I agree with many commenters that part of the problem is traffic. Why not relight that flame to have BART extend over to Marin?
7
California is facing a mass exodus of middle class professionals who will leave the state because they will be able to reestablish careers in other states with affordable housing and less-than-onerous commutes. I am a college-educated professional, I I work hard and contribute a lot to my employer, but the astronomical housing prices will FORCE me to move away from friends and family to a state with affordable housing. The pendulum will swing the other way and current homeowners fighting to keep urban density as low as it was 50 years ago by keeping new housing out of their communities will eventually encounter flatlining or even falling housing prices. Simple supply and demand. I have options, but not, apparently, in California.
7
I agree that there needs to be more housing. However, why is there no discussion about the underfunding and lack of extensive, effective, and environmentally efficient mass transit? It is fantastic to encourage higher density housing where it is needed and is well thought out. I applaud the new CA state law encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units but along with with that, there needs to be a major re-vamping of our mass transit so that everyone does not have to live in the city centers. While the Bay Area has the best mass transit on the west coast, it is woefully lacking in keeping up with demand and constantly breaking down. As an example, I live a 15 minute, in town, drive north of downtown Berkeley yet my room-mates who attend Cal must take a Lyft,or other ride service, to get home after 8pm when the AC Transit bus line near my home stops running for the night. We need to re-think how mass transit is funded because it clearly is not keeping up with the demands of our cities. The ideal would be not everyone needed to live in the city center and then higher density housing could be planned out with people and the environment the highest priority instead of simply responding to an emergency housing crisis.
9
At some point, there will be a limit upon how many people can reside in California. As it is, California exceeded it's ability to support the people and agriculture and industries that exist with the naturally occurring water resources over half a century ago. Currently the state draws water from the Northwest and the Colorado River in order to support human activity. The natural flora and fauna for most of Southern California are evolved to exist with frequent wild fires so many developments require huge investments in fire suppression efforts just to prevent being destroyed. California enjoys great biodiversity with many more unique species than most other places across the continent. Every development in state involved the extinction of species. The low hanging fruit for development have been wetlands and estuaries which have been converted into expensive sea side developments and marinas, with huge profits for builders and increased tax bases for municipalities but loss of crucial nurseries for sea life and the loss of marine species has virtually ended commercial fishing up and down the coast. Developers prefer to build for high end customers. With luxury apartments, even with permanent vacancies of one or two units, landlords make far more than on fully occupied middle and lower priced rentals. Without a lot of government interference there will never be enough affordable housing along the coastal regions of California. This article is poorly researched.
7
How can we justify increasing the housing and consequently the population without additional access to water
6
At this point, there is no real ability to control housing costs and population in California. This is also related to the homelessness issue, which no one has articulated: California is the end of the rainbow. It's warm, it's big, everyone dreams of going there, so the homeless population continues to rise as people migrate there to live without resources. The homeless in California are not the state's own people, they're the entire country's homeless. As many living units you build, more people will move to the state. The one thing California has had in the past is earthquakes, which tend to reset the equation somewhat, sending people scurrying and real estate values lower. However that was all 20th century economics, and what's happening now will be different. All we can do is watch and see what happens; we're due for a serious quake soon and that could be the capper on all this. Otherwise, California is once again, as it has been in the past, a bellwether of the future: a stratified society where the haves live in exquisite luxury and everyone else barely scrapes along. We're already in the age of oligarchs, with very wealthy elites like Trump and Putin seen as the way to go, and a shadow society of wealthy international people fuel the development boom of high-end luxury apartments -- all the supertalls in NYC and huge renovations in LA. California is showing us what the future could look like, and it's not pretty.
7
The state needs to look at blocking vrbo and airbnb which are running rampant in this state. long term affordable housing is becoming nonexistant because home owners and real estate brokers are looking to maximise their profits by renting out short term. So these vacation rentals have become mini hotels in our neighborhoods.
7
It terrifies me that governments still think the only viable way to solve the unaffordable housing problem is to build more housing. Suburban sprawl has already turned into rural sprawl, and the popularity of cheapitechture makes for houses that can't last fifty years. Like James Kunstler said in '96, zoning laws need to be thrown out. This doesn't mean getting rid of planning, rather bringing back pre-war planning strategies. Yes, houses can be small and close together. Yes, schools can be tall and located in the same block as an apartment or general store. No, it doesn't promote hermitism. We need to get used to living with each other again, and, more importantly, using better-built housing structures that already exist.
It wouldn't surprise me if at some point Millennials start jointly buying properties, divvying up the land amongst themselves, splitting mortgages, and recycling the existing MacMansions to build their own tiny houses. My parent's property could easily fit ten tiny houses with room in the middle for a garden or common structure. If you did two story double tiny houses, that's 20 (or more) residents in under half an acre. We could also go the 1930s boarders route. A lot of us don't need or want exorbitant amounts of space. And there's also the elephant in the room: if those unaffordable houses don't get purchased or scrapped, they'll be left to rot. Think Detroit; it's not a pretty prospect.
It wouldn't surprise me if at some point Millennials start jointly buying properties, divvying up the land amongst themselves, splitting mortgages, and recycling the existing MacMansions to build their own tiny houses. My parent's property could easily fit ten tiny houses with room in the middle for a garden or common structure. If you did two story double tiny houses, that's 20 (or more) residents in under half an acre. We could also go the 1930s boarders route. A lot of us don't need or want exorbitant amounts of space. And there's also the elephant in the room: if those unaffordable houses don't get purchased or scrapped, they'll be left to rot. Think Detroit; it's not a pretty prospect.
5
There needs to be discussion on how AirBnB has been helping to inflate housing for years. AirBnB has enabled people afford their rent or mortgages when they no longer can afford them. This does not let properties back on the market, which would increase pricing competition, lowering prices, in both rental and sale markets..
1
Maybe the Federal Reserve should not have bought up $2 trillion of housing debt. This article didn't even talk about the Fed, people are missing the source of the problem. With the Fed swooping in and printing $4 trillion of new money, it has distorted all markets. Yet politicians seem to be looking in the wrong direction still. Do local politicians even know what the Fed has done? Because of the Fed, you have speculators, corporations, foreigners all buying up real estate as an asset class. No longer are homes for shelter, it's an asset class, traded on Wall Street. If the Fed didn't buy up $2 trillion in Mortgage backed securities, we wouldn't be in this situation, and interest rates would be higher. Will be interesting to see how the unwind goes, if it goes at all.
6
Too bad Scott Wiener is a pro-developer stooge who has no real interest in affordable housing. He's only a hero to his big real estate developer donors.
4
The upper limit for income to qualify for affordable housing should be increased to better reflect the reality of the area. One of the things that Japan did during their boom years was that the government built a bunch of affordable housing that were sold to qualified buyers often chosen by lottery.
4
By now it should be evident that global free trade is only good for some people, not for most. I recently saw homes for sale in Sonoma county up for sale, nothing "decent" for less than a million. San Francisco has rapidly become a pied=a-terre for wealthy Chinese, who do not seem to mind the prices. Chinese corporations are buying real estate at grossly inflated prices, even lands and wineries in the best agricultural regions. Chinese corporations have been negotiating the purchase of port facilities to accommodate their container ships in Europe and now in the US. There is arrogance among some making good money in the high-tech industries of Silicon Valley, but their hegemonic position may increasingly be at risk. If the democratically elected State officials do not have the power to control the trend, the "free market" will do it for them, aggravating the problem.
6
Oh, how soon we forget...One thing that must restrict more development is WATER. We may have pulled out of a drought this last winter, but who is to tell whether we will have rain this coming winter? I'm not talking about water for our yards, most of us have cut that out; I mean water to drink and to bathe.
13
How do you tell the local politicians that you want to maintain a quality of life that does not include the likes of living in a sardine can? They are building apartments, condos and townhouses all across this narrow peninsula that are just crowding in more and more people without the infrastructure to support it. Our freeways and major thoroughfares are packed solid at rush hours, and the quality of life seems to be in rapid decline. Folks are frustrated and getting more and more short-tempered. Now our "visionaries" are approving of "going vertical", building up, in earthquake territory, and packing the area with what they say are one family units with one car; "they'll all use public transportation" is what's spouted from their mouths. What is happening is multi-families are living in that one family unit and they have multiple cars; they don't take public transportation because it can't get them to their job. But, by God, we'll get the tax revenue from the developer and the tenants to feed the retail shops we need for more tax revenue. It's a mess and no one will say no more.
8
You got to the root of the Bay Area's problem: lack of decent public transportation. Simply consolidating the 3 separate agencies would be a giant step in the right direction.
3
There are 49 other states available, most of which are far cheaper than California. I fail to see the problem.
4
Economics, very fundamentally, is a tool to allocate scare resources as efficiently as possible. In this case, housing in California is the scare resource. So, how do we decide who has access to that resource?
Clearly, not everyone who wants to live here will be able to live here. There simply is no way, given constraints on natural resources, infrastructure, and land, for that to be possible. Building more housing may help in the short term, but there is no shortage of people wanting to live here. We cannot build infinite housing, so what is the solution? Do we hold a lottery? No, money is how we make the decision.
Like it or not, people voting with their feet and finding more affordable areas of the country is exactly what should happen. The nurse making $180,000 should move further afield until she finds an area in which she can afford her preferred lifestyle, which apparently consists of owning a single family home. Were she to rent, she could easily afford to live in the city. She wants something different, however, so she will have to move to find it.
There is no *right* to live in San Francisco, or West LA, or La Jolla. If you can afford it, good for you. If you can't, you might need to look elsewhere or make compromises on what you want.
Clearly, not everyone who wants to live here will be able to live here. There simply is no way, given constraints on natural resources, infrastructure, and land, for that to be possible. Building more housing may help in the short term, but there is no shortage of people wanting to live here. We cannot build infinite housing, so what is the solution? Do we hold a lottery? No, money is how we make the decision.
Like it or not, people voting with their feet and finding more affordable areas of the country is exactly what should happen. The nurse making $180,000 should move further afield until she finds an area in which she can afford her preferred lifestyle, which apparently consists of owning a single family home. Were she to rent, she could easily afford to live in the city. She wants something different, however, so she will have to move to find it.
There is no *right* to live in San Francisco, or West LA, or La Jolla. If you can afford it, good for you. If you can't, you might need to look elsewhere or make compromises on what you want.
14
Well said, now if you can suggest a way to wean the government off subsidizing the unworthy and stealing from workers and the shrinking middle class we can get back the state we live in.
3
If by 'subsidizing the unworthy' you are referring to corporate welfare, then I completely agree with you; and if by 'stealing from workers and the shrinking middle class' you are referring to wage stagnation while corporate executives receive million-dollar salaries and bonuses, then I agree with you.
4
It's what should be called economics for people who just want easy answers. Developers need both endless demand and endless supply as well as the highest return for their investments. Many local officials have been and are eager to accommodate them leading to big problems for residents and small property owners and permanent destruction of natural environments. The restrictions upon development are mostly efforts to prevent further destruction from greed and indifference.
3
“To accommodate all those people you need to build a lot, and the state’s big metro areas haven’t since the early ’70s. To catch up, cities would need to build housing in a way that they haven’t in two generations.”
I think what's entirely missing from this article is that even with the current restrictions on building new homes, the transportation infrastructure in places like the Bay Area is collapsing: traffic in San Francisco is as bad as ever, Caltrain, and especially BART are nearing or beyond capacity. I live close to Walnut Creek where condos are popping out like mushrooms after a big rain, yet nothing has been done in decades to improve the 1970 BART infrastructure. The result? Trains crowded beyond imagination to the point that sometimes you have to miss one, two, or three trains, daily delays, and a mounting frustration (customer satisfaction is at all-time low). The reality (at least in the Bay Area) is that the current population largely exceed what the infrastructure was supposed to sustain, and I really can't see how building more homes without proper major infrastructure projects can benefit anyone - unless the ultimate goal is to make it so uncomfortable for people to live here, that spontaneous moving elsewhere will eventually stabilize the population.
I think what's entirely missing from this article is that even with the current restrictions on building new homes, the transportation infrastructure in places like the Bay Area is collapsing: traffic in San Francisco is as bad as ever, Caltrain, and especially BART are nearing or beyond capacity. I live close to Walnut Creek where condos are popping out like mushrooms after a big rain, yet nothing has been done in decades to improve the 1970 BART infrastructure. The result? Trains crowded beyond imagination to the point that sometimes you have to miss one, two, or three trains, daily delays, and a mounting frustration (customer satisfaction is at all-time low). The reality (at least in the Bay Area) is that the current population largely exceed what the infrastructure was supposed to sustain, and I really can't see how building more homes without proper major infrastructure projects can benefit anyone - unless the ultimate goal is to make it so uncomfortable for people to live here, that spontaneous moving elsewhere will eventually stabilize the population.
13
Those overcrowded trains to nowhere. Oh yeah, they go to FiDi. Wish my SF friends lived there.
Manhattan, Hong Kong, Chicago, Vancouver, and now San Francisco feature ever taller housing structures to meet the demand from people who want to live and work there and not elsewhere. The true gems in the SF Bay Area are smaller communities close to SF, such as the island community of Alameda, which features pleasant, tree lined neighborhoods with classic Victorians, active commercial centers, good schools and recently stunningly high prices for even small 1920-30 one-story houses and town homes. Fierce opposition to building more housing, and debates over rent increases dominates the news.
Maybe someday it will be normal to expect that workers live near the professionals they serve but not until the snobs get their noses out of the air.
2
Ironically, the state capital, Sacramento, has not been swept up in the housing boom and prices there are just barely on the high side of average for the US. What is lacking there, and throughout the Central Valley, northern California and its desert lands, are industries with good paying jobs. In contrast to our national government, which is all about taking away rights and protections, California continues to succeed by offering its citizens something positive. Restrictive housing laws are not nearly as good a solution as finding ways to distribute economic prosperity more broadly across the state.
5
Sounds like the Hamptons. The workers that support the services demanded by our wealthy and super-wealthy, mostly second-home owners, need to commute on our two-laned, traffic-light dotted streets which make impossible any normal daily activities, not to mention emergency vehicles getting to their destinations. Yet anytime an employer wants to provide worker housing, what an outcry! And it doesn't happen.
6
It is not just prop 13 that has limited housing stock. The tax code was changed so homeowners can no longer defer their gains by buying a new property. Instead they must pay state and federal capital gains tax on gains over $250K for singles and $500K for married. (In California alone, the tax is 11%.) That may sound like a lot but with these stratospheric prices it is not. That combined with prop 13 makes many homeowners think twice before moving up. It has been a boon for the remodeling trade though.
2
This problem is driven a simple reality: People who live in expensive properties pay more tax and consume fewer services. People who live in inexpensive housing pay less tax and consume more services.
You can never reverse the rise in housing prices until you create a firewall between the fiscal needs of counties and the decisions made by zoning boards.
Also, the mortgage industry creates a ratchet effect: if prices decline, mortgages go underwater and banks go bust.
According to Google, the average salary for a nurse in California is about 80k. If they're paying more than double that in SF, salary is chasing housing, which always leads to an inflationary spiral.
You can never reverse the rise in housing prices until you create a firewall between the fiscal needs of counties and the decisions made by zoning boards.
Also, the mortgage industry creates a ratchet effect: if prices decline, mortgages go underwater and banks go bust.
According to Google, the average salary for a nurse in California is about 80k. If they're paying more than double that in SF, salary is chasing housing, which always leads to an inflationary spiral.
2
A mobile home in Marin County is considered a starter home some have sold for $300K. A fixer is selling for $200k. Many have sold for less. Our park of ~400 homes won a rent-control lawsuit (Sam Zell lost to us.) It was our good fortune yet, the irony is that one cannot afford to move elsewhere. We could be stuck in worse places and the equation needs to change. This just in from CA legislature (by our own San Rafael Assemblyman.) http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-u...
Perhaps a look at the government structure, the one party system, which allows corruption on a level reached only by New York and Illinois could serve as a guide. Elites , unions and the greedy on top and a subservient class of socialist leaches makes for a rather static and declining spiral in most middle class endeavors.
4
Nothing will change until the younger generation gets involved in government and is part of the decision making process. Until then, the "old guard" will continue to benefit themselves. At least Senator Weiner is giving it a go.
An example of the NIMBY old guard which was responsible for the residents voting down a harbor side low high rise (by Bay Club facility near the Ferry building in San Francisco in 2014 which would have built s commensurate number of affordable housing elsewhere in SF.
They were concerned about their views not SF citizens welfare
Check on Singapore on how to do this responsibly and fairly!
They were concerned about their views not SF citizens welfare
Check on Singapore on how to do this responsibly and fairly!
Several thoughts reading this article. First, so much for the notion among 45's supporters that California's economy is in dire straits. Second, building more homes might help to make the existing ones more affordable, but last time we had a big building boom, the bottom fell out. Newly built homes were the ones that sat empty. Third, the supply of homes would rise quickly if sellers were strongly discouraged from accepting offers from buyers who want to turn them into airbnbs or vrbos to make $$ from tourists. We need laws limiting these sales.
4
The state has added about 311,000 housing units over the past decade, for short of what economists say is needed.
Tell NYTimes management that they need more copy editors! Tell them that they are "for short" of the number that they should have.
Tell NYTimes management that they need more copy editors! Tell them that they are "for short" of the number that they should have.
7
It's all fueled by greed. There is no other reason why the majority of people in this country are condemned to rent at rates swallowing 50-70% of their incomes, except for greed of landlords enjoying more than they need; greed of land owners selling overpriced acreage for suburban development; greed of homeowners selling to "upgrade" for a mortgage interest tax deduction; and the avarice extends its tentacles.....
Whatever happened to common decency? The median home price should not exceed 300% of the median income; the median rent should not exceed 30% of the median income. Anything beyond that signifies avarice and "exclusion." Exclusion being the operative word---and we all know what that means.
Where are the $90K single family homes in our populous cities and first ring suburbs? Desperate people in this country could fill about five million of them, today.
Shame on us for getting to this point where the moneyed take advantage of those who have less. It's all fueled by greed and fame. Disgusting!
God help us all!
Whatever happened to common decency? The median home price should not exceed 300% of the median income; the median rent should not exceed 30% of the median income. Anything beyond that signifies avarice and "exclusion." Exclusion being the operative word---and we all know what that means.
Where are the $90K single family homes in our populous cities and first ring suburbs? Desperate people in this country could fill about five million of them, today.
Shame on us for getting to this point where the moneyed take advantage of those who have less. It's all fueled by greed and fame. Disgusting!
God help us all!
9
I lived in the San Francisco and San Diego areas for 20 years, and have now lived in Northern New Mexico also for 20 years. For seven months of the year the climate here is better than California's. I dislike the winter, but many love it. There is no smog, traffic is acceptable, crime is no worse than LA, schools are good in some areas, and the landscape, sky, and sunsets are breathtaking.
To be sure, water supply is limited, but that's also true of California. Although the state has 75% the area of California, it has less than 6% of its population. And it is seismically quiet. A fine house with garage and yard can be had for about $250,000. And taxes are moderate. There are two first-rate national laboratories and several military/government installations.
So all that's needed are people and jobs. In this electronic age jobs can be anywhere. What is needed are companies willing to take the initiative and move their operations, and people, here. Yes New Mexico ranks near the bottom for almost any criteria. But that is due to the high poverty level due to lack of jobs and education. That can be changed with the above. Someone with a pioneering spirit needs to take that first step.
To be sure, water supply is limited, but that's also true of California. Although the state has 75% the area of California, it has less than 6% of its population. And it is seismically quiet. A fine house with garage and yard can be had for about $250,000. And taxes are moderate. There are two first-rate national laboratories and several military/government installations.
So all that's needed are people and jobs. In this electronic age jobs can be anywhere. What is needed are companies willing to take the initiative and move their operations, and people, here. Yes New Mexico ranks near the bottom for almost any criteria. But that is due to the high poverty level due to lack of jobs and education. That can be changed with the above. Someone with a pioneering spirit needs to take that first step.
5
True..but u really do have a more serious water issue than even CA
Yes, the housing shortage is very real for middle class first-time home buyers. Build baby, build.
But when will the uber-wealthy build $75-90K single family homes for those at or below the median income levels? That is the problem! The response is likely never!
I have no doubt the attitude of wealthy developers and landlords is, "A pox on the masses, for not finding jobs that pay $300-500K per year so they can afford to buy what I build for them!"
I have no doubt the attitude of wealthy developers and landlords is, "A pox on the masses, for not finding jobs that pay $300-500K per year so they can afford to buy what I build for them!"
3
It's ironic to me that prop 13 is always carries so much blame. My husband and I (35 and 31, respectively) just bought our home in the Bay Area 18 months ago and even the modest increase in property taxes this year has affected us pretty dramatically. We purchased (with help from family) and moved farther out because it was cheaper than renting in our previous community and offered greater security. It's not just people who have lived in a home for decades-- without prop 13 we'd be forced out, too.
And why wouldn't we want to do whatever we could to stay in California? Our friends and families are here. (In spite of the fact that our money doesn't go very far) quality of life is excellent here. Our state government reflects our values. If we decide to start a family, I'd have better prenatal care here than I would in any other state. Most importantly, our jobs are here. Having both graduated college during the height of the recession, steady work is just not something either of us is willing to take for granted ever again.
And why wouldn't we want to do whatever we could to stay in California? Our friends and families are here. (In spite of the fact that our money doesn't go very far) quality of life is excellent here. Our state government reflects our values. If we decide to start a family, I'd have better prenatal care here than I would in any other state. Most importantly, our jobs are here. Having both graduated college during the height of the recession, steady work is just not something either of us is willing to take for granted ever again.
14
Prop 13 should apply solely to owner-occupied residential property. Not commercial property. Not rental property.
Parcel taxes should be modeled after what Berkeley did, charging per square foot, not per parcel, where a building with hundreds of units pays only a single parcel tax.
Parcel taxes should be modeled after what Berkeley did, charging per square foot, not per parcel, where a building with hundreds of units pays only a single parcel tax.
4
As related by Thomas Piketty, the generation of income inequality is a fundamental property of corporate capitalism. Let's tell it like it is: gentrification with the outrages of $5,000/mo rents and a half-million for a "starter home" is simply another form of income inequality. Nothing will change unless our economic system undergoes a radical reformation.
7
Tell the readers of the NYT how California could accommodate the additional 10-20 million people (probably more) who would relocate to CA if its house prices were say, $300,000 for a typical 3/2.
5
I just high-tailed it out of SF a little less than a month ago for a job in NYC. I was using public transit to commute from the Outer Richmond to Redwood City, which took me two hours (much like the nurse). I made 40K (approximately 22% of said nurse's income) and still (barely) managed to split the rent on a junior one-bedroom for $2200/month. I think it's a little preposterous to cite anyone making six figures as a "victim" of this housing crisis; I wouldn't even cite myself as one, despite the fact that my Brooklyn rent is about 1/3 less than what I paid there. The idea that rich people in SF & its environs are more concerned about preserving their cities' "integrity" and "character" than sheltering human beings is mind-boggling. But I guess it shouldn't be--as previous commenters have noted, all of these locales have consistently prioritized tech and business growth over caring for long-time residents. All this to say: the real issue here is not the middle class (yes, finding housing in SF is difficult, but you have the resources to make a choice). It's the startling swathes of homeless and transient people that the moneyed literally step over as they're moving between Ubers and SoMa lofts.
9
Affordable housing needs to be integrated into existing communities. No one wants to live in OR next to "projects". Affordable housing requires community support to be successful and that means maintaining community character. The process is slower and the housing developments are less dense and intense. This will not solve the housing crisis overnight but does provide a more sustainable path for the long term.
2
Well-stated. Unfortunately, too many city councils are controlled by developers, and there ends up being no required affordable housing, instead the developer is allowed to pay a mitigation fee which is way too low ever build any affordable housing. And absolutely, affordable housing needs to be integrated into market-rate developments.
3
Indeed, there are lots of homeless, especially along the coast and in the most attractive of areas. They come from all over the country partially due to the fact one does not need a home address to receive benefits in the state of CA. That, coupled with the soaring housing costs created a never-ending homeless growth problem. In LA alone homeless number have gone up 12% in two years. As to Mr. Weiner's solution, one does need local zoning rules or soon the cities will lose attractiveness and value. Lastly, studies have been done to show that fully one-third of the homeless want to be outdoors and not bound by dwellings with walls. Where I live most new homes have been purchased by wealthy citizens from China. Do I have an answer to all this mess? I'd start with an address requirement for welfare though it seems harsh. There are many clinics and non-profits offering food and other aid without the state's influence.
7
Often the families priced out have lived in the area for generations. The family property may be extremely valuable yet the kids can't afford to rent or buy a place to live. The choices are, kids and grandkids move in with parents or we watch them move far away. I still live in the large family home in an orchard above a formerly sleepy coastal village. Living with trees planted by great grandparents and each generation following, anchor and provide a sense of stability. Especially in a state like California. That continuity is what I had and wanted to give my adult kids....Yet realistically, with grandkids, spouses, we can't fit into this house, even with the extra apartment. I am a widow living alone with rooms I never enter wondering how long I can keep this place up by myself without family. Family that had to leave because they could not afford to live here. My only choice is to sell and help the kids with big down payments....I don't want to be here without them. The trees planted so long ago are meaningless without the kids. Everyone is affected by the housing shortage except the very rich. Owning a home worth millions of dollars means nothing when offspring can't afford homes or health insurance. If one of my kids became seriously ill my house would be sold in a minute. I have zero security at 67 even though I am considered wealthy. My kids are struggling...working hard and long hours. Making good money. It's not enough.
9
if u have extra rooms, cant your kids live with you....as extended family?
1
How will this alleviate the incredible roadway gridlock we suffer at any time of the day?
11
Bicycles, if you live close enough to work! I have had the unique privilege, twice, of living within 4-8 blocks from my work; and again, near a bus line that took me, literally, from my door to the work-place door.
This is why affordable housing is essential in urban cores. Why shouldn't custodians, laundry workers, kitchen help live next door to the hotels where they work?
This is why affordable housing is essential in urban cores. Why shouldn't custodians, laundry workers, kitchen help live next door to the hotels where they work?
1
Do not forget the property costs due to land use restrictions, county fees and additional engineering costs incurred by individuals seeking to build their own homes as these factors add considerably to the cost of housing.
3
I grew up in San Francisco in the 60's. My family lived in Oacific Heights. Today, I could not afford a tear down there.
With cash only purchases required, $100,000-$200,000 over asking and inspections waived all over the Bay Area, only the very wealthy can afford to live comfortably in California.
While I and my family miss its beauty and the riches it's bounty of resources provide, living in California is a fantasy for all but the 1 percent.
With cash only purchases required, $100,000-$200,000 over asking and inspections waived all over the Bay Area, only the very wealthy can afford to live comfortably in California.
While I and my family miss its beauty and the riches it's bounty of resources provide, living in California is a fantasy for all but the 1 percent.
4
Repeal Prop 13 now!
4
Maybe certain California cities (Irvine, Pasadena, San Fran) should look into placing a ban on selling houses and condos to foreign nationals. Housing would far more accessible to middle income Americans if wealthy people from other countries were not permitted to buy up available housing stock.
20
I agree. The NYT should look into how many foreign nationals buy properties in cash undermining American buyers and driving up the costs. Building more properties where the water supply is already stretched does make good sense for the future. The housing crisis is far more complicated than this article reveals.
4
I'd like to see a much larger homeowners exemption combined with higher taxes for non-owner occupied properties. But Prop 13 prevents the latter.
1
My husband and I are sitting in a RV park in Indiana in our way to Ohio right now. I was born and raised in California and worked and paid taxes there all my life. Now at the age of 65, I can no longer afford to live there. Out landlord recently raised the rent $800 in one month...there was no affordable housing to move to...In Ohio we are looking at properties with 2 to 5 acres for under $150,000...so we can own what we could not rent in California for less money...we have always been working class and thought at the end of our working lives we would be able to retire in the state that we had always lived in, but California is not interested in us...it is only interested in the money...I don't know how young families are surviving or how any of this can end well...I do know that unless you are at least a millionaire that California has no place for you...It is hard to leave friends and family but I suspect they will not be able to survive much longer in the "Golden State" either...the only reason my 85-year-old mother is still there is that she has owned her home free and clear for over fifty years, but the taxes are eating her alive and she frets because she is "too old to move" now...
14
My boyfriend & I lived in San Francisco for two years. We paid $2,000/month for a 300 square foot apartment which, because it was so small, we never wanted to be in anyway. I loved the city & the bay but left as soon as he finished school.
7
High Density building in California? That is insane....we don't have enough water, our roads & services are stressed to the max, we endlessly fight pollution and in case any developers forgot California is an earthquake prone state......high density does not work in this environment. We don't need endless over priced new development here in CA but we do need first rate public transportation...and as far as the foreign owned multi CA home "investments" tax them heavily, they do not live there and they are literally destroying communities...just as they have already done in NYC. Is there no escape from the ultra greedy?
15
These are all points the article should have addressed. To claim that the sole, or even primary, reason for the crisis is lack of building ignores common sense.
11
And to think that Google is insisting that my husband move back to Silicon Valley to continue his current position rather than commute. If their point of view that telecommuting is so important in the knowas we do" situation, this bodes poorly for the health of the Bay Area and other technology intensive areas.
We left the Bay Area 20 years ago and it was already a tough place to afford housing. Now it is simply ludicrous. I'm saddened to see the stress it is bringing to families, workers and to the beautiful environment. Rather than develop the ledge economy is a "do as we say, not next flying car, it would be great of some of these companies and world-class universities with all the intelligence at their fingertips could put some muscle into examining the problem of housing. And not just Facebook housing employees on the environmentally sensitive tidal marshes of East Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, though at least they've made some sort of attempt at solving the problem.
We left the Bay Area 20 years ago and it was already a tough place to afford housing. Now it is simply ludicrous. I'm saddened to see the stress it is bringing to families, workers and to the beautiful environment. Rather than develop the ledge economy is a "do as we say, not next flying car, it would be great of some of these companies and world-class universities with all the intelligence at their fingertips could put some muscle into examining the problem of housing. And not just Facebook housing employees on the environmentally sensitive tidal marshes of East Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, though at least they've made some sort of attempt at solving the problem.
3
Jerry Brown, declaring to the world that he and other cities will fight climate change, even if Trump doesn't, is being a hypocrite.
California's CEQA is the strongest set of environmental protection laws in the U.S., and every built project--skyscraper, home, park--must comply with these laws or the project can't be built.
It is this very body of law that protects California, and makes it attractive to companies and families.
Developers don't like CEQA as it costs them more to comply. Also, they build to make money. Building affordable housing cuts their profit margin.
The State cannot, however, through coercion, force the building of environmentally unsound housing and run roughshod over neighborhoods.
Coercion is illegal. The only winners would be developers, who return little to State coffers, and would harm the environment. Californians would lose their rights and protections.
Voting to eliminate environmental protections sets a dangerous precedent which would be difficult to overturn.
The legislature could require that developers make 30% of their space into apartments--make all highrises multi-use.
They could be voting for environmentally compliant "green" housing, multi-use construction, and a housing tax, paid by employers and employees, to subsidize the cost of rents.
They could be voting for more electric rapid transit trains and buses to ease commuting.
Removing neighborhood rights and protections, in favor of developers, only harms California
California's CEQA is the strongest set of environmental protection laws in the U.S., and every built project--skyscraper, home, park--must comply with these laws or the project can't be built.
It is this very body of law that protects California, and makes it attractive to companies and families.
Developers don't like CEQA as it costs them more to comply. Also, they build to make money. Building affordable housing cuts their profit margin.
The State cannot, however, through coercion, force the building of environmentally unsound housing and run roughshod over neighborhoods.
Coercion is illegal. The only winners would be developers, who return little to State coffers, and would harm the environment. Californians would lose their rights and protections.
Voting to eliminate environmental protections sets a dangerous precedent which would be difficult to overturn.
The legislature could require that developers make 30% of their space into apartments--make all highrises multi-use.
They could be voting for environmentally compliant "green" housing, multi-use construction, and a housing tax, paid by employers and employees, to subsidize the cost of rents.
They could be voting for more electric rapid transit trains and buses to ease commuting.
Removing neighborhood rights and protections, in favor of developers, only harms California
8
CEQA is more often used as a means for wealthy NIMBYS to block "undesirable" projects than it is to protect the environment. CEQA needs to be reformed. It is aiding in sprawl and inhibiting infill development that is far more environmentally benign.
2
@ Joe -- I don't agree, but then, I used to direct the writing of environmental impact reports, so perhaps I am biased toward CEQA. Infilling is continually going on. Some of the laws conform with the NIMBY's fear of ugliness, out of scale size, shadows falling on their property, increased parking problems, but other impacts, like more use of water resources, necessity to build or add staff to police and fire stations to serve new developments, increased air pollution from more cars in the neighborhood, reduced quality of life, killing off whatever urban habitat and its animals may exist, building on unstable soil (most of L.A.), methane leaks (again, most of L.A.) are all valid environmental impacts noted in CEQA. NIMBY's have other ways of lobbying decision makers that do not involve CEQA. Joe, it's the best body of environmental law in the U.S., and we dare not change it.
1
California is not geographically meant to support large numbers of people, it is fire prone and does not have a natural water supply for a large population. Just because people like the climate does not mean they have right to live there. People should move to other parts of the country -- In fact if Californians moved to Red States, Democrats could take over the Senate! And we could win the next Presidential election!
14
That is not a realistic suggestion--get real.
1
2 comments:
I know people in SF and the greater Bay Area who live there, and make less than $180K/year.
Is someone who makes $180K really who the Times chose as their stand-in for a victim of the housing crisis? 180K? Did anyone bother to check the median income in the Bay Area? Who exactly is this article written for?
When people say the media is out of touch (or the liberals who nod uncritically at this piece), this is what they mean.
I know people in SF and the greater Bay Area who live there, and make less than $180K/year.
Is someone who makes $180K really who the Times chose as their stand-in for a victim of the housing crisis? 180K? Did anyone bother to check the median income in the Bay Area? Who exactly is this article written for?
When people say the media is out of touch (or the liberals who nod uncritically at this piece), this is what they mean.
7
Agreed. I live in the SF Bay Area, and it is ridiculous to claim that one cannot afford a home within 2 hours of the city at 180k/ year. Not only a poor example of an individual struggling through a housing crisis, but one that is completely false.
8
I too found this dubious. I live in the East Bay area and make $140k. Eventually I will be able to afford a condo closer than this person (although not in SF proper). I've never heard of a nurse making $180k. She would have to be a senior ICU nurse, but from the tone of the comments she made she sounds a little young to occupy such a position. Her claim of making $180k doesn't really pass the smell test and should be verified by the reporter. People lie about money all the time.
3
Agreed, I live in San Francisco. There is certainly a housing shortage, but this example is utter nonsense, and is wildly misleading. True that she can't afford a mcmansion here like she can in the burbs, but this is a city.
2
Overpopulation. Why isn't this being discussed??? The root of this, and most other, problems.
15
Why don't we live in communal housing - big, big dorm-like buildings with common potty and cafeteria with our own separate bedrooms and living rooms. !? It's coming to such as that in time.
2
Probably not in Marfa TX, though.
1
Believe it or not MaryO, housing is an issue in Marfa, TX also !
2
Oh, that sounds really enjoyable.
2
One thing this article didn't go into detail on is rent control and its effects on housing supply in San Francisco proper. Talk to almost any economist and they will tell you that rent control laws like they have in SF are almost always bad for everyone except those who already are fortunate enough to live in a rent controlled property. No one wants to leave because where will they go? This creates even less supply.
My family and I just left the Bay area for New York. One of the reasons we left was cost of living. We sold our house which we bought in 2012 and did very well. Much of the land near my old home is 'protected forever' as open space, which I loved when living there. But it's not sustainable and everything needs to be in moderation. The only other option is to do what Dubai has done and build islands in SF Bay for people to live on.
My family and I just left the Bay area for New York. One of the reasons we left was cost of living. We sold our house which we bought in 2012 and did very well. Much of the land near my old home is 'protected forever' as open space, which I loved when living there. But it's not sustainable and everything needs to be in moderation. The only other option is to do what Dubai has done and build islands in SF Bay for people to live on.
3
First, This is not going to be well received, but the basic, insoluble problem is rooted in the long-ago decision to subsidize housing with special tax treatment, and tax-advantaged treatment of capital gains. A house should be a family home, not a leveraged, subsidized. tax-advantaged investment.
This system provides perverse incentives to home ownership and was at the root of the 2008 crash. Now, the bubble is being inflated again. This can't end well. Government policies of urging people who can't afford it to buy expensive homes, made and makes things worse. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Second, California state law requires cities to provide their fair share of housing (including "affordable" housing -- whatever that means). But as is crystal-clear and as noted in a recent major article, they don't -- they are flouting that law instead. See Liam Dillon. "California Lawmakers Have Tried for 50 Years to fix the State's Housing Crisis. Here Why they've failed," LA Times, June 29, 207. This is a cynical game that makes things worse, particularly when the permitted number of commercially-zoned land in a city greatly exceeds residentially-zoned land.
As Pogo said: WE have met the enemy and he is us.
This system provides perverse incentives to home ownership and was at the root of the 2008 crash. Now, the bubble is being inflated again. This can't end well. Government policies of urging people who can't afford it to buy expensive homes, made and makes things worse. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Second, California state law requires cities to provide their fair share of housing (including "affordable" housing -- whatever that means). But as is crystal-clear and as noted in a recent major article, they don't -- they are flouting that law instead. See Liam Dillon. "California Lawmakers Have Tried for 50 Years to fix the State's Housing Crisis. Here Why they've failed," LA Times, June 29, 207. This is a cynical game that makes things worse, particularly when the permitted number of commercially-zoned land in a city greatly exceeds residentially-zoned land.
As Pogo said: WE have met the enemy and he is us.
2
A nurse makes 180,000 $ what the? Is this a misprint? She can't afford housing? I was looking at housing two weeks ago, everyone is bidding up prices, 1 million becomes 1.3 million if you want the house. In rural and suburban pa. It would cost you 300,000 $ or less! Come to pa!
1
$180K for an R.N. is not a misprint. Look at the hourly rate for Bay Area R.N.s, it's well over $60 per hour. Add in a little time-and-a-half overtime every week and $180K is about right.
It's become popular for workers in the Bay Area to buy larger houses in the Central Valley and commute, rather than smaller, older houses, or condos, closer to their jobs. This is purely their choice. There is no good transportation from these outlying areas, you pretty much have to drive. This sort of thing is especially popular for workers that can do long shifts and work fewer days (fire-fighters, nurses, etc.).
It's become popular for workers in the Bay Area to buy larger houses in the Central Valley and commute, rather than smaller, older houses, or condos, closer to their jobs. This is purely their choice. There is no good transportation from these outlying areas, you pretty much have to drive. This sort of thing is especially popular for workers that can do long shifts and work fewer days (fire-fighters, nurses, etc.).
1
Let"s unleash the developers to ravage the coast and other beauty spots with hideous and hugely profitable developments, and let the unprofitable or less profitable inland rot. This is the true message of this article.
13
Of course this article doesn't mention once that California has nearly 40 million people now, and that its current population growth is probably unsustainable. Water shortages, urban sprawl, over-crowding, long commutes, environmental degradation...on & on; housing shortage are just one symptom of non-stop population growth.
California, like the world, has a limit on the number of humans it can sustain; especially true given California's struggles with a lack of water. Maybe the housing crises is a sign that the state is up against the limit of the number of people it can hold. Simple building housing for more and more people is bound to create a whole slew of new problems.
Until the larger issues and impacts of population growth can be addressed, perhaps it's best just to let the housing crunch serve as a break on that growth.... Hellooo North Dakota...
California, like the world, has a limit on the number of humans it can sustain; especially true given California's struggles with a lack of water. Maybe the housing crises is a sign that the state is up against the limit of the number of people it can hold. Simple building housing for more and more people is bound to create a whole slew of new problems.
Until the larger issues and impacts of population growth can be addressed, perhaps it's best just to let the housing crunch serve as a break on that growth.... Hellooo North Dakota...
20
I lived in California for 30 years. The weather is perfect, true, and there is a ton to do there. But unless you have money to afford a decent home near where you work, the lifestyle is brutal. You're stuck in traffic constantly and dealing with huge crowds wherever you go. We had to give up our Angels season tickets because it took two hours to get to Anaheim from LA most nights. Just going to the grocery store or to Target means an unpleasant trafficky slog followed by fighting the masses in underground parking garages.
Six years ago we moved to Tallahassee for my husband's job. We live in a 2,000-ft. house that would have cost $2 million in LA but cost $250K here--pricey for here, actually. LA is full of amazing experiences, but the truth is, you spend a lot of time working and in your house. If you have to fight to get to work every day, and can't afford a decent place to live, that's a high percentage of your life that isn't enjoyable. I loved many things about living in California. But I like my new peaceful life.
Six years ago we moved to Tallahassee for my husband's job. We live in a 2,000-ft. house that would have cost $2 million in LA but cost $250K here--pricey for here, actually. LA is full of amazing experiences, but the truth is, you spend a lot of time working and in your house. If you have to fight to get to work every day, and can't afford a decent place to live, that's a high percentage of your life that isn't enjoyable. I loved many things about living in California. But I like my new peaceful life.
20
Governments need to commit billions more for affordable housing in cities where people want to live. It's way too expensive in places like San Francisco and New York.
2
Sorry, Mel. To borrow Margaret Thatcher's notable line; Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
8
Let's see... A state that doesn't have enough natural resources (think WATER) for the existing population wants to build more housing because more people want to move there.
How about responsible growth?
How about responsible growth?
14
If you've got to have a problem with the cost of housing, this is the one to have. Millions have moved to California to engage in the most dynamic and diverse economy in the U.S. They've run smack into the undeniable fact that this dynamism comes with costs.
I expect to hear from Republicans of all stripes about how California is collapsing into a pile of burning homes and forests. They should be so lucky as to face what the much despise Governor Moonbeam faces -- a crisis created by his state's own overwhelming success!
I expect to hear from Republicans of all stripes about how California is collapsing into a pile of burning homes and forests. They should be so lucky as to face what the much despise Governor Moonbeam faces -- a crisis created by his state's own overwhelming success!
6
Success for some people--not so much for the majority. (I previously lived in both Berkeley and Palo Alto--now have homes in Vancouver and Gainesville, FL. Either location--all costs and benefits included--offer great alternatives to SFBay
area.
area.
3
One approach to produce appropriate housing would be to create owner/developer co-ops. Groups of future owners would form a non-profit organization that would develop properties (probably brown field and in-fill) on behalf of the members, some of whom would subsequently buy the property developed either as condos or co-ops. This would result in smaller houses, reduced costs and reduced risk, since the projects would be entirely presold.
It also requires no governmental action or new law, just going our and doing it.
It also requires no governmental action or new law, just going our and doing it.
3
Call it the most expensive parking lot. That is what the Silicon Valley/San Francisco corridor has become. I wonder at the ability of Californians (one of whom I have been for 40 years) to ignore the fact there is limited viable public transportation. Trains do not run frequently enough, and their sparsity discourages the commuter. The cars splurge onto the freeways most of the hours of the day. And California wants more people to come to live here? There needs to be a rational relationship between the services a community can provide and the population to whom it beckons . San Francisco streets are not only strewn with the homeless, but the empty food containers from the lines of food trucks offering the more reasonable lunch to the "millennials". At night the poor pour themselves through the garbage in the Financial District hoping to grab as much cardboard as possible which they can sell. In doing that, they leave whatever mess of garbage on the sidewalk . There is a leveling factor, Tesla or beat up old compact car....you will sit in that traffic. And, for those who still walk the city streets, much of this can be ignored while the eyes are fixed on the smartphone.
8
This article barely scratches the surface...the Cali housing is actually much worse. State, county, & municipal legislators have made it impossible for new housing to be built quickly. This is a Democratic controlled state from top to bottom. Affordable housing has always been one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Party. This state should be a showcase on how well we can execute this policy. No excuses. Instead, it's yet another example of our complete intellectually bankruptcy. Incredible. It should never have gotten this bad this fast. There were warning signs. It's symptomatic I think of a much bigger problem. The growing divide between some Democrats who want to practice what they preach & fanatical progressives who want to strangle everything. Environmentalists will go to the barricades to stop any housing project from being built here. Mind you we are talking about affordable housing for working class and middle-income families. Thanks to their efforts the gateway to middle-class security, has been pushed beyond their reach. We should be ashamed of ourselves.This is insane. We don't need people in the party who are subverting core American values. If we can't fix affordable housing here in the next four years then we are frauds. This will be very easy for Repubs to run against. Expect massive losses in 2020 if this is still an issue. All of us have a stake in solving California’s (and soon, the nation’s) housing-affordability crisis, whether we realize it or not.
9
If one wonders at all about the root of the problem in CA just read the comments from those in the Bay Area in particular. They all boil down to some version of, "don't come, we're full." Or, "it's the greedy developers."
5
You're right. Overcrowding and irresponsible developers are the root cause of the problem.
9
Although it makes for good click bait, the notion that someone making $180,000 can't afford to live in the Bay Area is simply not true.
8
Marx was ridiculed for characterizing history as class warfare.
1
Investment groups and foreign buyers are responsible for much of the housing cost increase in California. They are flush with cash and drive prices up through the roof (Pun intended).
In the meantime, inventory is low since the average CA resident is certainly not rich, and knows that if she/he were to sale and use the equity to make a move-up purchase, very hefty future property taxes would await them on the new home.
In the meantime, inventory is low since the average CA resident is certainly not rich, and knows that if she/he were to sale and use the equity to make a move-up purchase, very hefty future property taxes would await them on the new home.
7
Whatever "solution" is agreed upon, it will temporary. The issue at bottom is overpopulation. You can only stuff so many people in before an area is denuded and degraded. This is not just Ca.'s problem and it won't be solved by building masses of moderately priced housing.
73
Thank you!!! This is what no one wants to talk about.
4
Totally agree....except CA doesn't yet have the same over population issue as NYC in many areas that have extremely high costs for housing due to NIMBYsm. But, those complaining about too much housing are complaining about the wrong thing....housing doesn't make people but it supplies them with a core basic need, shelter. To say someone shouldn't have the right to shelter in "my city" is wrong and those people are fighting the wrong battle. The battle they should be fighting is a social issue, a population control issue.
1
Now that the drought is "solved," California seems to be trying to figure out how to make sure the next drought wreaks even more havoc: by increasing urban population density.
6
Just seven years ago you could hardly give a house away. But now conditions have changed and we have had a major increase in population with two different economies developing. There is an international tech and business economy coexisting with the standard "national" economy. Huge paychecks on one side completely imbalancing normal salaries on the other. We have to solve this problem but everything has and is moving very fast.
4
What CA needs, is to construct affordable housing away from the already congested coastal cities; and also provide high speed commuter trains to transport inland residents to coastal jobs.
It sounds unrealistic, but no more so than the thought of building more housing near the coast without the necessary infrastructure to support it.
It sounds unrealistic, but no more so than the thought of building more housing near the coast without the necessary infrastructure to support it.
7
Isn't that what we are doing with high speed rail project that most Orange County voters detest?
1
Is this article funded by developers? As anyone who has visited Hong Kong, Paris or London knows, you can build all you want and there will still be no affordable housing. At some point, quality of life matters and a large part of that is not overcrowding.
18
LOL, few people understand this. If increasing supply by building high-density housing brought down prices, it would be very cheap to live in Hong Kong, Tokyo, or Manhattan.
6
Easy to focus on California, New York Times, but why not look at your own backyard? Construction everywhere, virtually all of it offices and high end condos and rentals. Meanwhile, the subway system continues to deteriorate, the homeless population is soaring, and middle class families flee the city. More is not necessarily better.
20
The housing problems here are very real, and the lack of construction is amplified by investors and AirBnB rentals, as well as the market distortions of Prop 13 and rent control.
But there's no need to exaggerate the situation: someone making $180k does NOT need to live 2 hours away. Even for those who refuse to share a place with roommates, plenty of reasonable apartments are available in the $3k/month range, completely within reach for someone who's paid that well. If you want a 4000 sq foot house with a pool like the one pictured in the article though, well... maybe a city is not the right place for you regardless of housing prices.
But there's no need to exaggerate the situation: someone making $180k does NOT need to live 2 hours away. Even for those who refuse to share a place with roommates, plenty of reasonable apartments are available in the $3k/month range, completely within reach for someone who's paid that well. If you want a 4000 sq foot house with a pool like the one pictured in the article though, well... maybe a city is not the right place for you regardless of housing prices.
7
According to the The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey most of the cities in the U.S. are inexpensive compared to Hong Kong, China several other international cities. I just downloaded this pdf file last night and was reading it on my computer. The average home in Hong Kong costs $5 million. There are housing bubbles in cities all over the world. One of the most affordable places was Rochester, NY.
3
Be careful what you wish for. Here in Massachusetts we have a very liberal state law that requires all cities and towns to reach a percentage of "affordable housing". The local community has no say when a developer (who will build, take the money and run) proposes a project with a certain amount of "affordable housing", even if the project violates all local zoning concerning height, density, set backs, open space, etc. These kinds of laws are a handout to developers who can built as big as they want, ignoring local conditions, including traffic issues. In my nice little quiet area just outside Boston, the local government was forced to approve a six story monstrosity with no set backs from the street line, an underground parking garage using car elevators and valets to stack park, all in a neighborhood with single family houses, some triple deckers and a few low density 2-3 story condos-nothing in the neighborhood over 3 stories, and horrible traffic already-without the project-right at the intersection where the project is located. We had hundreds of neighborhood residents appear and speak out several times at public meetings opposing the project, and in the end we were ignored. In the meantime, the developer is long gone with the obscene profit, while the neighborhood will have to deal with the monstrosity forever.
17
California may be over populated now. West Coast states have some problems with balance of environment and population density. It has space to create more housing, but they want to keep the natural landscape and don't want townhomes or apartments or tiny homes. Houses has to be so big and neighborhood has to be well spread out. There are space limits though, as we can see from the traffic jam every day. I live in a suburb area in Washington state but there aren't many road options so most roads are crowded all the time. I could commute 1 hour to Seattle to get better paying job but I don't want to waste time in traffic so I'm staying close to home. If 200k annually is not enough to live close to work, you are clearly underpaid. If there isn't housing for you, you don't really belong there. You are basically a migrant worker every day if you have to commute hours everyday. Silicon Valley companies could disrupt the housing industry (not in the Airbnb way) and make the workers work from home but nope. They are still building office spaces in huge campus because they want the workers to never grow up and realize they are basically underpaid college graduates.
4
Just wait until California enacts a single payer health care system, including for undocumented individuals, and becomes a Sanctuary state, and see how the population increases, making the housing shortage even worse.
5
The California elitist have almost accomplished their goal, i.e. making California a nice park where only the wealthy live. While the working class have been busy toiling, those with the wherewithal keep passing protectionist laws raising prices for virtually everything.
8
I have very strong mixed feelings about the cost of housing in California. I think it's positively absurd how high prices have gotten for even the most undesirable of options, but there isn't a good solution to the problem.
Increasing supply in an effort to stabilize or lower prices is a fools errand. The factors that keep people moving here aren't going away, if anything they're intensifying. Building more housing is a short-term solution. More supply will be met by increased demand, such that by increasing the housing stock or lowering prices we'll actually get more people moving here (or relocating to the hot areas), and we'll be in a constant race to catch up to the ever-increasing demand for housing.
Add to that the fact that any increase in housing density requires increased infrastructure investment, and we've got a real conundrum on our hands. As Robert Moses eventually learned after he'd rammed expressways through New York City, creating infrastructure supply creates demand, and unless you keep up with that demand, it's not long before those new roads are overloaded, too. Housing is no different. Anyone who's recently driven the 405 in Los Angeles can tell you that adding two lanes did nothing to speed up the flow of traffic during the morning rush hour. The only thing adding additional housing stock will do is temporarily halt the rise of prices.
Increasing supply in an effort to stabilize or lower prices is a fools errand. The factors that keep people moving here aren't going away, if anything they're intensifying. Building more housing is a short-term solution. More supply will be met by increased demand, such that by increasing the housing stock or lowering prices we'll actually get more people moving here (or relocating to the hot areas), and we'll be in a constant race to catch up to the ever-increasing demand for housing.
Add to that the fact that any increase in housing density requires increased infrastructure investment, and we've got a real conundrum on our hands. As Robert Moses eventually learned after he'd rammed expressways through New York City, creating infrastructure supply creates demand, and unless you keep up with that demand, it's not long before those new roads are overloaded, too. Housing is no different. Anyone who's recently driven the 405 in Los Angeles can tell you that adding two lanes did nothing to speed up the flow of traffic during the morning rush hour. The only thing adding additional housing stock will do is temporarily halt the rise of prices.
9
It's called induced demand and is a very real issue. Thanks for highlighting it.
1
Many must wonder what is a greater tragedy: that a great state has been brought to the edge of a collapse or that there isn't a single Republican to blame for it?
7
Actually one could beat up on republicans' religion (capitalism w/o any control).
2
In the long run, this is the best problem some select cities in California are facing. This is a region open to innovation, change, and rapid adoption of new ideas. The house building industry today is largely a cottage industry, relying on foreign labor, Materials have become more expensive, much of the work is labor intensive.
I suspect California will be open to new housing technologies, new building technologies, new engineering technologies. Injection molding, extruding, pre-fab, with new materials, and new designs - cannot become part of housing unless they are adopted in California. As solutions emerge (read: cheap, environmentally friendly, concentrated living), I suspect the whole world will benefit. They did when the semiconductor was invented.
Kalidan
I suspect California will be open to new housing technologies, new building technologies, new engineering technologies. Injection molding, extruding, pre-fab, with new materials, and new designs - cannot become part of housing unless they are adopted in California. As solutions emerge (read: cheap, environmentally friendly, concentrated living), I suspect the whole world will benefit. They did when the semiconductor was invented.
Kalidan
2
Yeah, they have some pretty realistic looking heavy stone looking styrofoam painted… You can hardly tell except you can lift them up like those Motion picture props used for stunts
I recently bought a modular house....nice design, good construction materials. Went up in a jiffy. Can't tell it from a stick-built product. I wondered why all new construction isn't done this way.
1
Probably because it's politically toxic, rent control has not been addressed as one of the leading causes of the high rents. People never move, and landlords need to leech off the new comers to subsidize tenants paying artificially ridiculously low rents, regardless of their incomes. I am a resident manager in San Francisco. In our single building, we have an attorney paying $500 for a large one bedroom and young couples paying $3000 for what amounts to closet space. Even your own Paul Krugman made this argument in the pages of the Times.
11
This is a huge crisis, but how many people can live here? This article focuses on the housing crisis, but how do you manage impassable traffic, a state with next to zero mass transit, and more than 38 million people? As I grew up in Sunnyvale in the 60's, housing tracts replaced the orchard. Now, there are zero orchards left to build housing on. San Jose has grown from 100,000 in 1950 to 1 million today. And just try to drive from San Jose to Palo Alto. Commute times have grown 5 or 10 times in the last 20 years. Maybe we should face the fact that there is just not a shortage of housing, but rather some mindless idea that cramming more people into the same spaces only requires that we make it even easier for developers to get rich. Imagine we reached a balance in the near future, what about the next generation and the next?
33
The Northeast Corridor has significantly more people than CA in about 1/5 the land area and, while also being relatively expensive, manages to avoid most of the drama of CA.
The problem in CA is the obsession with a suburban aesthetic and the stubborn refusal to build the physical or social infrastructure that a large metropolis requires.
The problem in CA is the obsession with a suburban aesthetic and the stubborn refusal to build the physical or social infrastructure that a large metropolis requires.
5
The pessimism that the astronomically growing cost of housing and unsupportable rise in population density is unsolvable is incorrect. Unfortunately Mother Nature has a solution. In 2003, the USGS predicted that the probability of a major destructive earthquake in the Bay area between 2002 and 2031 is 0.62. ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-214/WG02_OFR-03-214_ExecSummary.pdf). Only 14 more years to '31. If it doesn't happen by then, the odds go up. I hope the building standards to protect against earthquakes are sufficient for the next 'big one'. But housing prices will fall; hopefully most houses won't.
6
At $180K, the nurse that is mentioned could certainly afford to live a lot closer to her job, but not in the size house she can afford in Manteca. She could live in Hayward or another more affordable Bay Area City, and take BART to work.
What's needed is a faster way to commute from Manteca, Tracy, Lathrop, and Stockton, into the job centers. But no one wants to pay for the necessary infrastructure. Those paying high rents and high mortgages to live closer to work don't want to subsidize mass transit for those choosing to live far from their jobs to pay less in housing costs.
And she could certainly get a high-paying nursing job closer to Manteca than San Francisco, in eastern Alameda or Contra Costa county.
What's needed is a faster way to commute from Manteca, Tracy, Lathrop, and Stockton, into the job centers. But no one wants to pay for the necessary infrastructure. Those paying high rents and high mortgages to live closer to work don't want to subsidize mass transit for those choosing to live far from their jobs to pay less in housing costs.
And she could certainly get a high-paying nursing job closer to Manteca than San Francisco, in eastern Alameda or Contra Costa county.
14
And the reason the government in Calif is not building or modernizing transpiration infrastructure is Exhibit A in the case against unaccountable, regressive, corrupt, activist Big Government. Answer that question, and the answer to why Trump won will emerge.
1
"Still, economists say, the high cost of all housing is first and foremost the result of a failure to build."
Wrong. Overpopulation is the problem, high demand for housing is the symptom.
Wrong. Overpopulation is the problem, high demand for housing is the symptom.
18
Absolutely. "Affordable" housing would only bring in millions more people who would like to live in CA--or at least, what CA used to offer prior to immutable traffic congestion and water rationing.
3
I don't think California is alone but it is certainly extreme here. Houses in San Francisco sell for over a million dollars - many suburban towns have the same issues/pricing. Builders all want to build deluxe high-end homes and pretty soon the middle-class and definely the poor are driven out. In another country there would be entrepreneurs building affordable homes that are smaller but not in the greedy USA.
5
I am a developer and I am trying to build median income housing. It is not about greed. It is not economically viable, particularly infill projects, due to land cost, local fees and nimby obstruction that uses CEQA for perverse objectives. Affordable Housing is incentivized and subsidized (density bonuses etc ) and high-end luxury is lucrative. But building for target market of 80-120% AMI is not really economically viable unless you are doing it in greenfield development hours away from job centers.
3
What we need, what the economy needs, is a really big stock market crash.
That will fix it. And the Fed will be all outa ammo.
That will fix it. And the Fed will be all outa ammo.
3
That sounds like an excellent start!
Trump is working on that, as we type. But how to cut down the population?
Part of the solution might be for companies to allow employees to work more hours from home. Then, they can live in places like Manteca and work for companies in San Francisco, without having to endure a 2-hour commute each way. In response to IT'SJUSTME's comment: In fact, many of the well-paying jobs, in industries which require trained professionals (high-tech, finance, etc .) are in places like San Francisco and New York, where housing is fast becoming unaffordable, unless you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
4
The woman quoted in the article who commutes from Manteca to San Francisco is a nurse. That's definitely one job that can't be done remotely.
4
The law of supply and demand doesn't work when supply just drives even greater demand, and fortunately some local governments are beginning to understand this reality.
You can't create affordable housing by building luxury housing, it doesn't work that way, but developers have no reason to support affordable housing since it is less profitable.
The solution is clear, but expensive. It's been proven to work all over the world. Build transit systems that can bring people in, quickly, from outlying locations with more land for housing. Look at the Long Island Railroad, the NYC subway with trains out to less expensive boroughs. Look at Tokyo. Look at Seoul. Look at Hong Kong. High-rise, high-density housing didn't result in lower housing costs in these cities, but you can commute in from outside the city pretty fast.
We need to stop building more housing in areas with no viable transit systems because expanding existing freeways, or building new ones, is not possible.
The sad thing is the YIMBYs who are well-meaning but don't realize that they are being played for fools by developers. The idea of just building massive amounts of housing, without the infrastructure of parks, schools, transit, etc., and then believing that once you make things even more intolerable that somehow the money and land will be found to fix the problems that are created, is incredibly naïve.
You can't create affordable housing by building luxury housing, it doesn't work that way, but developers have no reason to support affordable housing since it is less profitable.
The solution is clear, but expensive. It's been proven to work all over the world. Build transit systems that can bring people in, quickly, from outlying locations with more land for housing. Look at the Long Island Railroad, the NYC subway with trains out to less expensive boroughs. Look at Tokyo. Look at Seoul. Look at Hong Kong. High-rise, high-density housing didn't result in lower housing costs in these cities, but you can commute in from outside the city pretty fast.
We need to stop building more housing in areas with no viable transit systems because expanding existing freeways, or building new ones, is not possible.
The sad thing is the YIMBYs who are well-meaning but don't realize that they are being played for fools by developers. The idea of just building massive amounts of housing, without the infrastructure of parks, schools, transit, etc., and then believing that once you make things even more intolerable that somehow the money and land will be found to fix the problems that are created, is incredibly naïve.
18
Not that long ago, in the days of Gray Davis and then the Great Recession, the storyline was that California was about to go bankrupt, and then either shrivel up (drought) or fall into the Pacific (earthquakes). Non-Californians used to gloat when I met them in the airport. Now California once again leads the nation economically and as a political alternative to the current Administration. Alas, the storyline is still that we are doomed, this time due to our successes.
6
Simple solution: require all new office buildings in California to include a dormitory housing component and require existing buildings to add dorms for businesses of a certain size. Most high-tech workers work 60 hours a week, often working on weekends, and only use their residences to sleep. Why drive an hour just to sleep in an overpriced apartment or bungalow when you could walk five minutes to your comfy 400-square-foot pod?
6
Adding more housing isn't always a good solution. Berkeley is building tons of new apartment and condo units. They're far from done and already the increase in traffic is off the charts, not to mention aggression as drivers navigate congested roads all day long (not just rush hour). And what is it doing to air quality? More and more friends' kids are suffering from asthma. And then there's the water issues...
18
Hot California housing market? To listen to Texas Governor Abbott and his lieutenants, one would think half of California had already immigrated to The Lone Star State.
3
Excessive wealth is inflationary.
The 40 year shove of riches to the top tier of our population has people crazy with purchasing power and causes them to overpay for everything from housing to garden hoses, from beer to Basquiats.
The cost of everything goes up when people are willing to pay anything.
Rich people drive the housing cost spiral as well, whether purchase or rental.
So…
Take more money from them in taxes.
It will force them to make ends meet like the rest of us in a responsible way. It will hold down inflation in housing.
(tax landlords especially - why raise rents if you get taxed on 90% of the raise)
And with the taxes we can educate kids, secure and spruce up their neighborhoods, help families with job support and health care and generally maintain the best quality of life for the greatest number of Americans possible.
Then, these hundreds of millions of happy folks will make the economy hum and the wealthy will keep doing well.
And, we'll keep taxing them and the virtuous cycle carries on.
Ya know, like Norway.
The 40 year shove of riches to the top tier of our population has people crazy with purchasing power and causes them to overpay for everything from housing to garden hoses, from beer to Basquiats.
The cost of everything goes up when people are willing to pay anything.
Rich people drive the housing cost spiral as well, whether purchase or rental.
So…
Take more money from them in taxes.
It will force them to make ends meet like the rest of us in a responsible way. It will hold down inflation in housing.
(tax landlords especially - why raise rents if you get taxed on 90% of the raise)
And with the taxes we can educate kids, secure and spruce up their neighborhoods, help families with job support and health care and generally maintain the best quality of life for the greatest number of Americans possible.
Then, these hundreds of millions of happy folks will make the economy hum and the wealthy will keep doing well.
And, we'll keep taxing them and the virtuous cycle carries on.
Ya know, like Norway.
10
In Texas, Trump Republicans are trying to stifle the local control of rational-growth Austin in order to make it an easier target for greedy developers (out with the trees, in with the concrete). In Califorinia, it's left-wing pols like Wiener who want to do the same thing to California cities, with the same outcome—providing a rich harvest for greedy developers who will leave a legacy of congestion and blight for the thoughtful citizens who actually live in those cities and who have fought to keep them livable. The dimensions of this "crisis" are overblown, and the "solutions" will turn California into another ugly, asphalted, treeless, developer-heaven Texas. No thanks!
10
I live in the Bay Area and do not understand why the San Francisco nurse who earns $180,00 a year needs to live in Manteca. Perhaps a bit of an extreme example...?
11
It's voodoo economics. Of course she can afford to live in San Francisco. Best guess is that she 1) Inflated her income to the reporter, 2) Is hyperbolic, 3) Has other priorities about where to spend her money.
7
The problem with these bills is they use a sledgehammer one size fits all approach. I live in a small community of 7,500 people, with only one through road in much of the town, passing thru a narrow valley. Roads are jammed, schools are bursting at the seams, we have very limited public transit and because of high building costs and lack of buildable lots, it is absurd to treat us like Sacramento or Oakland... but that's what is happening. Were there a major fire here, getting out would be treacherous for many of the residents. An earthquake could isolate the town and neighboring rural communities. But the governor and the legislature are saying build, build, build, no matter what - and if you don't build, we will force it on you.
I am all for affordable housing, but it would be nice if the legislature and Jerry Brown realized that not all communities are the same, or equally able to share the burden.
I am all for affordable housing, but it would be nice if the legislature and Jerry Brown realized that not all communities are the same, or equally able to share the burden.
7
More housing won't solve a more fundamental problem. At least in the Bay Area, there is not sufficient infrastructure, not to mention water, to accommodate this many people. The influx of a half million or so more people in the last five years turned a difficult problem into an impossible mess. Even if they all had more affordable living options, there still are not viable ways to get around. We need more and better roads and serious mass transit.
10
I live in the East Bay area, and the nurse who makes $180,000 annually can definitely afford a house in Manteca, Tracy, Lathrop, and even Livermore or Dublin. I do not know why that nurse is renting but not buying, but if she wished to buy a house in Manteca she could definitely afford a home with that salary. I know several people with salaries half that amount who have bought houses in these areas. Still the price of housing in this area is really overpriced for what a person actually gets. The value is not there. Yet, in what other parts of the country would a nurse be making $180,000 in the first place?
13
She's not looking to buy in Manteca - it's a 2 hour commute to her job in SF.
6
She can afford a house closer to SF as well. She could afford to buy in Berkeley, Oakland, Livermore, Alameda, Hayward. There are many places closer to SF which she could afford with $180000 salary.
6
If she really makes $180,000, she could buy a townhouse in Redwood City or San Mateo. She doesn't even need to cross a bridge. However, she won't have a huge yard, etc. People make choices about what is important to them. Some care about a huge house and move further away while others care more about their time and are willing to live in a smaller house.
The housing affordability issue is in many locales and is so much more complex than simply allowing denser development. Given the complex nature of the issue, a city simply cannot build their way out of a housing affordability crisis. Even some of the most dense cities with the highest high rises still don't have affordable housing. We have a growing discrepancy of wealth, and most Americans simply can't compete with the investors who have deep pockets. In a free market, the number of deep pocket investors is unlimited, and they come from all over the world.
13
The roads are gridlocked and the mass transit systems are crumbling. How many more houses need to be built to accommodate how many more people and cars?
15
One thing that somehow is never figured into these conversations is water. Although California had a decent water year this year, we are in a ten year drought that may well continue. Where is the water going to come from for all this new proposed housing?
15
If my fellow Californians are skeptical about empowering developers to ruin their cities, they should consider the Portland alternative: change zoning regulations to allow homeowners to add units in their back yards. That way at least the gains would go to residents, making mortgage payments more affordable. Attempts to increase density in Santa Barbara by building mixed use developments have merely produced a bunch of luxury condos for the pied a terre market. And Helene Schneider supported those btw. But for the Portland model to work short-term rentals would have to be prohibited. Already a lot of rental housing in CA is being converted to short-term rentals and this is driving rents through the roof as well as ruining neighborhoods.
10
The population of California is not necessarily growing that much, and many neighboring states blame their problems on Californian emigrants. I suspect that some of the existing housing units are vacant after being purchased as second homes by very wealthy people, or are filled at low densities by high income families.
4
Attraction of the Silicon Valley for job opportunities and networking is understandable, as is the attraction of being in the midst of the happening place. One solution is for major employers in the Silicon Valley to have satellite offices within California at locations that is attractive professionally and can offer affordable housing combined with a better quality of life than the traffic jams of the Bay Area. The big employers could pool resources and create an alternate city in the foothills of Sierra Nevada mountains, 100 miles east of the Bay Area. The location is scenic, air is clean and land is cheap. The Big Companies can provide for the best schools, hospitals and other community services. The housing and rents could be a third of the price of Silicon Valley. Most people will work in the new location, but there would be frequent plane trips of 30 minutes to San Jose and San Francisco and Oakland. When resources are pooled the project may not be as expensive for individual companies. Government can provide subsidy. The buildings would be environmentally compatible in a cityscape that would blend in the surroundings. Some companies already have offices in Sacramento and have a regular plane service. But the scenic location of Sierra Nevada foot hills is slightly cooler and more livable space close to recreation and wine country. (I do not work for any chamber of commerce!). This solution provides low cost housing but with Silicon Valley benefits.
4
I suggest that these high tech companies move some of their jobs to red states. Their inhabitants could use the jobs.
6
How would victims of the Kansas education system be able to hold technology jobs?
Why would a technology based firm move to an area where the Republican majority thinks college hurts the country?
Why would an Asian - American engineer move to Trump country?
The Red states have at least an image problem to solve before they can attract today's high tech jobs.
Why would a technology based firm move to an area where the Republican majority thinks college hurts the country?
Why would an Asian - American engineer move to Trump country?
The Red states have at least an image problem to solve before they can attract today's high tech jobs.
5
Everything but the coastal weather and the Bay Area's wonderful diversity seem untenable in California. I am one of the few (and lucky) first time homeowners without an eye-popping hi-tech salary that was able to get in during this current real estate boom, albeit with modest family help. But - and I suspect it is due in part to the impact prop 13 has had on school funding - the school we are zoned for is mediocre. Our mortgage may be high, but it's less than if we were renting, and it's almost 50% less than what we pay for non-fancy, full-time childcare for two kids. When all these costs add up, it's really difficult for middle class, young families with two working parents to make their way here. The high cost of housing makes everything more expensive. Sticking it out requires a leap of faith. Having lived in a few other midwestern, east coast, and southern states, I wouldn't live anywhere else in the US. I hope we can continue to make it work until we're ready to retire and cash out!
6
The Bay Area's diversity? More languages are spoke in L.A. County than anywhere else in the world.
3
How do middle income people afford to live in cities like this? How do teachers and cops and nurses afford this? You'd think at some point, these cities would have no firefighters, cops, teachers and be forced to provide lower income housing for normal people.
10
Most seem to earn six-figures.
CA voters will repeal Prop 13 whenever the legislature agrees that property taxes will be collected and spent by localities, not diverted to the state government to be redistributed - distorted by political influence in Sacramento -
to whomever they deign worthy. (This would make California resemble the other 49 states in the union).
Over to you Sacramento.
to whomever they deign worthy. (This would make California resemble the other 49 states in the union).
Over to you Sacramento.
4
Don't believe that you understand California real estate based upon what any one source tells you about it. Few who raise the subject are not trying to spin facts to gain some advantage. Low income housing is small profit housing and no developer will offer much of it comparison to luxury housing. Each development produces demands upon infrastructure and the existing communities that degrades quality of life and drives up all costs. The costs of real estate are increased by these developments which attracts investors during slow economic periods and drives up prices even more. Proposition 13 was passed because real prices shot ten times in a few years raising property taxes so high that a great proportion of homeowners could not afford them. Developers with local governments have destroyed wetlands that produce sea life and offer migrating birds refuge. The once abundant seas are no longer able to support commercial fishing. Their efforts to develop into wild areas makes wild fires destroy a lot more homes. Meanwhile, some advocates for more low income housing are hoping to replace single family dwellings with multi-story apartments to greatly increase the density of the population. It's a very complex situation with no clearly good ways to make it better.
10
This is a nationwide problem in major metropolitan areas, not exclusive to California. Without increasing the housing stock (supply) demand (price) will never go down. If new units are actually built, developers don't build middle class units, they maximize profits by building luxury units. And the ones that buy them are the wealthy, who use it as an investment property (not for residing in) for luxury rentals or Air BnB units.
Cities need to enforce construction of actually affordable units and make them available as residential only properties for single home owners (one home), and tax the daylights out of property ownership as investments unless used as affordable rental units, not AirBnB units.
Cities need to enforce construction of actually affordable units and make them available as residential only properties for single home owners (one home), and tax the daylights out of property ownership as investments unless used as affordable rental units, not AirBnB units.
13
There is no instant solution unfortunately. For the time being the best advice I can give you is: work hard, be patient, save as much as you can, and be content with incremental steps towards your goal of owning a home in California. It's not an easy thing to do but once you've succeeded and you have purchased a home, California is the best place I can possibly imagine to live.
2
Nice thought, but reality bites. Mortgages over 25% of net income do not allow for retirement or emergency savings, and become disastrous if a spouse loses their job.
Two bedrooms in my formerly-affordable Sacramento neighborhood now begin at $500k. I am a boomer and feel despair for young people trying to make their way.
No one should feel smug about their home's value when it means a community suffers.
Two bedrooms in my formerly-affordable Sacramento neighborhood now begin at $500k. I am a boomer and feel despair for young people trying to make their way.
No one should feel smug about their home's value when it means a community suffers.
11
I work at UC Berkeley. There are many faculty members leaving the university because of housing costs, not to mention undergraduates living in their cars or on houseboats because of how expensive the area is (and how little housing there is for students provided by the university). Faculty members with children often live in one-bedroom apartments, kids and parents in a single bedroom. We "joke" that there are generations of faculty based on housing: those who came here in the 1970s live in the hills, those who came in the 1990s live in houses in Berkeley, those who came in the early 2000s live in flats, and those who came more recently don't live in Berkeley at all.
As for me, thank goodness for rent control...
As for me, thank goodness for rent control...
13
As a Berkeley renter with rent control I feel sorry for students at the mercy of these slumlords who are feasting on the lack of student housing. The rents in my building have doubled in the past five years, but the property continues to deteriorate from lack of upkeep, the owner lives back east what does she care except that turnover remain high so she can keep upping the rents. Maintaining the building might encourage people to stay.
5
In California the middle class have profoundly resented being taxed to pay for housing for the poor and working class. I doubt that sentiment is going to go away. California's Democratic Party may find themselves the subject of a backlash as a result of some of the extreme proposals before the Legislature which won't solve anything. Here are some of the real causes of high costs in constructing new housing regardless who is going to live there
1 Very very high land prices
2 Very high costs of building water lines, sewer lines, storm drains and lines, streets, curbs, sidewalks, sewage treatment plant expansions, water treatment plant expansions and other infrastructure which is common in all areas throughout California
3 Construction methods which must include permanent earthquake resistance features
4 Construction methods which must include energy efficiency measures, such as more and better insulation
Those costs are not going to be reduced, regardless of what the Legislature and Governor do to facilitate the building of new housing
And just wait until the urban areas are hit with the 7.8 earthquake which the seismologists and geologists across the state have been predicting for several years. Californians will see many collapses of older apartment buildings, broken gas lines causing widespread fires burning down densely packed housing neighborhoods, and sewer systems not working for 6+ months. Rents on remaining housing will skyrocket, bringing more homelessness
1 Very very high land prices
2 Very high costs of building water lines, sewer lines, storm drains and lines, streets, curbs, sidewalks, sewage treatment plant expansions, water treatment plant expansions and other infrastructure which is common in all areas throughout California
3 Construction methods which must include permanent earthquake resistance features
4 Construction methods which must include energy efficiency measures, such as more and better insulation
Those costs are not going to be reduced, regardless of what the Legislature and Governor do to facilitate the building of new housing
And just wait until the urban areas are hit with the 7.8 earthquake which the seismologists and geologists across the state have been predicting for several years. Californians will see many collapses of older apartment buildings, broken gas lines causing widespread fires burning down densely packed housing neighborhoods, and sewer systems not working for 6+ months. Rents on remaining housing will skyrocket, bringing more homelessness
9
Build New Housing - Decentralize good paying jobs. Bring tech to the Valley. - Build high speed rail connecting the Highway 99 corridor with the Bay Area. We need to make our homes where we work. And when we want to connect to other cities, their industries, entertainment, culture, there is clean fast public transit getting you there.
12
Overpopulation is a far worse problem than unaffordable housing, as it ruins the quality of life. It's overpopulation drives up housing costs in the first place.
22
My daughter took a job as a software engineer in the Silicon Valley a year ago. She and her boyfriend share a tiny one bedroom tiny apartment in Mountain View for $3000 a month. Their lease is coming up next month.
But Mountain View has passed rent control which is now caught up in litigation. The management company for their apartment complex has just told all lessees they will not renew any leases but will only allow month-to-month rental until the litigation clarifies what is going on in the marketplace. Who can blame the management company? Well-meaning but deeply inept wealthy liberals cause all kinds of unintended consequences in their effort to protect their lifestyle. Such hypocrites.
But Mountain View has passed rent control which is now caught up in litigation. The management company for their apartment complex has just told all lessees they will not renew any leases but will only allow month-to-month rental until the litigation clarifies what is going on in the marketplace. Who can blame the management company? Well-meaning but deeply inept wealthy liberals cause all kinds of unintended consequences in their effort to protect their lifestyle. Such hypocrites.
10
ohio--please to not comment on housing in California. you know not of what you speak.
4
Under California law, after an initial lease term of one year, the tenancy becomes month to month unless a new lease is executed. There's no such thing as "renewing a lease". A new lease must be executed to keep the tenancy from going month to month. No new lease, the tenancy is automatically month to month.
6
Your comment makes no sense to me. We have something here called prop 13 that is just like rent control but for property taxes. It has nothing to do with "liberal hypocrites," please get your facts straight!
7
Staggering that out of nearly 800 comments so far, with passionate outrage and creative solutions aplenty, fewer than 15 even mention the words RENT CONTOL. For a landlord, being able to charge whatever the market will support to pay does not have to be an inalienable "right." The system supporting that "right" stems from a collective political choice -- one that can change. Societies -- at national and subnational levels -- make decisions about what they value. With the collective good as a standard, the U.S.A. has performed terribly in its choices over the past few decades. Building more housing alone won't solve this problem unless it's combined with rent control and other redistributive measures.
10
In San Francisco, rent control and vacancy control does have the positive attribute of encouraging landlords to exit the rental housing business and convert their buildings to tenants-in-common for-sale housing. Unfortunately it also encourage short-term rentals as a way around confiscatory rent control and vacancy control.
If the rent increase limit were changed to something more reasonable, like 4%, there would not be so many Ellis Act conversions.
If the rent increase limit were changed to something more reasonable, like 4%, there would not be so many Ellis Act conversions.
2
Rent control has been proven to make housing shortages worse, not better. Building slows or comes to a halt and there is less housing to go around. Landlords are risking their money to build housing. Telling them that they have to let someone live in the landlord's property for what the government says is a fair rent
1
On a point regarding NIMBY-ism: one of the reasons many local residents object to housing developments is that the city never follows up on housing development with infrastructure and public service investment. My son's elementary school is facing the prospect of losing its science and art programs next year due to a lack of space to run these programs. In Los Gatos, I know that the large housing development there was objected to by many residents because the schools are already overcrowded and the traffic through that town is unbearable already, especially in the summer months as South Bay area dwellers drive to the beach.
Infrastructure is the biggest problem in the Bay Area. There is no point in building thousands of houses if there is not enough expansion of the road network and investment in schools to take account of the new residents.
Infrastructure is the biggest problem in the Bay Area. There is no point in building thousands of houses if there is not enough expansion of the road network and investment in schools to take account of the new residents.
21
This plan needs to move forward lock step with an improved public transportation system.
5
Having spent 22 years living along coastal Cali - from SD to SF to OC to LA & now back in SD (affordable compared to SF or coastal OC/LA!) - I have experienced the housing issues firsthand - as owner/seller & landlord/tenant. There is no silver bullet but the 1% property tax rule (enacted during the Cali conservative Jarvis 70's) is a great place to start. It keeps too many homes off the open market, instead exchanging homes off-market to avoid an open sale and new tax assessment.
Also since the Great Recession lenders prefer $1M RE loans than smaller loans that require the same amount of work with the same risk. Unfortunately another "correction" (hapoens every 8-16 years out here...) will have to roil some of the hottest RE markets. Hopefully sparring families from losing their only home this time. Viva Cali!!!
Also since the Great Recession lenders prefer $1M RE loans than smaller loans that require the same amount of work with the same risk. Unfortunately another "correction" (hapoens every 8-16 years out here...) will have to roil some of the hottest RE markets. Hopefully sparring families from losing their only home this time. Viva Cali!!!
8
One line in the article cites the failure to build housing. As a 48 year resident who moved from two other major cities, the real embarrassment and crisis is the failure to build adequate transportation such as trains that exists in at least some other major cities on the east coast and Midwest. A city like Chicago has numerous ways to get into the city. Los Angeles does also now have more adequate transportation than decades ago. Why that didn't become a goal for the state is a mystery. Everywhere here it is still largely single vehicles with one person, the driver only.
14
There is a law against driving while distracted. Passengers are always distractions.
"All politics is local," and, in parts of California, all politics is Growth vs. No Growth, which knows no normal political boundaries. Weathy conservative ocean front land owners team up with poor liberal environmentalists to stop any and all housing development, especially "affordable" housing.
Along the California Coast, no-growthers have been successfully blocking development for decades by hiding behind the skirts of environmentalism.
Compare it to the 60's civil rights, the Feds had to move in and force communities to obey the laws. Perhaps it's time to do the same with California communities.
Along the California Coast, no-growthers have been successfully blocking development for decades by hiding behind the skirts of environmentalism.
Compare it to the 60's civil rights, the Feds had to move in and force communities to obey the laws. Perhaps it's time to do the same with California communities.
7
Let me get this straight. Prop 13 is to blame for the housing shortage?
"And Proposition 13, the sweeping voter initiative passed in 1978 that capped property taxes, has made things worse: It had the effect of shrinking the housing stock by encouraging homeowners to hold on to properties to take advantage of the low taxes."
I am a union employee earning a decent wage and decent benefits, my partner makes a bit more hourly with no benefits. We live in a modest home and pay Prop 13 taxes. We are not "holding on" to our property to take advantage of low taxes, we hold on to our house because we live there. Without Prop 13, we would be forced to sell our home and move out of San Francisco, the city where I grew up, if Prop 13 were repealed. Those proponents for repealing Prop 13 don't remember the skyrocketing property taxes of the 1970's that made capping property taxes a necessity for the middle class and elderly retired people it was meant to protect.
We should be asking, who stands to profit from this incessant call to build? The developers: they want to build and sell ad infinitum. And governments are falling for the developers cries of distress for having to follow local zoning laws.
Repealing Prop 13 will force out middle income families like mine, simply to be replaced with the rich. What you will be left with is a society of very high earners and very low earners, with the retired middle class exiled to locales where we have no connections and no roots.
"And Proposition 13, the sweeping voter initiative passed in 1978 that capped property taxes, has made things worse: It had the effect of shrinking the housing stock by encouraging homeowners to hold on to properties to take advantage of the low taxes."
I am a union employee earning a decent wage and decent benefits, my partner makes a bit more hourly with no benefits. We live in a modest home and pay Prop 13 taxes. We are not "holding on" to our property to take advantage of low taxes, we hold on to our house because we live there. Without Prop 13, we would be forced to sell our home and move out of San Francisco, the city where I grew up, if Prop 13 were repealed. Those proponents for repealing Prop 13 don't remember the skyrocketing property taxes of the 1970's that made capping property taxes a necessity for the middle class and elderly retired people it was meant to protect.
We should be asking, who stands to profit from this incessant call to build? The developers: they want to build and sell ad infinitum. And governments are falling for the developers cries of distress for having to follow local zoning laws.
Repealing Prop 13 will force out middle income families like mine, simply to be replaced with the rich. What you will be left with is a society of very high earners and very low earners, with the retired middle class exiled to locales where we have no connections and no roots.
28
So you got yours and that's it? Dip it in amber or maybe a tar pit and call it a day? Nice.
"We should be asking, who stands to profit from this incessant call to build?"
The millions of Bay Area residents who didn't have the good fortune to be of home buying age before prices became completely untethered from reality, for starters?!
"What you will be left with is a society of very high earners and very low earners, with the retired middle class exiled to locales where we have no connections and no roots."
That's already happened. The remaining middle class is window dressing. You can't make a future out of the lucky few that inherit a Prop 13 tax basis. Do you have a solution or you're just happy to be one of the last winners? What about an interest free lien that was collectable on transfer? What about an incentive to add an in-law unit to your property?
"We should be asking, who stands to profit from this incessant call to build?"
The millions of Bay Area residents who didn't have the good fortune to be of home buying age before prices became completely untethered from reality, for starters?!
"What you will be left with is a society of very high earners and very low earners, with the retired middle class exiled to locales where we have no connections and no roots."
That's already happened. The remaining middle class is window dressing. You can't make a future out of the lucky few that inherit a Prop 13 tax basis. Do you have a solution or you're just happy to be one of the last winners? What about an interest free lien that was collectable on transfer? What about an incentive to add an in-law unit to your property?
4
My point is not that we should halt all new developments and discourage people from moving to California. I think the new high density and infill housing units in San Francisco are great, and would support more in my area. But pulling the rug out from long time residents by increasing their property taxes by tens of thousands of dollars annually will be forcing out the very people who proponents of repealing Prop 13 purport to want to help. I am not a high earner, I work in the service industry and form part of the workforce that makes San Francisco such a desirable place in which to live. I'm not happy about the state of housing in this region, and I don't pretend to have a solution to this any more than I do for the other complex issues affecting this city, but I do know that punishing "lucky" middle class people like me because some believe me undeserving of my long time home are falling victim to the trap of making the lower classes blame each other and fight for crumbs while the big power/money players reap the benefits of our infighting.
10
You are 100% correct. I was around when the voters enacted Proposition 13 and I have been around to read all of the "Save Proposition 13" amendments which the voters have passed to bat-down attempts by money-grubbing city, county and school district politicians and employees have tried to inflict on Californians as a means of increasing local government revenues.
In times when the State of California's cash flow drops they raid each city and county's real estate tax collections to balance the state's boondoggle filled budget, leaving local governments to scrape along. Local government employees, virtually all of whom are union members, get angry when they don't get pay increases because the State has hijacked their employer's cash flow. Those local government employees' unions are among the strongest voices to alter or repeal Proposition 13. If those employees annual housing costs are increased as a result of the repeal of Proposition 13 they will just ask their local government agency employees for raises.
Thank heavens for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association which has done a yeoman's job over the past 35+/- years litigating to defend California taxpayers rights.
In times when the State of California's cash flow drops they raid each city and county's real estate tax collections to balance the state's boondoggle filled budget, leaving local governments to scrape along. Local government employees, virtually all of whom are union members, get angry when they don't get pay increases because the State has hijacked their employer's cash flow. Those local government employees' unions are among the strongest voices to alter or repeal Proposition 13. If those employees annual housing costs are increased as a result of the repeal of Proposition 13 they will just ask their local government agency employees for raises.
Thank heavens for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association which has done a yeoman's job over the past 35+/- years litigating to defend California taxpayers rights.
4
There is a nice Case Study house for sale in La Canada Flintridge right now for $2,995,000. According to the listing the most recent property tax bill for 2016 was $3,036. Prop 13 is inflating property values and clearly needs to be amended.
16
with time, that inhabitant will pass away, to be replaced by someone paying 3m for the house and able to pay the 30k taxes, which is happening all over my neighborhood in SF.
5
I'm seeing this in real time in Boston. Reading these comments has been validating to me, as many folks have pointed out, it is the vast number of Chinese buyers who are influencing the market to an absurd degree. It is cut throat. Multiple offers have no chance when a buyer presents to paying five figures above the asking price, and all cash. There is an actual realty firm here with title "Move to Boston" with the rest in Mandarin. The NYT had a recent article about Chinese buyers in Denton, Texas. We are the Cayman Islands to wealthy Chinese looking to park their money and acquire schooling and citizenship for their children, and eventually themselves. No one is talking about this.
55
We've sent trillions of dollars to China over the course of the past couple decades to buy stuff we are unwilling to make ourselves. That money is not just an abstraction; it represents real purchasing power that we've traded away due both to our low-price, low-industry consumerism and corporate shareholder obsession.
And now it is finding a home back here in a way that is really starting to hurt. Perhaps we should think about building some of our own toasters and sofas and batteries again.
And now it is finding a home back here in a way that is really starting to hurt. Perhaps we should think about building some of our own toasters and sofas and batteries again.
14
How can mainland Chinese nationals just up and leave for the US? How is any of this possible? Is China going to nose dive or is their economy expected to bottom out? What's the deal? anyone know????
2
Most former factory workers that built toasters, sofas, and batteries were quite willing to make those items. It was the factories that went overseas leaving the workers out in the cold.
4
As a former CA city planner, there is one more piece I didn't see addressed: the pernicious effects of "zoning for dollars". Property tax limitations mean that local cities receive relatively little additional discretionary revenue from denser housing. Local cities do get lots of discretionary revenue from sales tax. And business development requires fewer services than housing. So housing, for CA cities, is high cost and low revenue. Fixing this systemic funding issue would go a long way to fixing housing supply issues.
11
I am an architect in California and specialize in residential work and I have intimate experience with the housing dilemma in the state. I believe California could benefit from a statewide system so that each process can become more predictable.
The facts are:
• California's population increases regardless of property values
• The housing shortage is real and acute and worsens each year because demand overwhelms supply
• Water Shortages will persist
• California's property tax system impacts the situation as noted by others
• Proposition 60 allows those 55 or older to transfer their property tax assessment once
• Excluding certain entities from buying property is not enforceable
I am not a native Californian, but when I moved to the state 30 years ago, I told myself; "If all of these other people can do it, so can I." I promote delivering this concept to everyone rather than whining about how expensive it is. Perhaps the answer is to teach people how to get into it. It took me a long time to buy property, but I wish that I had known how to do it earlier in my career. California needs more housing, but not necessarily at a lower price. The economics of building cheap does not sustain itself because the value of property follows market dynamics, not the other way around. I think there is a misconceived notion that you first get your "forever " home. The nurse who commutes eighty miles is, it appears, making a choice, though she
could buy less space closer to San Francisco.
The facts are:
• California's population increases regardless of property values
• The housing shortage is real and acute and worsens each year because demand overwhelms supply
• Water Shortages will persist
• California's property tax system impacts the situation as noted by others
• Proposition 60 allows those 55 or older to transfer their property tax assessment once
• Excluding certain entities from buying property is not enforceable
I am not a native Californian, but when I moved to the state 30 years ago, I told myself; "If all of these other people can do it, so can I." I promote delivering this concept to everyone rather than whining about how expensive it is. Perhaps the answer is to teach people how to get into it. It took me a long time to buy property, but I wish that I had known how to do it earlier in my career. California needs more housing, but not necessarily at a lower price. The economics of building cheap does not sustain itself because the value of property follows market dynamics, not the other way around. I think there is a misconceived notion that you first get your "forever " home. The nurse who commutes eighty miles is, it appears, making a choice, though she
could buy less space closer to San Francisco.
5
Its the Fed. The only solution to the GFC was to print money and endless ZIRP.
They are fixated on inflation with ZERO responsibility for the random harm rampant asset inflation does to groups of people within the economy: the young, those who dont speculate on the casino, retirees, etc.
It is an outrage. The Fed is beholden to Wall St and tech is beholden to the Fed, the rich get richer, the economy becomes a speculative casino, and my children wont be able to live in Norcal.
They are fixated on inflation with ZERO responsibility for the random harm rampant asset inflation does to groups of people within the economy: the young, those who dont speculate on the casino, retirees, etc.
It is an outrage. The Fed is beholden to Wall St and tech is beholden to the Fed, the rich get richer, the economy becomes a speculative casino, and my children wont be able to live in Norcal.
2
Overpopulation strains resources like land, clean water, and transportation. If humans have overpopulated the prime real estate in the world, they have two choices: 1) choose less prime real estate on which to subsist; or 2) choose to depopulate by limiting reproduction. It's either quality of life or quantity of lives, but not both.
10
Statistically California's "population growth" does not occur because Californians have an inordinate amount of children. Instead California's population has been increasing for the last 40 years because of in-migration by U.S. citizens from other states, and more recently foreign in-migration.
The bottom line is that there is not enough water to drink and bathe in for the 10 Million new residents California is expected to receive in the next 15 to 20 years.
The bottom line is that there is not enough water to drink and bathe in for the 10 Million new residents California is expected to receive in the next 15 to 20 years.
6
I note that Afghans don't seem to be having a problem settling in Hayward.....maybe if we stopped invading so many places we would have less population pressure.
The homeless problem is getting worse every year in southern CA. People can't afford rents. And the not in my neighborhood attitude prevents the construction of affordable housing. Something has to give soon.
5
The negative impact of AirBnB on coastal towns should not be under-rated. It drives up the cost of any rentals at all for long-term rental residents and weakens the fabric of the community. With all-night parties down the street by out-of-towners, it also affects quality of life for those who are fortunate enough to be able to live here and call it home.
11
Yes since 2009 Airbnb took 1,000 (15-20%) long-term rentals off the market in Venice Beach. Add the impact of Silicon Beach & too many years of low interest rates and VB housing (along with DT SF) is the case study of housing prices on steroids...
5
One of the factors that will mitigate the housing crisis: self-driving electric cars, that will free up people's time and use roads more efficiently than human drivers do. 20 years from now will see a big difference.
2
Yeah, no.
11
We have a small place in the Bay Area and a large place in Phoenix. The real estate is probably 1/2 the cost in Arizona. In the last 3 years we have seen the number of California license plates in Phoenix increase by at least ten fold. To me that means many Californians have fled the golden state for affordable housing in Arizona. PS and they have not obtained their Arizona plates yet.
6
Not have they obtained water.
3
However, how many years will it take for those new Arizonans and old Arizonans to flee to cooler climes when sequential 120 degree summer days in Scottsdale are the norm? My inlaws live in Arizona and they have spend more time with family in Southern California since May in order to escape the heat. Now, they regret moving in the first place.
7
While it will take a while to build more homes and lower the prices in California, there is an immediate and partial fix to the problem by inventing smarter methods to move commuters from where they can afford to the cities where they work, but could not afford to live in. By working with the transit systems and car sharing services and using smart technologies, we can make life easier for these people. This technology already exist and will be a great stop gap measure until a permanent solution such as Hyper Loop by Elon Musk takes place.
2
There is a problem of downsizing without killing yourself with property taxes. I would love to sell the 5 br/4 ba and downsize to something half that size in a comparable neighborhood. If I did this, my annual property tax would go up by a factor of 2.5 x, not very attractive. Someone should run the numbers on what would happen if people were allowed to downsize and not increase their property tax bill. I guarantee you it would loosen things up substantially.
12
People want to live and work in dynamic creative communities. The one common theme in this is that states where the power lies in the Metropolitan and suburban communities are desirable to live, in states where the power lies in the rural areas not so much. People want good government, good schools, good infrastructure and quite a bit of arts too. Many of these require citizens to pay probably more than their fair share of taxes. These low taxes and guns for free places are not the paradises people are looking for. Unfortunately this low tax over everything else prevails in at least 18-20 states. However expensive it is, people find it easier to move to these desirable coastal areas.
3
But Florida is a low tax gun for free state.
2
Wherever the real estate values are extraordinarily high, there's no such thing as affordable housing without subsidies. Effectively, there are no subsidies. Residents aren't barring affordable housing; economics are.
9
Mr. Weiner and Mr. Chiu both represent San Francisco, which has welcomed many thousands of tech workers and the additional taxes and spending each one represents but failed miserably to build a commensurate amount of affordable housing. Now they are attempting to shift that obligation to nearby towns and cities regardless of the impact on local traffic, congestion, public services and schools, and without even discussing how to build or pay for additional public transportation to get these new suburbanites back and forth from their revenue-producing jobs in the city. By jamming this law down the throats of people outside the city they try to protect the "charm" of cities like San Francisco by depriving nearby cities and towns of the characteristics that made them desirable homes for the people who live there now. Little wonder that a majority of the residents north, east and south of San Francisco are strongly opposed to this blatant attempt to push problems to the suburbs while cities such as San Francisco retain the benefits (revenue) and avoid the myriad costs of additional crowding.
6
San Francisco proper is the size of a postage stamp and is bounded on three sides by water. There is only a limited amount more housing that it could build, even if zoning regs were relaxed. Housing will always be at a premium in the City.
6
So then San Francisco should follow the principle that San Jose is litigating to establish. Don't add a job if you don't add a housing unit to go with it. That principle is very valid in times when there is NOT massive unemployment, as is the situation in San Francisco right now.
1
A solution might be available when high speed travel from home to work is implemented. Mass transit will not catch on, but automatic control for your own vehicle will increase average speeds from 30 mph or less to three time that. Workers could live 100 miles from work rather than 30. A 100 mile radius contains 9 times the area of a 30 mile radius.
3
Self driving cars will never be a meaningful factor. We must move away from solo transportation, towards well designed mass transit.
3
What about water, though? If you build large scale housing developments further inland, is there enough water to sustain those big new towns? Or is that only a problem in certain parts of CA? I remember reading about some towns where there is no longer running water -- how can you live?
government, as always, will try and fix the supply side and will fail but will and can do nothing about the demand side. prices will keep going up. sorry thats an economics 101 law.
4
Housing in abundance where jobs don't exist. Detroit, Görlitz, Liverpool. The 'invisible hand' isn't so smart.
3
The invisible hand in this case has been crippled by well intended but foolish regulation. It's not able to operate.
1
Developers have made huge profits and provided only traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and every other type of infrastructure stressed. If the infrastructure and amenities like parks and open space were part of development, locals wouldn't be so opposed.
17
Housing prices are rising everywhere, especially in major metropolitan areas. California is just one example. Shouldn't the story be that we do not have enough land and resources to house everyone? Let's figure out whether the following are root causes: Population growth? Foreign buyers? Immigration? Uneven distribution of jobs?
20
We have enough land. I know in Chicago we still have a housing bubble "hang over" with prices still quite high but no appreciation and few sales to the middle class. People will not sell while they are in the bucket. So you have this log jam here. This is not the California problem but a comment on a major metro area with its gears stuck.
3
I live in the foothills and have witnessed communities such as Roseville and those eastward, explode in recent years with people unable or unwilling to stay in the Bay Area. The result is the destruction of farmland, contiguous shopping developments, heavy traffic, light pollution; interestingly, all while maintaining the very white population. More building in communities that don't welcome it is not the answer. People need to redefine their priorities. Perhaps the nurse in the story could move to an underserved area. The pay may not be as good but the cost of living would be much lower and consider the satisfaction gained by helping the less economically endowed.
4
Are you implying the area she is working doesn't need nurses? Obviously they do or they wouldn't be paying so much for them. Say she moves to a poorer area, probably not in CA, I'm guessing. Done nurse has to take her place. How do they pay their rent??
6
I was being slightly sarcastic. 180K is ample salary to live in the Bay Area, and certainly enough to live closer than Manteca, but you won't get anywhere near the value. So it comes down to priorities. Especially since one person's fix is another's problem.
After living in Manhattan for ten years, and now living in Marin County, just north of SF, I've been caught in this upward spiral for the past 15 years.
One thing I can say about the NY suburbs in contrast to California is that the home prices there, at least compared to the Bay Area, are generally lower thanks to the property taxes. Prop 13 here in California has basically encouraged an entire generation to stay in homes they do not need, and, for many, could no longer afford. It has blocked families from gaining access to desirable neighborhoods while at the same time decreasing revenue for schools and other public works.
If California is serious about creating high density housing, it will need to do so in conjunction with massive public transit investment. In the past twenty years, the corridor between SF and Sacramento has grown exponentially with minimal increase in the highway system and no functional rail system. The highway system is collapsing under the weight.
California will also have to make high density housing more attractive to buyers. Many commuters to the Bay Area face two hour commutes not because they cannot afford to live near their jobs, but because they choose to live where they can afford a larger home. Attractive, family-oriented, high density housing with mass transit options would go a long way in curbing these self-inflicted killer commutes.
One thing I can say about the NY suburbs in contrast to California is that the home prices there, at least compared to the Bay Area, are generally lower thanks to the property taxes. Prop 13 here in California has basically encouraged an entire generation to stay in homes they do not need, and, for many, could no longer afford. It has blocked families from gaining access to desirable neighborhoods while at the same time decreasing revenue for schools and other public works.
If California is serious about creating high density housing, it will need to do so in conjunction with massive public transit investment. In the past twenty years, the corridor between SF and Sacramento has grown exponentially with minimal increase in the highway system and no functional rail system. The highway system is collapsing under the weight.
California will also have to make high density housing more attractive to buyers. Many commuters to the Bay Area face two hour commutes not because they cannot afford to live near their jobs, but because they choose to live where they can afford a larger home. Attractive, family-oriented, high density housing with mass transit options would go a long way in curbing these self-inflicted killer commutes.
17
A few urban myths believed by a over 100 top producing real estate brokers in California's most expensive single family residential neighborhoods:
-- 60% of first time homebuyers obtain gifts/loans/mortgages from family members, namely parents.
-- Those communities that voted to increase property tax beyond Prop 13 limits increase housing values greater than those who don't.
-- Public schools ranked 10 on polls increase property values the most.
-- PRC Central Committee project 200 million PRC visitors per annum to the US in the next decade after airports and infrastructure expand to accommodate increase.
-- Top public schools parents often fit into demographics of mothers who work for profit and mothers who don't. In some 10 rated $2+m median single house communities up to 30% have home offices.
-- MPA theses from USF state about 30% of single houses in Palo Alto have unlicensed rentals on the property. I checked it out physically 40 and again 20 years ago -- not since. Atherton and Woodside are favorites for collectors of larger single family residences.
-- It used to take 10 months of wages to equal the take home pay after taxes of working in Hawaii. California is more like 11 months of tax home pay in Nevada.
-- Most California major home grown large cap listed companies are headquartered in Ireland. Delaware for US subs.
Trivial pursuit.
-- 60% of first time homebuyers obtain gifts/loans/mortgages from family members, namely parents.
-- Those communities that voted to increase property tax beyond Prop 13 limits increase housing values greater than those who don't.
-- Public schools ranked 10 on polls increase property values the most.
-- PRC Central Committee project 200 million PRC visitors per annum to the US in the next decade after airports and infrastructure expand to accommodate increase.
-- Top public schools parents often fit into demographics of mothers who work for profit and mothers who don't. In some 10 rated $2+m median single house communities up to 30% have home offices.
-- MPA theses from USF state about 30% of single houses in Palo Alto have unlicensed rentals on the property. I checked it out physically 40 and again 20 years ago -- not since. Atherton and Woodside are favorites for collectors of larger single family residences.
-- It used to take 10 months of wages to equal the take home pay after taxes of working in Hawaii. California is more like 11 months of tax home pay in Nevada.
-- Most California major home grown large cap listed companies are headquartered in Ireland. Delaware for US subs.
Trivial pursuit.
1
What is there to say about this intractable issue in a comments thread? Nothing that will be of much help. To a large extent, the U.S. appears to rely on housing bubbles to sustain economic growth--there's a big problem right there.
I can't offer solutions to people who can't just up and leave some place. But I will say that, if you are an American, spending a few years of your life living overseas in a major city like Seoul, Berlin, Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, or some other fantastic place will essentially "cure" you of any burning desire to return to your home country and live in one of the "happening" big cities in California or the Northeast Megalopolis where housing costs are spiraling out of control. You'll have experienced your fill of the great city life in another country, and just be content with wherever you can live in America provided its affordable and relatively safe.
I think it was Tennessee Williams who wrote that there were only 3 genuine cities in America--New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans--and that everything else was "Cleveland." Well, Cleveland is fine after you've seen the bright lights of European or Asian cities long enough.
I can't offer solutions to people who can't just up and leave some place. But I will say that, if you are an American, spending a few years of your life living overseas in a major city like Seoul, Berlin, Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, or some other fantastic place will essentially "cure" you of any burning desire to return to your home country and live in one of the "happening" big cities in California or the Northeast Megalopolis where housing costs are spiraling out of control. You'll have experienced your fill of the great city life in another country, and just be content with wherever you can live in America provided its affordable and relatively safe.
I think it was Tennessee Williams who wrote that there were only 3 genuine cities in America--New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans--and that everything else was "Cleveland." Well, Cleveland is fine after you've seen the bright lights of European or Asian cities long enough.
15
I am lucky to have found work near home. I used to have to commute 2+ hours to get to downtown San Francisco. We live in what I consider a "rent controlled" house because our rent has stayed the same for over 5 years. We typically sign an 18 month lease. We live in a rural community about 60 miles south of the city. We are so grateful for the low price of $2500/month. It's a house, with a lot of space and a lot of privacy for us and our dogs. Our fear of course, is that someday we might have to move! Where will we go? How can we find a home that allows dogs and has room for all of stuff? We've already resigned to the fact we will never be able to purchase in the area, and our combined income is about $150,000/year. (The same amount we've paid in rent over the past 5 years)
We found a small house nearby for sale once at $420,000 we couldn't believe it! Turns out it was about 700 square feet, and it was sold within a few days.
I'm originally from Portland, and cannot wait to move back to Oregon once my husband retires. I hear they're having similar issues up there, but now I'm used to living in the country and have hopes of finding something affordable in a rural part of the state.
If you're ever bored, check Craigslist for an apartment in the city- good laughs!
We found a small house nearby for sale once at $420,000 we couldn't believe it! Turns out it was about 700 square feet, and it was sold within a few days.
I'm originally from Portland, and cannot wait to move back to Oregon once my husband retires. I hear they're having similar issues up there, but now I'm used to living in the country and have hopes of finding something affordable in a rural part of the state.
If you're ever bored, check Craigslist for an apartment in the city- good laughs!
6
I left CA for TX over the cost of living. That said, I wish I could still afford to live there.
Why blame CA for their success. Those who can afford to live and work there still want to.
Logically, business should relocate to any of the states where interstates 40, 70, 80, or 90 cross interstate 35.
Why don't they? Because no one wants to live there.
Cheap housing is not enough to overcome small minded values where independence, diversity, education, religious freedom, culture, enlightenment, and entrepreneurship are fought vehemently by peasants with pitchforks and torches.
As for agriculture in CA, give it all the water it needs. Better for America, and the Planet than a one entrance housing development three hours away from a minimum wage fast food job.
Why blame CA for their success. Those who can afford to live and work there still want to.
Logically, business should relocate to any of the states where interstates 40, 70, 80, or 90 cross interstate 35.
Why don't they? Because no one wants to live there.
Cheap housing is not enough to overcome small minded values where independence, diversity, education, religious freedom, culture, enlightenment, and entrepreneurship are fought vehemently by peasants with pitchforks and torches.
As for agriculture in CA, give it all the water it needs. Better for America, and the Planet than a one entrance housing development three hours away from a minimum wage fast food job.
18
Two years ago an infill development in the city of Encinitas--along a busy road and near a high school about 5 miles from the ocean (no view )-- had a huge billboard promoting a handful of large homes (plus granny flats) starting "in the low $2,000,000s." That's right, 2 million dollars. Meanwhile, Encinitas is being sued again over their lack of an affordable housing plan.
1
If you're making a lot of money working a job or doing business in California, good for you. If you want to spend a lot on housing for the privilege of living in California and making a lot of money, your choice. We lived there from 1978-88 and it seemed to me that wages didn't match the cost of housing but we weren't in the high-income group. We moved back to Georgia and got jobs that paid the same and a home that cost half as much.
10
As a San Francisco homeowner, your article was interesting to read, but it overlooked some critical points. The primary factor affecting San Francisco housing prices is simple supply and demand. The city is a postage sized 7 by 7 miles with virtually all available land already developed. San Francisco is a very desirable area to live for many people, which bids up the price of housing. Much of the city's charm is from single family homes which are limited to 40 feet height. Where housing can be developed in China Basin and Dogpatch, formerly industrial spaces and warehouses, High density housing is sprouting, but even that housing is primarily marketed to the affluent. In short, the city is a magnet which attracts the upper middle class. Rent control on the other end of the spectrum, not mentioned in the article, also stratifies housing. Under rent control, housing increases are limited to no more than 1.5% of the base rent. As a result, long term tenants hang on to housing for years; landlords sometimes withhold property from the market or Ellis Act property before selling in order to obtain market value. Both Proposition 13 and rent control are effectively shielded. Proposition 13 which was enacted as a state constitutional amendment, would require another referendum. While rent control was enacted a local ordinance, no city politician would ever threaten to weaken it. And housing is very expensive as a result.
9
"The city is a postage sized 7 by 7 miles with virtually all available land already developed."
Paris is 3X denser than SF. Manhattan is 4x denser. NYC on the whole is 50% denser with plenty of single family homes in the outer boroughs. SF could grow tremendously with infill and better transit. Instead, something like Mission Bay which is 304 acres of new development looks more like like downtown Walnut Creek than a global city. Pathetic.
Paris is 3X denser than SF. Manhattan is 4x denser. NYC on the whole is 50% denser with plenty of single family homes in the outer boroughs. SF could grow tremendously with infill and better transit. Instead, something like Mission Bay which is 304 acres of new development looks more like like downtown Walnut Creek than a global city. Pathetic.
5
Housing prices are rising in California because too much money is flooding in from overseas. In Vancouver, BC, local govt imposed an excise tax on vacant owners and property sales declined 40% and home prices declined 6% in six months time. Of course developers want to build more properties. All that will do is make living in California more crowded, with less water and more traffic.
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate...
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate...
26
CA is too successful for its own good. The state can't accommodate the entire country moving here to get a share of the pie. What would be nice is if the rest of the states effectively replicated the origin of CA's success story. Provide high-quality higher education at rock bottom prices, even to out-of-staters, and you'll have young, intelligent, motivated people entering your community and doing wonderful and creative things together and staying to raise families and build a community.
One problem with getting this to work is that CA is characterized as the liberal/socialist villain to much of the country, so the chances of many of the other states successfully mimicking its model for success is pretty limited. They're trained to hate us.
One problem with getting this to work is that CA is characterized as the liberal/socialist villain to much of the country, so the chances of many of the other states successfully mimicking its model for success is pretty limited. They're trained to hate us.
17
Companies should consider moving to Irvine, a suburb in Orange County, 50 miles south of Los Angeles. Irvine is one of the safest cities in the country with very low crimes and excellent schools. It is beyond me why so many high tech companies start in Silicon valley in the North, or in Santa Monica (Silicon Beach) in the South, where a 1000 sqft homes starts at $1.5 million, when you can buy an identical home in Irvine, for a fraction of the price. Irvine is only 50 miles from Santa Monica, close to all entertainment hubs (Sony, etc) and major universities like Caltech, UCLA, UCI, and USC. It is just silly to start a tech company in Santa Monica when you can do it much, much cheaper in Irvine.
5
Shhh.
Middle class Asian Americans and Asians covet Orange County and UC Irvine with 3.94 average GPA, 44% Asian and 30% Latino out of 31,000 students.
Irvine's advantages are very well known in Asia. Westminster is the metro center of Little Saigon, the largest Vietnamese community in the US. A couple public HS in top 10 public HS in California
Commuters do not measure miles but measure driving times. Interstates can be a House of Cards during rush hours -- about 6 hours a day -- or accidents, work stoppages severely impacting rat racing routes.
Middle class Asian Americans and Asians covet Orange County and UC Irvine with 3.94 average GPA, 44% Asian and 30% Latino out of 31,000 students.
Irvine's advantages are very well known in Asia. Westminster is the metro center of Little Saigon, the largest Vietnamese community in the US. A couple public HS in top 10 public HS in California
Commuters do not measure miles but measure driving times. Interstates can be a House of Cards during rush hours -- about 6 hours a day -- or accidents, work stoppages severely impacting rat racing routes.
5
This situation existed at the beginning of the dot com boom that saw a shortage in housing. If California builds more, it won't be the California that it is now, but then, the California of today is not that of years ago. The orange groves in Irvine were wonderful to drive through. Years ago, that land turned into housing.
If you are living in California with a potentially large gain by selling your house, it's probably time to move out of the state. If they build that apartment building in your neighborhood, it won't be as nice.
On the other hand, and I now live on the other hand, NJ has neighborhoods of wonderful old houses mixed with apartment buildings. Cities like Montclair uh, boast, nice housing stock with big apartment buildings. But these cities also have public transportation into NYC. And you can easily get into NYC at night for entertainment. Try that in LA or SF.
Furthermore, San Jose could just build upwards. Look at NYC as a model. It was once farmland. It *is*, however, on a lot of solid granite. If the Mission Hills fault ever goes, it's going to be a rough ride for Bay Area residents.
Tech execs just love their houses in Atherton and Palo Alto; they're not going to leave the state. So tech workers are just going to have to make do with the housing that is there. I knew people who commuted from Tracy to Redwood Shores, but they got a big house for which they could get a mortgage. They just didn't see their families as much.
If you are living in California with a potentially large gain by selling your house, it's probably time to move out of the state. If they build that apartment building in your neighborhood, it won't be as nice.
On the other hand, and I now live on the other hand, NJ has neighborhoods of wonderful old houses mixed with apartment buildings. Cities like Montclair uh, boast, nice housing stock with big apartment buildings. But these cities also have public transportation into NYC. And you can easily get into NYC at night for entertainment. Try that in LA or SF.
Furthermore, San Jose could just build upwards. Look at NYC as a model. It was once farmland. It *is*, however, on a lot of solid granite. If the Mission Hills fault ever goes, it's going to be a rough ride for Bay Area residents.
Tech execs just love their houses in Atherton and Palo Alto; they're not going to leave the state. So tech workers are just going to have to make do with the housing that is there. I knew people who commuted from Tracy to Redwood Shores, but they got a big house for which they could get a mortgage. They just didn't see their families as much.
6
The CEO of our tech startup wanted to move out of Silicon Valley for "Gold Country" in the Sierra foot hills near Sacramento. The entire engineering staff balked at this move. Losing the flexibility to change jobs and companies was too big an ask.
It's really the engineers in their cubicles that say no to TX and other alternatives. Not the CEO's.
It's really the engineers in their cubicles that say no to TX and other alternatives. Not the CEO's.
5
I agree, @OSS. California is is difficult to move from :-) I think the only solution is to build up, as NYC did. In the 19th century there were farms north of the Battery, quite a bucolic place :-). No farms now, but there's the best theater, music, food and art. And oh, I think that there is some sort of financial industry there too :-)
And if you want to hike, you can take the train/bus to NY state or NJ, within 25 miles, some of the best hiking anywhere. And the beach is accessible via public transportation. I'm not painting a utopia here :-) but it is an option for the Bay Area and LA to consider.
And with this comes the responsibility of building *good* public transportation.
And if you want to hike, you can take the train/bus to NY state or NJ, within 25 miles, some of the best hiking anywhere. And the beach is accessible via public transportation. I'm not painting a utopia here :-) but it is an option for the Bay Area and LA to consider.
And with this comes the responsibility of building *good* public transportation.
Lots of people want to blame foreigners for our rising housing prices. I think that's wrong an several accounts.
1. US population is still growing, but the RATE of growth has been falling for several decades.
2. Pew estimates that around half of the growth is due to 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. Half is due to intrinsic growth.
3. The "rich Asian" pushing up housing prices is a myth. There just aren't that many of them. Three quarters of the immigrants come from Mexico and other Latin countries.
I think the largest factor is that old industries that were dispersed around the country and not focused on a handful of major cities have been shrinking for decades - industries like forestry, mining, light manufacturing.
New and growing industries like IT have been focused around a relatively small number of large cities. This has brought huge numbers of people to cities like San Francisco, while rural California counties are seeing the population levels decline.
1. US population is still growing, but the RATE of growth has been falling for several decades.
2. Pew estimates that around half of the growth is due to 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. Half is due to intrinsic growth.
3. The "rich Asian" pushing up housing prices is a myth. There just aren't that many of them. Three quarters of the immigrants come from Mexico and other Latin countries.
I think the largest factor is that old industries that were dispersed around the country and not focused on a handful of major cities have been shrinking for decades - industries like forestry, mining, light manufacturing.
New and growing industries like IT have been focused around a relatively small number of large cities. This has brought huge numbers of people to cities like San Francisco, while rural California counties are seeing the population levels decline.
5
Silicon Valley salaries and foreign investors have unbalanced the economy in Northern California. Homes which might be affordable to the other 90% are quickly snapped up, well above asking price, for cash by speculators while waving inspections and putting hard-working, long-time Californians in a bind. Decent paying, necessary jobs which provide the bulk of the labor force and poverty wages in the Bay Area. The State Government has too long turned a blind eye to the problem. More and higher density housing will only continue to erode the quality of life we all grew up with here. The answer is regulation and control of unbridled, greed-fueled housing prices, transplants and foreign investors, who have no stake the area, should be excluded from ownership unless they are permanent residents.
8
I can't afford to live the beautiful seaside communities here in SoCal that restrict development, but that does not mean that I want to see those communities change and become denser. Part of the enjoyment for me in spending a day in Santa Monica, or Malibu, or Santa Barbara, is that they are open, and verdant, and have charm - qualities my neighborhood lacks. I don't want those communities to change to look more like mine. Spending time in Santa Barbara is like taking a mini vacation. Seeing a high rise there would be awful.
Developers have their own agenda- they are in it to make money, and could give a lick about how their buildings affect the character of the community.
The California coastline is another wrinkle in this issue. It has been preserved because of these strict regulations.
Developers have their own agenda- they are in it to make money, and could give a lick about how their buildings affect the character of the community.
The California coastline is another wrinkle in this issue. It has been preserved because of these strict regulations.
27
Here's an idea... the United States needs to start having some restrictions on foreigners buying property. I love diversity and people from around the world, but we've let the housing market get way too hot because of greed and developers and real estate brokers take all-cash offers from who knows where (lots of shady money from Russia, China, etc.) and many of those foreign investors barely live in the properties they buy. So American citizens and their families get pushed out of their own city even though they've often lived there for decades just because capitalism is king and money without morals seems to be America's new motto...
18
Master of Architecture from a major US university. So I have some exposure to the issues surrounding this.
It's "complicated". For a start, it's not just about housing. Neighborhoods of single family residences (SFR) could be rezoned to multi-family. Neighborhoods like in the photo could be rebuilt with several apartments in place of each house. Population density would rise. More housing would become available, which, according to standard market theory, would bring price down.
If only that were the end of the story.
Replace each house in that photo with, say, 4 apartments, and you will have tripled or quadrupled the population density ... and the load on utilities and services ... and the number of cars on the road ...
S.F. is my hometown. It's a nightmare to drive through now. Traffic is hideous.
Without vastly better planned and FUNDED public transportation systems increasing the density of cities like S.F. will make them a nightmare to live in.
Sorry I'm not offering a glib solution. I'm just trying to point out one of the many complications of this issue. If we really want to find solutions, we need to acknowledge the complexity.
One potential direction ... States such as CA and NY could be enacting laws and programs at the state level to encourage new industries and businesses to start AWAY from over-burdened cities like S.F. and NYC. Try to build the potential of smaller cities like Fresno and Rochester.
It's "complicated". For a start, it's not just about housing. Neighborhoods of single family residences (SFR) could be rezoned to multi-family. Neighborhoods like in the photo could be rebuilt with several apartments in place of each house. Population density would rise. More housing would become available, which, according to standard market theory, would bring price down.
If only that were the end of the story.
Replace each house in that photo with, say, 4 apartments, and you will have tripled or quadrupled the population density ... and the load on utilities and services ... and the number of cars on the road ...
S.F. is my hometown. It's a nightmare to drive through now. Traffic is hideous.
Without vastly better planned and FUNDED public transportation systems increasing the density of cities like S.F. will make them a nightmare to live in.
Sorry I'm not offering a glib solution. I'm just trying to point out one of the many complications of this issue. If we really want to find solutions, we need to acknowledge the complexity.
One potential direction ... States such as CA and NY could be enacting laws and programs at the state level to encourage new industries and businesses to start AWAY from over-burdened cities like S.F. and NYC. Try to build the potential of smaller cities like Fresno and Rochester.
24
Sorry I don't know my NY geography very well. I've never been to Rochester. It could be a totally inappropriate choice. I just wanted to find a city of similar size to Fresno, which IS a city that should be the focus of new jobs.
New Yorkers reading this may be able to suggest more suitable outer cities that should be siphoning off a bit of NYC's jobs.
New Yorkers reading this may be able to suggest more suitable outer cities that should be siphoning off a bit of NYC's jobs.
"If you build it, they will come."
So...where's the water for all these new CA residents going to come from? We go most of the day without flushing our toilets as it is.
So...where's the water for all these new CA residents going to come from? We go most of the day without flushing our toilets as it is.
21
It couldn't be more simple: just stop reproducing. Overflow humanity gotta go somewhere.
But hey, I'm gay. What do I know?
But hey, I'm gay. What do I know?
19
The problem with this is that when you stop reproducing, other people continue reproducing. Other, less desirable people ...
4
Please, please, start building houses, lots of them. My USG stock has been a dog, no dividend, weighing down my portfolio. Housing starts mean wallboard sales. Hopefully, it will lead to a big bump in USG.
2
If you make $180,000 a year you don't need to live 80 miles from San Francisco in Manteca...
9
Not true at all! Most of the people I know spend more than half of their income on rent/mortgage.
1
Zoning restrictions and laws are 1) not going to prevent builders from building on land that isn't available and 2) overcome the fact that there are simply too many people who want to live here, and not enough homes, affordable or not.
It's hard to fight fundamental economics with laws and regulations, and when that is used, it almost always backfires.
If you want to live in CA you have to pay, that's it. The economy is booming, the weather is great - there's just not room for everyone. We came here 16 years ago and could not afford our home at today's prices.
And even if affordable housing could magically be available, what would happen to the already burdened highway system? As for public transit, well in San Francisco BART is decades behind on maintenance, and only a short hop from the subway nightmare that is NYC mass transit.
It's hard to fight fundamental economics with laws and regulations, and when that is used, it almost always backfires.
If you want to live in CA you have to pay, that's it. The economy is booming, the weather is great - there's just not room for everyone. We came here 16 years ago and could not afford our home at today's prices.
And even if affordable housing could magically be available, what would happen to the already burdened highway system? As for public transit, well in San Francisco BART is decades behind on maintenance, and only a short hop from the subway nightmare that is NYC mass transit.
7
Interesting, many people fleeing the expensive housing in California have moved to more "affordable" places like Portland, OR. This process has resulted in a similar housing crisis in Oregon, where housing costs are through the roof and the rental market can't keep up with the influx of new residents. As urban populations continue to expand, these problems will be felt throughout the country.
8
The cry for affordable housing is a myth. No one wants affordable housing. Realtors, mortgage brokers and the taxing authorities are all paid a percentage of the value of a house. Who would ever want to take a pay cut by having less costly houses? Development companies also like a larger return on their investment. Zoning laws that restrict the height, size and type of housing, such as low cost trailer parks, also ensure that housing costs stay high. That is the primary reason that housing is so affordable in Houston where there are no zoning laws allowing the free market to thrive.
5
*Unregulated* growth has been the mantra by Republican lawmakers for decades. They should be happy seeing how it works.
2
This article could just as easily have focused on Seattle, where I live. We have the same problems, and same debates. At least here, the NIMBY/YIMBY split is not as clear as this article suggests. While politicians and affordable housing activists trash existing home owners for having reservations about 10 story apartment buildings going up next door, they have little to say about developers replacing affordable housing with luxury units that target the high wage earners attracted by the booming tech sector. Nor do politicians speak up about units that are kept vacant by out-of-state and international buyers who use housing as investment vehicles rather than domiciles. As long as the market is distorted in these ways, it is difficult to have honest, productive discussion of how to address the affordable housing crisis.
21
You all realize that this issue has been greatly exacerbated by VRBO, AirBNB and others. They create huge swaths of unoccupied expensive real estate.
14
Your picture of the Manteca house under construction shows a McMansion - noone needs to be building those, anywhere in California. I've lived and worked in Los Angeles for 40 years, and things are dire - I'm older, my wages have stagnated and my rent takes half of my income and leaves me next to nothing to live on - let alone save for retirement. Why should I have to leave my chosen home, a city I have invested in both emotionally and financially? Its not right. People have a right to age in place, and young people should be able to live here as well. When I was young, I was able to share nice apartments with one or two others. Now, unless you're working for Snapchat, young folks are basically parked on the street in their cars. They can't even afford to live in the dodgy areas.
12
I am a teacher who recently bought my first home in Silicon Valley. I spent over half a million dollars for a small 2 bedroom, 1 bath townhome. Why? Because I had been a renter for over 30 years and I was tired of filling the pockets of my landlord. I also knew that, after years of waiting for prices to flatten and inventory to increase, this was probably my last chance to become a homeowner. Right now, there is not a single condo/house available in my city for less than $850,000. I guess I made the right move, but I can't help but think about all the buyers out there who are sick of offering 20 percent more than the list price. There has to be some movement in the building industry, or we are going to lose the best and brightest members of our community.
13
San Francisco reportedly has some 30,000 vacant residential units, mostly owned by speculators and foreigners who purchase American real estate to launder, bank and/or invest money. Paris, France recently imposed a draconian tax on such units, on grounds that unoccupied residences exacerbate its housing shortage, thus forcing Parisians to pay higher rents and prices and, in the process, subsidizing and benefitting speculators. Ditto San Francisco, where Mayor Ed Lee and other city and state officials seem to be asleep at the wheel regarding this issue.
74
It's so easy to blame communities for allegedly anti-development policies that are allegedly responsible for alleged housing shortages that are driving up prices. Seems to me the blame is a gateway to remove regulations and enable developers to make even more profit. Meanwhile, property owners continue to game the market by creating false scarcity.
3
San Francisco's vacancy rate has been FALLING since 2006.
Employment rose strongly from 2009 to 2016. 2017 is at present showing a small decline.
Population has increased around 10% in the last 8 years.
So it appears there has been a significant growth in population and employment, which has resulted in a LOWERING of the vacancy rate.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm
Employment rose strongly from 2009 to 2016. 2017 is at present showing a small decline.
Population has increased around 10% in the last 8 years.
So it appears there has been a significant growth in population and employment, which has resulted in a LOWERING of the vacancy rate.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm
Ed Lee may not be as asleep as you believe. We have a Constitution in the United States and don't live in the French republic. A housing tax such as the Parisian ordinance would theoretically tax a non resident who doesn't live full time in her unit more than a San Francisco resident who lives full time in his condo. Such a tax probably would violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, to name a few.
3
This is a national crisis that cuts to the heart of who we are. We will eventually have to face national planning or see vast areas of poor people and islands of super rich. Jobs do not spread uniformly across the country and we must institute a means of massive retraining of more important, continual training which will encourage decentralization. We will have to create mass transit and high speed rail to tie nodes together so 2 hour commutes don't exist. You can only put so much stuff in a given basket. Cities can only grow so dense. If we create satellites connected by rail people can be mobile and still find housing they can afford.
9
More building will not solve the California housing problem when you think about how many millions of people cannot afford market-rate rents or the cost of a new home.
Having somewhat more of a scarce and overpriced commodity does not solve a crisis for a community; it will help individual families who can afford to spend too much, sure, but the housing crisis will still be there for those who live in California but can't afford to live anywhere anymore.
Having somewhat more of a scarce and overpriced commodity does not solve a crisis for a community; it will help individual families who can afford to spend too much, sure, but the housing crisis will still be there for those who live in California but can't afford to live anywhere anymore.
5
I would never complain about the growth in housing prices especially my own. My home is 20 years old and started at $295k and is now showing at $1M without a mortgage. I love CA!
4
Of course you do. You pay a pittance in property taxes but meanwhile, the costs of police, fire, libraries, schools roads have gone up exponentially in the last 29 years. Your neighbors who presumably bought more recently at the $1m you mention are effectively subsidizing you.
3
This article is missing information on the notorious California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If I want to build something in California, anyone in the state, and I mean anyone, can sue me and slow me down from building it. It gets super expensive since it's a legal process and lawyers cost a ton of money. It's created an industry of lawyers who specialize in the law, so of course they dont want to get rid of or change the law. The worst part of the law is that I can be sued, and the other part can remain anonymous throughout the process, and call themselves something silly like "People Who Care". It eliminates transparency.
15
Do we have enough water for all of the new residents who would like to live here?
13
People over exported almonds!
There's plenty of water for people. Not so much for exported almonds.
There's plenty of water for people. Not so much for exported almonds.
2
I don't understand why Apple didn't just buy Kentucky instead of building that doughnut thingie. They could cut HR expense 50% and the employees would still be better off once the local Whole Food places ramped up.
22
Are they going to bring world-class beaches, hiking and skiing to Kentucky also? There are many things that attract people to California besides high-powered careers.
7
Perhaps they stayed in CA because tech savvy talent doesn't want to live in conservative, land locked Kentucky with its ingrained culture of racism?
Read your history. Kentucky has been the poster child for income inequality since well before the Civil War.
Read your history. Kentucky has been the poster child for income inequality since well before the Civil War.
15
It is a tough nut to crack. Most of the increase in California housing probably comes from flipping and speculative investment. Back during the Great Recession when housing was at least available, many middle income people couldn't even qualify for a loan. Most of the "affordable" housing was purchased by REIT's which has since been turned into rental housing/apartments, which are also unaffordable. We lived in rural Sonoma County back in the 80's when there were still prune orchards in the Dry Creek Valley. "Kids" from the Silicon Valley came in and plunked down multimillion dollar sums just to buy country homes. Now we live in June Lake, just north of Mammoth Mountain. The trophy homes sit empty while young people couch surf in the winter and over 400 people camp in the forest during the summer because they can't afford rent, let alone buy a home and local businesses struggle to find enough employees to stay open. ps I really think it's all about the bullet trains and illegal aliens but I'm going to keep that secret to myself.
16
Interesting article - but the problem is not far different here in NY.
We have an affordable housing crisis in America, and it's about time that Congress began acknowledging the problem - and thinking about creative ways to address it.
We should, for instance, develop a system for strongly discouraging the laundering of foreign money in American real estate - which only invites developers to build more high end properties instead of affordable ones.
We should be honest about the way that the lower interest rates of the past 15 years have served to dramatically inflate housing prices - and how President Obama's decision to sustain this bubble, while perhaps understandable from a short-term macro-economic perspective, nonetheless prevented a necessary reset of housing prices.
We must be honest about the reality that as population grows, demand will inevitably outstrip supply - and hence these nose bleed prices for housing are an inevitable side effect of our immigration policies.
Republican oligarch's want their serfs, Democrats want their future voters, but what I would argue naturalized Americans want is an affordable, safe roof over their head - and they deserve nothing less.
We have an affordable housing crisis in America, and it's about time that Congress began acknowledging the problem - and thinking about creative ways to address it.
We should, for instance, develop a system for strongly discouraging the laundering of foreign money in American real estate - which only invites developers to build more high end properties instead of affordable ones.
We should be honest about the way that the lower interest rates of the past 15 years have served to dramatically inflate housing prices - and how President Obama's decision to sustain this bubble, while perhaps understandable from a short-term macro-economic perspective, nonetheless prevented a necessary reset of housing prices.
We must be honest about the reality that as population grows, demand will inevitably outstrip supply - and hence these nose bleed prices for housing are an inevitable side effect of our immigration policies.
Republican oligarch's want their serfs, Democrats want their future voters, but what I would argue naturalized Americans want is an affordable, safe roof over their head - and they deserve nothing less.
15
But in NY you don't have proposition 13 and you have decent public transportation. You also have the many attractions of NYC. Silicon Valley, outside of sf, is largely dull suburbs.
2
As pointed out by Dean Baker low interest rates decrease the unemployment rate for minorities and undocumented immigrants and high housing prices are simply a consequence of the same thing. Cash is trash.
Astounding! I've visited the Bay Area many times and I'm constantly amazed by how expensive those dinky little stucco-sided homes can be. Half a million...a million...or even more for a very modest place with virtually no yard. Add to that enormous traffic problems and very high state taxes. Is the (generally) nice weather really worth that huge mark up?
Here in Battle Creek, MI, the median home value is $75,000, according to today's Zillow report. Battle Creek home values have gone up 8.1% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.1% within the next year. Even so, the median price of homes currently listed for sale in Battle Creek is $114,900. Typically, that's a 3-bedroom SFM with garage and ample yard or garden space.
"But what about wages?" you say. The median annual wage for California was $55,260 for all occupation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report I could find. In comparison, the same number for Michigan (all occupations) was $46,310. That's a difference of 16% or about $8,900 per year. Yes, wages are higher in the Bay Area, and Michigan's number would be much higher if we excluded Detroit.
Now if you think the word "Michigan" = burned out factories and inner-city crime, you're in for a surprise next time you visit here. Not only is housing cheap, we also have 3,224 miles of coastline, mountains, enormous forests and great universities. Come see for yourself, friends.
Here in Battle Creek, MI, the median home value is $75,000, according to today's Zillow report. Battle Creek home values have gone up 8.1% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.1% within the next year. Even so, the median price of homes currently listed for sale in Battle Creek is $114,900. Typically, that's a 3-bedroom SFM with garage and ample yard or garden space.
"But what about wages?" you say. The median annual wage for California was $55,260 for all occupation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report I could find. In comparison, the same number for Michigan (all occupations) was $46,310. That's a difference of 16% or about $8,900 per year. Yes, wages are higher in the Bay Area, and Michigan's number would be much higher if we excluded Detroit.
Now if you think the word "Michigan" = burned out factories and inner-city crime, you're in for a surprise next time you visit here. Not only is housing cheap, we also have 3,224 miles of coastline, mountains, enormous forests and great universities. Come see for yourself, friends.
14
There are far more opportunities in Silicon Valley for life changing wealth events. it's not just wages, it's the potential for taking a hot new dot com public and retiring at 30, to fund the next round of entrepreneurs. To do interesting work with very smart people.
Is the Michigan coast like Big Sur? Are the mountains like the Sierra Nevada? Are the trees like the Giant Sequoias or redwoods? Are the universities like Stanford and Cal?
Is the Michigan coast like Big Sur? Are the mountains like the Sierra Nevada? Are the trees like the Giant Sequoias or redwoods? Are the universities like Stanford and Cal?
3
One day it will stop being cold and stop snowing in the winter, then one day they will allow tesla to sell directly to its customers and the finally one day the Ford family will sell the lions, till then...
3
No offense, but few people who have lived in California would be interested in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Here's two ideas that will help.
Quit coddling corporations with tax breaks. Only companies willing and able to help pay their way and support California's infrastructure should be here. If they don't want to do their part they can go to Nevada or Texas. Hear that Twitter?
Second: Eliminate laws that enable the international 1% to gobble up and speculate on our housing at the expense of US tax payers—and less well-off immigrants— who play fair.
Ultimately, we will need to build. But it must be done intelligently. And it cannot subsidize corporate interests, greedy developers, and the international millionaire and billionaire class.
Quit coddling corporations with tax breaks. Only companies willing and able to help pay their way and support California's infrastructure should be here. If they don't want to do their part they can go to Nevada or Texas. Hear that Twitter?
Second: Eliminate laws that enable the international 1% to gobble up and speculate on our housing at the expense of US tax payers—and less well-off immigrants— who play fair.
Ultimately, we will need to build. But it must be done intelligently. And it cannot subsidize corporate interests, greedy developers, and the international millionaire and billionaire class.
34
Where's the mention of California's greatly increased population?
It was around 30 million in 1990; 34 million in 2000; 37 million in 2010 and is expected to be around 40 million in 2020. And remember -- millions of people have moved out, so the housing crisis would be far worse if people weren't running away from the high prices and long commutes.
I believe the majority (if not most) of California's population increase is due to immigrants and their descendants. The US Census Bureau predicts the US will go from about 320 million people today to somewhere around 400 million by around 2050.
As I see it, if we don't significantly reduce our currently very high immigration levels, within a few generations most people will be spending most of their money on tiny, sub-standard living spaces because that's all they'll be able to afford. Our own descendants might look to the rooming houses depicted in old movies with envy.
It is both naive and foolish not to take population increases and the reasons for it into account when discussing housing. We have choices, we can choose to decide to have fewer new people come here in the future.
It was around 30 million in 1990; 34 million in 2000; 37 million in 2010 and is expected to be around 40 million in 2020. And remember -- millions of people have moved out, so the housing crisis would be far worse if people weren't running away from the high prices and long commutes.
I believe the majority (if not most) of California's population increase is due to immigrants and their descendants. The US Census Bureau predicts the US will go from about 320 million people today to somewhere around 400 million by around 2050.
As I see it, if we don't significantly reduce our currently very high immigration levels, within a few generations most people will be spending most of their money on tiny, sub-standard living spaces because that's all they'll be able to afford. Our own descendants might look to the rooming houses depicted in old movies with envy.
It is both naive and foolish not to take population increases and the reasons for it into account when discussing housing. We have choices, we can choose to decide to have fewer new people come here in the future.
9
Joan dear, without immigration, we would be in the same sinkhole as Japan and Europe as population levels are receding by the millions. The present overall fertility rate puts the United States population below replacement level, but that does not mean the population is declining. We have a high level of influx of immigrants that compensates for it. Therefore we REQUIRE immigration to maintain our strength and position in the World.
2
Immigration brings new ideas, fresh well trained labor, new business ideas but one thing immigration will not bring is a increase in the Caucasian population. You can have a great lifestyle and lots of wealth with immigration or a shrinking poor country with borders closed, take your pick
2
Excuse me.. "overseas buyers" who don't even have permanent residency are buying up all of Southern California and jacking up the home prices- Where's Jerry Brown on that issue [asleep at his desk]? He's always been in cahoots with developers and realtors- Why doesn't he allow low cost housing near his sprawling ranch in Colusa? In the meantime- here I am forced to re-landscape my yard with desert plants and take shorter showers because THERE'S A DROUGHT- and yet we are complaining there aren't enough homes? So essentially, I am conserving water to allow new home owners a chance to waste it! Lastly there are thousands of vacant homes in urban Detroit- Why not fix those places up and send California's homeless there? What's wrong with giving a homeless person a free home?
13
Aaron -- You may be surprised but there's a real estate pricing boom going on in Detroit now. In many neighborhoods, prices have tripled since the city hit bottom 5 years ago. The remaining "vacant homes" in the outer sections of the city (away from the revitilizing core) are often in such poor repair that demolition is the only economic option. In fact, since 2014, Detroit has demolished more than 10,000 homes that are uneconomic to repair.
Just beyond the Detroit city limits are numerous affluent suburbs -- more than 30 in all -- that are not cheap by Michigan standards. So your proposed solution to "ship the CA homeless to Detroit" is not only insulting, it's also divorced from the facts on the ground. We really don't want you to "dump" your own problems here, Aaron.
Just beyond the Detroit city limits are numerous affluent suburbs -- more than 30 in all -- that are not cheap by Michigan standards. So your proposed solution to "ship the CA homeless to Detroit" is not only insulting, it's also divorced from the facts on the ground. We really don't want you to "dump" your own problems here, Aaron.
6
Yeah, thanks, California. Now WE have your housing detritus over here in Arizona.
7
I left San Francisco 15 years ago and moved to Scottsdale, Arizona. I've never looked back. At the time (2002), my husband and I worked full-time and lived in a rent-controlled flat in the Marina. Despite all of our efforts to save enough money to buy a home in the city or surrounding communities like Marin County, we could not afford it thanks to the dot-com bubble and high-tech money flowing through the Northern California housing market. That was 15 years ago and it's only gotten worse...a thousand times worse. The bidding wars, 20 offers on every home and homes selling $500,000 over asking price sales is ludicrous. In areas like Bernal Heights, (which is by the freeway and is not a great area), homes are now selling for $4 million. It's insanity. The Bay Area is beautiful and will always be home to me, but you couldn't pay me to return to that madness.
15
Being as I hate hot weather, you really could not give me enough money to live in Scottsdale.
9
Hot weather and brown air. I have a close relative who moved to the near suburbs; after visiting, yes, I understand that it's cheaper than much of California.
But it's no cheaper than the Central Valley, and, frankly, about the same quality of living. Sorry; a joke I don't get, in either case.
But it's no cheaper than the Central Valley, and, frankly, about the same quality of living. Sorry; a joke I don't get, in either case.
1
You can have the weather and an apartment . or move back East and deal with the weather and own a house. Not really that hard a decision once you are nearing 35.
3
Is the answer good California weather and an apartment? I'll take it!
5
I'd love to live in Cali, in a heartbeat.
1
The problem is actually much greater than suggested. Infrastructure is already overwhemed in many areas, and if even a fraction of the needed housing is built, it will take massive civil engineering to make places work.
ItsJustMe - in fact, there is no where else in the country, the world even, with the types of industry concentrated in the Bay area, in particular.
ItsJustMe - in fact, there is no where else in the country, the world even, with the types of industry concentrated in the Bay area, in particular.
7
Moving out if you can't afford it, isn't a solution. First, people who have supported an area for years, have invested time, effort, and tax dollars, in it; and as equal citizens, should have the right to share in the results. Second, every community needs those middle- and lower-income people: police, utility, and government workers; teachers, healthcare, retail, and restaurant workers. Everybody who keeps life going. Third, the happiest society is the one with a broad, stable, happy middle class. We're seeing how inequality leads to divisive politics, unrest, and violence. Everyone benefits when the lower- and middle classes can live a good life.
29
A factor no one has yet mentioned: earthquakes. Remember the Whittier quake? the 1989 Loma Prieta quake? Their possibility impacts architecture, building codes, evacuation plans, building costs, etc. There is a geological, valid reason why you do not see residential high rises in California. The SF peninsula where I live is limited horizontally and vertically, surrounded on 3 sides by large bodies of water spanned by bridges. No legislature can alter its geography.
18
Same reason we have no high rises in Tokyo - the earthquakes would just knock them all down!
4
of all the schisms that divide our country, the biggest is between a) those who believe that free buyers and sellers of goods and services should set their price(s) based on supply and demand and b) those who believe that elected and non-elected (i.e., bureaucrat) members of government should set price(s) based on what they believe is good for society (or for their constituency)... free actors, capitalists and libertarians vs. CA state Sen. Wiener, Bernie Sanders, Hugo Chavez, Chairman Mao... i'll take the former any day, thank you very much
6
And where does Prop 13 slot in to this libertarian utopia? I'm all for abolishing all rent control and much of the overly onerous regulatory structure in CA if it's paired with ending Prop 13.
But no one wants that... they want to privatize the gains and socialize the lost tax revenue.
But no one wants that... they want to privatize the gains and socialize the lost tax revenue.
1
The foremost impediment to more housing is Proposition 13 -- nothing else even comes close. Because increases in property taxes are capped, property taxes do not increase to keep pace with inflation and the cost of providing services. Thus there is zero incentive for any existing homeowners to want to have more housing within their community. Proposition 13 applies not just to residential properties, but to all commercial buildings as well. The tax basis does not change even when the property is handed down from parents to children, with the result that there are many many homes that are paying 10 or 20 times less in taxes than similar home next to them, creating no incentive to sell their home.
If the state legislature and Gov. Brown are serious about solving California's housing crisis, they should put an initiative on the state ballot to overturn Prop. 13, or at least fix it so that it applies to residential properties only and the tax basis is not transferred down generations.
If the state legislature and Gov. Brown are serious about solving California's housing crisis, they should put an initiative on the state ballot to overturn Prop. 13, or at least fix it so that it applies to residential properties only and the tax basis is not transferred down generations.
13
Yeah, no.
If anything, Prop 13 would induce cities to approve more units to increase the tax rolls.
The part about commercial properties v residential properties is worth exploring, but often times those are owned by individuals, not faceless corporations.
If anything, Prop 13 would induce cities to approve more units to increase the tax rolls.
The part about commercial properties v residential properties is worth exploring, but often times those are owned by individuals, not faceless corporations.
1
Another element people aren't considering as a benefit for living in California versus another less-expensive state is that if you're LGBT or another minority group (women) you are not treated as a second class citizen as you would in another state. For example, I was raised in Indiana and have been living in California for a year now. Being part of the LGBT community I am protected at the state level against discrimination, however, if I were to move back home to Indiana for a cheaper cost of living those protections are now gone and I would be subject to discrimination. Also, being in cities like LA and SF are very enlightening since you basically have to have some type of professional education to afford to live there. This creates a very nice, educated environment to live and to raise children in. If you doubt what I'm stating, feel free to research why the most educated cities also happen to be the most liberal.
22
I believe this is an unappreciated fact of the housing costs. I am just female and older, never want to give up the safety net of CA and fairness and tolerance in life for anything else.
7
Danny, Things have changed in the heartland. Here in little old Battle Creek, MI, (city pop. 52,000) we just had our second-annual Pride parade downtown with full support of city officials. We also have a Pride Center here that offers numerous programs, support groups, film series, classes, etc. 10 years ago, none of that existed. Today it's virtually common place here. Ditto for neighboring communities like Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids and Lansing. Many cities, including ours, have ordinances now that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. And don't forget -- states like Iowa authorized same-sex marriage (2009) long before the Supreme Court did that.
5
Iowa the place that elects a Steve king to the Congress? Nothing against the heartland but anyone who can leave has left. A coworker from Kansas is away from her immediate family but willing to make all the sacrifice so that she doesn't have to raise her kids in the rural trap she grew up in.
Building more housing in the LA area would mean more density and the roads and freeways are gridlocked much of the day already. I'm all for affordable housing, but will any one be able to get anywhere? We need to solve our transportation issues first or in conjunction with our housing issues.
10
Not everyone gets to live where they want. I'd love a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment in Manhattan; can't afford it. But in NYC, if you can't afford Manhattan, you can use the extensive mass transit networks to commute from hundreds of nearby, more affordable, communities.
I have lived in Portland for over 20 years and witnessed an explosion in housing values. Frankly, I could not afford my home at today's prices. Our local government is encouraging urban infill to address sky high rents. So far, the rents have not come down; rather, higher density has led to worse traffic, difficult parking, and a more stressful environment.
If we care about the quality of life in our cities and towns, we must build an effective infrastructure of mass transit that allows safe and convenient commuting from satellite residential centers to urban workplaces and entertainment venues. Squeezing more people into tighter spaces is not a future that will serve anyone's needs.
I have lived in Portland for over 20 years and witnessed an explosion in housing values. Frankly, I could not afford my home at today's prices. Our local government is encouraging urban infill to address sky high rents. So far, the rents have not come down; rather, higher density has led to worse traffic, difficult parking, and a more stressful environment.
If we care about the quality of life in our cities and towns, we must build an effective infrastructure of mass transit that allows safe and convenient commuting from satellite residential centers to urban workplaces and entertainment venues. Squeezing more people into tighter spaces is not a future that will serve anyone's needs.
24
Cities can make a rather simple decision/ perhaps state law/ that for every ten jobs added to the city there must be at least 3 housing units [sq ft etc to be defined] within the same city limits. That way you cannot 'create' jobs, but deflect the housing burden elsewhere. A business that has people commuting in form long distances must be charged a carbon footprint assessment.
Yes free market; but when a business affects my hometown and surroundings it must factor in the impact holistically. Everyone can move to N or S Dakota, or N/ S Carolina, or Texas if they please.
Yes free market; but when a business affects my hometown and surroundings it must factor in the impact holistically. Everyone can move to N or S Dakota, or N/ S Carolina, or Texas if they please.
6
$180,000 a year ad she can't afford to live closer to SF than Manteca? I smell a rat! Perhaps you can't have your 3,300 square foot new build with a pool and a new car every three years, but you can certainly live in the bay area on that. Sheesh.
10
Do your research on San Francisco prices before you judge. https://medium.com/tipping-point/living-on-the-poverty-line-in-san-franc...
7
The article is about living on the poverty line of $24.3K per year and how prices would feel to someone on that income. Not really relevant to the OP's point.
Did you actually read the article you linked to ? If you had you would note that the median rent in Nob Hill (one of SF's most affluent according to the article), is $5242 per month. For someone on $180K per year (about $9K net per month), that is painful but doable.
Did you actually read the article you linked to ? If you had you would note that the median rent in Nob Hill (one of SF's most affluent according to the article), is $5242 per month. For someone on $180K per year (about $9K net per month), that is painful but doable.
I'm a librarian who has always wanted to live in California, but who is appalled at the outrageous housing prices. While I'm sure there are a number of factors driving the exorbitant cost of housing such as: scarcity of land, out of state investors, the desirable climate/location, etc., it seems that above all this is just another example of the "haves" in society trying to take and take and take at the expense of everybody else.
5
This is a sad, cautionary tale of exclusionary housing that limits middle and low income buyers and renters.
But it's also a tale of so much low-density housing built in areas that are the definition of "Limited footprint" - areas where some level of higher density needed to happen and did not.
And if the giant home pictured in the Manteca photo with this article is a single family home, the fact that these huge McMansions are also still being built means that space is still not being used wisely.
All of these things have a cumulative impact and make this issue worse.
But it's also a tale of so much low-density housing built in areas that are the definition of "Limited footprint" - areas where some level of higher density needed to happen and did not.
And if the giant home pictured in the Manteca photo with this article is a single family home, the fact that these huge McMansions are also still being built means that space is still not being used wisely.
All of these things have a cumulative impact and make this issue worse.
3
The same thing is happening in Nassau County, NY too. People are moving out of New York City because of rising costs and driving up the housing in Nassau and Suffolk too. Long Island was already outrageously expensive and getting even worse. Of course the supposed answer is lots of new rental apartments which I am sure every person aspires to have rather than a home they can own.
2
That's not true. Nassau has been losing population while the city's has been exploding. The reasons are many, but for one, just look at the difference in property taxes between Little Neck, which is in Queens, and Great Neck, just across the border in Nassau. The latter's residential property tax is tens of thousands of dollars more.
In my view, the more problematic situation is income inequality. For example, the disparity in pay between tech workers and teachers is vast. The highly paid are able to raise the cost of housing by what many would deem overpaying.
In addition, Scott Weiner is clueless to this issue. Streamlining the permit process would do little to solve the crisis. We have little labor left to build the housing, materials can be scarce, and most importantly, when developers lose the bottom line for building. For example, there have been a minimum 12,000 units planned for the Mission Bay area for almost 20 years. Just now, we are coming somewhat close to completing that project. Also, before the 2008 mortgage crisis, there were 30,000 units approved in San Francisco. Less than 10% of those were built over the next 5 years.
The problem will not go away by making the approval process easier. The only problem it will solve is eliminating environmental, social and design concerns over projects. We need to solve the income inequality issues before we actually solve this crisis.
In addition, Scott Weiner is clueless to this issue. Streamlining the permit process would do little to solve the crisis. We have little labor left to build the housing, materials can be scarce, and most importantly, when developers lose the bottom line for building. For example, there have been a minimum 12,000 units planned for the Mission Bay area for almost 20 years. Just now, we are coming somewhat close to completing that project. Also, before the 2008 mortgage crisis, there were 30,000 units approved in San Francisco. Less than 10% of those were built over the next 5 years.
The problem will not go away by making the approval process easier. The only problem it will solve is eliminating environmental, social and design concerns over projects. We need to solve the income inequality issues before we actually solve this crisis.
2
Scott Weiner's campaign was heavily funded by developers and pro-growth groups if that gives you any idea on where he's coming from.
1
One should remember that it's not just building more housing will not solve the problem. Along with the housing, it is necessary to upgrade infrastructure such as sewer, water supply systems, landfill, roads, etc. etc. etc.
This is not easy to do in many areas of California, especially the Bay Area. Environmental concerns are one issue. Spending the necessary money is another.
California is not nearly as liberal as the rest of the country thinks. The people who now own the million dollar houses are not liberal activists--but rather conservative, "don't tax me" sort of people. They like things they way they are. They have their slice of the pie and don't want to pay so that others can have theirs.
This is not easy to do in many areas of California, especially the Bay Area. Environmental concerns are one issue. Spending the necessary money is another.
California is not nearly as liberal as the rest of the country thinks. The people who now own the million dollar houses are not liberal activists--but rather conservative, "don't tax me" sort of people. They like things they way they are. They have their slice of the pie and don't want to pay so that others can have theirs.
6
Prop 13's low tax rates are transferable within much of the state, on a county-to-county basis. How that has any impact on our housing situation is a mystery. A bigger source of the problem is the fact residents can transfer properties to their children, the vast majority of whom don't live in the home, but instead rent it out.
3
Moving out if you can't afford it, isn't a solution. First, people who have supported an area for years, have invested time, effort, and tax dollars, in it; and as equal citizens, should have the right to share in the results. Second, every community needs those middle- and lower-income people: police, utility, and government workers; teachers, healthcare, retail, and restaurant workers. Everybody who keeps life going. Third, the happiest society is the one with a broad, stable, happy middle class. Inequality leads to divisive politics and violence. We're seeing this already. Everyone benefits when the lower- and middle classes can live a good life.
5
Why is no one talking about level 5 fully autonomous vehicles as part of the housing problem? Shorter commutes would be ideal, but at least if we were getting ferried about by self-driving robo taxis we could sleep, read, watch Netflix, or video chat with family and friends. Living farther way wouldn't be as onerous in that case.
1
What is never discussed is the impact of illegal immigration on the California rental housing market. For example, Los Angeles has 13 million people; the Los Angeles Times recently reported that among them are 1.3 million illegal immigrants. Unlikely that these people are buying homes. Instead, they are renting apartments. If they lived 13 to an apartment -- an absurdity -- there would be 100,000 rental housing units in L.A. absorbed by their cohort. Los Angeles only built 40,000 new rental units over the last five years.
Do the math. If you want to know why your son or daughter can't find a Los Angeles rental unit for a reasonable price, that math is why not.
Do the math. If you want to know why your son or daughter can't find a Los Angeles rental unit for a reasonable price, that math is why not.
10
"The situation has been aggravated by places such as Brisbane, just south of San Francisco, which has encouraged extensive office development while failing to build housing."
Maybe instead of forcing everyone to build high rise apartments here and there, the state could reward cities that opt to be the Brisbane of high rise apartments.
Maybe instead of forcing everyone to build high rise apartments here and there, the state could reward cities that opt to be the Brisbane of high rise apartments.
A remarkably instructive article.
1
This issue will determine the future of large cities across the USA. It can be solved through tri-sector partnerships but also requires elected officials to prioritize the issue and create transparent processes to select sites and development teams.
I grew up in the Bay Area, went to college in Pittsburgh, then ended up staying in Pittsburgh after graduating. Every time I hear some horror story about what it's like to live there now (i.e. bouncing between apartments due to relentless rent hikes and eviction, constant traffic, overpriced everything, insufferable tech bro scene, etc.), I'm more thankful that I didn't move back to the Bay Area.
It turns out that Pittsburgh is a fantastic and very affordable place to live. My SO and I rent a huge lovely apartment in a lovely neighborhood for what wouldn't even get us half a moldy basement in San Francisco. It's honestly not worth it to try to make it in the Bay Area (or California in general, really) because we'd have to substantially downgrade everything about our lives even as we'd more than double our salaries.
I guess everyone keeps getting on the Bay Area/California bandwagon because they don't know what it's like there and all the frothy tech boom stuff makes it seem like the grass is greener there than anywhere else.
The grass is quite green in Pittsburgh, and in California, it's brown. Literally.
It turns out that Pittsburgh is a fantastic and very affordable place to live. My SO and I rent a huge lovely apartment in a lovely neighborhood for what wouldn't even get us half a moldy basement in San Francisco. It's honestly not worth it to try to make it in the Bay Area (or California in general, really) because we'd have to substantially downgrade everything about our lives even as we'd more than double our salaries.
I guess everyone keeps getting on the Bay Area/California bandwagon because they don't know what it's like there and all the frothy tech boom stuff makes it seem like the grass is greener there than anywhere else.
The grass is quite green in Pittsburgh, and in California, it's brown. Literally.
58
That's my plan too- my fiance and I are in Seattle and have watched as our dreams of home ownership are going poof- the average price of a 2 bedroom, 1 bath condo here is upwards of 400K, and is not big enough for our dreams of starting a family. We make twice the average median income here, but despite 2 solid incomes, we can't keep pace to save up for a down payment, and we don't work in the tech sector. Seattle also has no regional transportation and won't for the next 30+ years, making a move to the burbs not possible (and it's just as expensive 30-60 minutes out with the added bonus of a hellish commute). We are looking to move back east to Philly or Pittsburgh. The west coast in general is heading to a serious breaking point with housing. Beautiful place to live, but not affordable.
3
Let's not forget that Pittsburgh voted for Trump!
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are probably two of the most underrated cities in America. Not without their issues but would live in either before California. Friendly people. Good public transit in Philly and right on the northeast corridor Amtrak line.
The unlimited population growth, traffic, cost of living, etc. puts huge damper on California quality of life. CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, is one of the few things the state has going for it, but it sounds like the Democratic-controlled state legislature is taking aim at this. It astonishes me that California is considered some kind of a progressive, pro-environment place given how much they embrace unlimited population growth via de facto open borders, accelerating conversion of more people to 1st world consumption and emission rates. Thereby accelerating global warming. And doing this all in a desert climate based on diversion of water from the Colorado. 40 million people and growing is not ecologically sustainable in that environment.
The unlimited population growth, traffic, cost of living, etc. puts huge damper on California quality of life. CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, is one of the few things the state has going for it, but it sounds like the Democratic-controlled state legislature is taking aim at this. It astonishes me that California is considered some kind of a progressive, pro-environment place given how much they embrace unlimited population growth via de facto open borders, accelerating conversion of more people to 1st world consumption and emission rates. Thereby accelerating global warming. And doing this all in a desert climate based on diversion of water from the Colorado. 40 million people and growing is not ecologically sustainable in that environment.
6
The reason communities fear developers is because builders are like carpetbaggers. They come in, slash and burn, make their money and leave never having to deal with the mess they've made.
Proposition 13 did more than forcing owners to stay in their home to retain large tax avoidance, Prop. 13 also gutted funding for all state universities.
For years Santa Monica kept developers away from their small liberal single home beach community, but eventually those liberals were replaced. Those who took over opened the floodgates for developers. Soon, the special little community was destroyed. Built up with a slew of corporate pyramids that have over run the infrastructure. Housing demand for the liquid has turned 900 sq. ft. boxes into $1,000,000 spaces.
Google, Yahoo and other tech giants landed and built a community south of Santa Monica they named Playa Vista. In ten years they have built housing for their thousands of geeks who can pay $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a large, but still Orwellian, housing monster. They have basically dumped tens of thousands of ants into this small area that buts up against the only road that residents from as far south as LAX, the international airport in Los Angeles and those as far north as Pacific Palisades.
The rich and their hunger for something meaningful is killing us all. LA has 60,000 homeless and no one cares. There is no political answer for all this inequality.
Proposition 13 did more than forcing owners to stay in their home to retain large tax avoidance, Prop. 13 also gutted funding for all state universities.
For years Santa Monica kept developers away from their small liberal single home beach community, but eventually those liberals were replaced. Those who took over opened the floodgates for developers. Soon, the special little community was destroyed. Built up with a slew of corporate pyramids that have over run the infrastructure. Housing demand for the liquid has turned 900 sq. ft. boxes into $1,000,000 spaces.
Google, Yahoo and other tech giants landed and built a community south of Santa Monica they named Playa Vista. In ten years they have built housing for their thousands of geeks who can pay $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a large, but still Orwellian, housing monster. They have basically dumped tens of thousands of ants into this small area that buts up against the only road that residents from as far south as LAX, the international airport in Los Angeles and those as far north as Pacific Palisades.
The rich and their hunger for something meaningful is killing us all. LA has 60,000 homeless and no one cares. There is no political answer for all this inequality.
31
Some developers deserve their bad rap (Mohamed Hadid, father of supermodels Gigi and Bella, comes to mind), but not all developers are bad actors. The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles is overhauling the Jordan Downs public housing complex in South LA into a mixed-use, mixed-income market rate development that portends investment into similarly underserved neighborhoods. Metro encourages transit-oriented development with a mix of incentives. Some developers specialize in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing for veterans.
While Airbnb is blamed for displacing renters, landlord-friendly bills like Costa-Hawkins is responsible for the permanent removal of far more rental units, which is why efforts to repeal remain stalled in the Assembly (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent-control-bill-20170405-story.h....
California's housing crisis is inextricably linked to the homelessness crisis, which to me is a civil rights issue. Housing, homelessness, property rights - these are all complex issues with legitimate grievances from every angle. It's important, therefore, that we view the crisis dispassionately without tarring whole groups of stakeholders unfairly.
While Airbnb is blamed for displacing renters, landlord-friendly bills like Costa-Hawkins is responsible for the permanent removal of far more rental units, which is why efforts to repeal remain stalled in the Assembly (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent-control-bill-20170405-story.h....
California's housing crisis is inextricably linked to the homelessness crisis, which to me is a civil rights issue. Housing, homelessness, property rights - these are all complex issues with legitimate grievances from every angle. It's important, therefore, that we view the crisis dispassionately without tarring whole groups of stakeholders unfairly.
At $180,000 a year the nurse cited in this article could easily pay to live in SF. After taxes there would still be about $120,000 a year to spend on rent and everything else. She chooses a 2 hour commute. Give me a break
29
Agreed. 180k/year and she can't find a place to live? NYT-there is another explanation for that.
1
1br apts average $3500 in SF, maybe $2000-2500 in Oakland or Berkeley. So yeah, she could afford to rent in those places but she really couldn't save towards ownership at the same time without roommates. But she couldn't buy a SFH in any of those places. A condo in Oakland, yes. A townhouse further out 580, sure.
$180K/ year still buys a lot of house and yard in Manteca and that's clearly her priority. The tradeoffs in lost hours everyday on 580 seem crazy to me some but people choose that. It should have been made more clear that this was a choice.
$180K/ year still buys a lot of house and yard in Manteca and that's clearly her priority. The tradeoffs in lost hours everyday on 580 seem crazy to me some but people choose that. It should have been made more clear that this was a choice.
3
Building more housing is not a solution on its own. We need to also reevaluate what "affordable" means. Affordable for whom? The AMI (Average Median Income- yes I know average and median are not the same but that is what they choose to call it) is heavily skewed by recent college grads getting tech jobs that start at upwards of 50k per year. Building homes only they can afford will not help the scores pf families with multiple children making far less than that. It will only invite more young techies. This is why housing rights advocates are skeptical of development (it is not just the nimby crowd).
10
Maybe people should think twice about having multiple children if they can't afford it in a given community. Or move somewhere you can. Bill McKibben, the global warming apostle, got his start making the argument for limiting reproduction to one child in his book "Maybe One."
3
Density, density, density. Every other major city in the world grows by building up but Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, Cupertino, et al. are addicted to the single family home lifestyle. A modern, growing metropolis should have large numbers of residential high rises. Residential high rises in America are unfortunately associated with luxury development but a quick scan of every other big global city reveals that there are thousands of middle and lower middle class residential towers in the 10-30 floor range. Homeowners will be quick to point to the resulting traffic jams caused by such density but the answer to that is greater public transportation of the kind seen in every other major world city.
If New York City remained predominately single family homes, it would not have the status, wealth, or diversity that it has today. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose need become more like New York City is their density.
If New York City remained predominately single family homes, it would not have the status, wealth, or diversity that it has today. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose need become more like New York City is their density.
6
True. Los Angeles is finally beginning to realize the need to build "up". There are numerous high rise residential towers in the works, especially in the rejuvenated Downtown.
1
The sad reality is developers are not building for the service workers and tradesmen that actually enable society to function. Whats the profit in that? No, as demonstrated in city after city, the pursuit of "luxury" dwellings built as cheaply as possible is the holy grail. If the occasional stack of shoe box apartments gets approved its generally as a sop for the town to point to as the consideration for those not pulling down six figure salaries.
I know in my town (where I have lived practically my whole life) all the starter homes built in the '60's and even older dwellings in good condition are just so much trash taking up valuable building lots; tear downs blocking the developer from their profits. It's sad but balanced communities seem to be a thing of the past.
I know in my town (where I have lived practically my whole life) all the starter homes built in the '60's and even older dwellings in good condition are just so much trash taking up valuable building lots; tear downs blocking the developer from their profits. It's sad but balanced communities seem to be a thing of the past.
11
I lived in California decades ago when the population was around 14 million and has since grown to almost 40 million. Housing another 26 million people has to come either thru sprawl ruining much of the beautiful countryside and/or higher density, and/or more homeless. Other places have had similar issues from population growth. If the population keeps growing, the choices get worse.
9
Building more housing is not a solution on its own. We need to also reevaluate what "affordable" means. Affordable for whom? The AMI (Average Median Income- yes I know average and median are not the same but that is what they choose to call it) is heavily skewed by recent college grads getting tech jobs that start at upwards of 50k per year. Building homes only they can afford will not help the scores of families with multiple children making far less than that. It will only invite more young, single techies and perpetuate the problem.
2
I don't see any mention of money flooding into the California housing market from China. Isn't this also fueling the nightmarish price rise in housing throughout the state? (As it is in New York.)
49
To the nurse making $180k/year - perhaps you saw the attached article in this weekend's LA Times? Might be time to consider a position at the Cleveland Clinic main campus. You would be amazed at the living you can do on your salary -- beautiful home on a Great Lake, access to culture, entertainment, world class health care, museums, orchestra, restaurants, education...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-cleveland-201707...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-cleveland-201707...
10
But it's Cleveland.
2
KK, I see you live in Colorado, which, Like California is one of the continental US' most naturally beautiful states. Like California, it has a mix of very liberal and very conservative residents to keep things interesting.
As for Cleveland, I've been there. It's trying, in every sense of the word. It's very affordable, becoming more cosmopolitan in it's own way, but there's not much "there" there. And the weather is beyond abysmal.
As for Cleveland, I've been there. It's trying, in every sense of the word. It's very affordable, becoming more cosmopolitan in it's own way, but there's not much "there" there. And the weather is beyond abysmal.
1
What an incredibly dated response, Dr. Smith. Was your last visit to CLE in 1970? You must think the Cuyahoga is still burning.
I am employed by a Fortune 500 company based in Cleveland. I'm guessing you don't realize there is a disproportionately high number of Fortune 500/250 companies headquartered in Northeast Ohio. Ever hear of Sherwin Williams, The J.M. Smucker Company, Progressive Insurance, Goodyear, Lincoln Electric, Travel Centers of America, Parker Hannifin, Lubrizol (now a sub of Berkshire), the list goes on and on. These organizations, along with start-up tech companies like Hyland Software, the NASA Glenn Research Center, nationally known educational/research centers like Case Western Reserve, the Cleveland Institutes of Art and Music, are bringing (and keeping) extremely intelligent Liberals and Conservatives alike to the area to indulge in the aforementioned cultural opportunities and "keep things interesting."
I can assure you, there is plenty of "there" there.
I am employed by a Fortune 500 company based in Cleveland. I'm guessing you don't realize there is a disproportionately high number of Fortune 500/250 companies headquartered in Northeast Ohio. Ever hear of Sherwin Williams, The J.M. Smucker Company, Progressive Insurance, Goodyear, Lincoln Electric, Travel Centers of America, Parker Hannifin, Lubrizol (now a sub of Berkshire), the list goes on and on. These organizations, along with start-up tech companies like Hyland Software, the NASA Glenn Research Center, nationally known educational/research centers like Case Western Reserve, the Cleveland Institutes of Art and Music, are bringing (and keeping) extremely intelligent Liberals and Conservatives alike to the area to indulge in the aforementioned cultural opportunities and "keep things interesting."
I can assure you, there is plenty of "there" there.
4
We are also afflicted by Mansionization here in LA. So small houses in the urban center on small lots are being bought by real estate developers who build McMansions on the lots which increases the property value. In my 20 square block neighborhood, in the past 3 years we have had 30 houses torn with huge two story single family homes put up instead. The developers are making a neighborhood with 750,000 - 900,000 bungalows into a 2 million dollar neighborhood. Which is NOT what we need. If they had built duplexes or triplexes on those lots priced at 600,000 it would help.
14
Property speculation ought to be limited to in terms of units per owner. Certainly this will reduce bidding on rental property. Further, RV lots should be developed.
3
Hey tech companies: Come to Jersey City, New Jersey. Thousands of new apartments are added every year and yet, amazingly, there are few traffic problems. Many apts w/vu available for around $2K. JC is becoming what SF could be but won't. There is a dynamic symbiosis of walkability developing.
2
But it's New Jersey.
1
The price of housing is high in California?
There are long commutes in California?
There are millions of illegal aliens in California?
There are homeless in California?
There is a water shortage in California?
Oh, I was wondering why Governor Brown keeps spending billions on a high speed rail to nowhere and globe trots to grandstand on global weather conditions. I thought those were the only problems in California.
There are long commutes in California?
There are millions of illegal aliens in California?
There are homeless in California?
There is a water shortage in California?
Oh, I was wondering why Governor Brown keeps spending billions on a high speed rail to nowhere and globe trots to grandstand on global weather conditions. I thought those were the only problems in California.
11
Well you dislike Governor Brown so you must be a Republican. Do you really want the gubmint to address these problems? (except the water).
The rest are just the market talking.
The rest are just the market talking.
That high speed rail will whisk people from Morgan Hill and Gilroy and towns further south to work in SF in 20-30 minutes. The land area between LA/Santa Barbra and SF/San Jose along highway 101 is lightly populated. Same great weather, just not a lot of jobs.
Steve, as a resident of San Francisco you need to get out more.
Steve, as a resident of San Francisco you need to get out more.
2
How many times can the article state that there's a housing crisis??
2
Already there are plenty of high rises going up in the SF Bay Area. However they are not affordable. The developers are upgrading the kitchens and bathrooms for relatively little additional cost and calling them luxury units and charging exorbitant prices, around $2500/mo for a 650 sq. foot one bedroom and around $4000.00/mo for a two bedroom. I do not see this trend changing because its a landlord's market and there is no meaningful rent control. Meanwhile companies like Google, Facebook etc. are adding thousands of jobs while hiring relatively few locals, so more and more population pressure is being put on the housing market. I pity the families with their six figure salaries who have to have to stretch their budgets in order to squeeze into these "luxury" apartments or make the choice of moving to affordable area and braving the huge traffic gridlock which becomes worse with each passing year.
12
I live in Palo Alto, the heart of Silicon Valley. My congressional district is the third most educated in the country. Education quality of our public schools is (supposedly) better than most private schools. And yet, I've seen the value of my home rise from 1.7 million in 2006 to about 5 million. The simple fact is, with housing so expensive here, teachers can't afford to live nearby, thus driving out qualified teachers from our public schools and inviting teachers with little to no experience.
25
I also lived in the Bay Area near Palo Alto. I wondered how the inexperienced teachers can afford to live there too.
4
My sister lives in the SF South Bay in the town of Atherton. She use to volunteer and fund raise for the local school district. A lot of the public and private teachers moonlight as tutors and commute 2 hours away. You can see how far they are coming from the local school's tutoring website.The teachers are really having problems finding class room volunteers now because both parents work in order to afford to live there. Private schools in area start at $40,000 a year. My sister lives in a 1940's cottage once built to house Stanford University staff. They are the third owners of the home. They purchased the house at the very cliff of the 2008 housing crisis. The house is half the size of their prior home and more expensive. They get by one income because they have rental property in San Francisco. They rent out a one bedroom with a parking space on Jackson and Van Ness for $3,000 a month.
Are you complaining about the lack of qualified teachers in . . . Palo Alto?
I'm wiping the tears from my eyes as ! type this . . .
I'm wiping the tears from my eyes as ! type this . . .
1
You can always count on the Times and its readers to tell everyone else how they're supposed to live.
8
Let's hurry up with this bullet train... we can probably transport our way out before we build our way out of this problem!
2
Here's an idea, build large, high density multi-unit apartments and condos. I look at the photo and all I see are small single or multi unit buildings
4
High Speed Rail, problem solved.
4
Get rid of prop 13, which only rewards people for not selling, and restrict ownership to those with jobs in the area. We lost out to so many strong all cash offers from overseas when we were trying to buy that we finally gave up.
5
Sir, you wrote: "restrict ownership to those with jobs in the area. " This would mean that when I lost my job, or retired, I would have to sell my house and move away. I think the electorate would reject any such law. It is too harsh on the unemployed and retired.
2
Ted, I agree, perhaps my comment is overtly general, but I think you can see the intention. Me and my family cannot find a larger home for our growing family and me and my wife both have employment.
Perhaps we shouldn't allow more houses until water desalination treatment plants to create potable water is developed in Southern California and other drought prone areas. In the meantime, remove prop 13 from second homes and allow tax breaks to transfer if a person moves into a smaller home.
10
This journalistic habit of calling people "middle class" who are only middle class from the vantage of the 1% or in their own deluded imaginations has got to stop. It is not accurate; and it is not conducive to clear thinking about public policy.
The nurse cited in the article, "who makes $180,000 a year" as her *individual* salary, is not middle class, even by California standards. $180K is a bit under three times the median California *household* income of $64K. The only housing crisis served by expanding housing for those making $180K and up -- imagine a two-earner family at that level -- is the crisis of developers eager to gobble up California's scenery.
What the state needs is more "low-income" high-density housing in its major metropolitan areas for California's genuine middle and lower classes, or the upper classes, including the commuting nurse making $180K, will soon have no one to cater to their runaway lifestyles.
The nurse cited in the article, "who makes $180,000 a year" as her *individual* salary, is not middle class, even by California standards. $180K is a bit under three times the median California *household* income of $64K. The only housing crisis served by expanding housing for those making $180K and up -- imagine a two-earner family at that level -- is the crisis of developers eager to gobble up California's scenery.
What the state needs is more "low-income" high-density housing in its major metropolitan areas for California's genuine middle and lower classes, or the upper classes, including the commuting nurse making $180K, will soon have no one to cater to their runaway lifestyles.
11
No one builds affordable housing any more, not in Chicago, not anywhere. It's a bad problem getting worse. Builders would rather make maximum profit while squeezing out those who don't have even a combined income to purchase an average sized home. And builders are the first to go crying to Washington for help with rates and regulations. They are a greedy bunch, but this is America after all.
14
California has had a Democratic "supermajority" for some years now. But it still has the most regressive tax system in the country capping property taxes and making up the shortfall with increased sales taxes,(where I live, in Sonoma County, sales tax is at 8.75% and rising) increased fees for government services like registering your car, increased gas taxes to pave the roads, etc. it also has the greatest income inequality in the country, and its economy is entirely dependent on a black market labor force of illegal immigrants. In true neo-liberal style though, our legislators are quick to signal their virtue by issuing proclamations that the Trump agenda is not California's, that certain cities are to be considered sanctuary cities, etc. This is all they need to do to win votes. Proclamations cost nothing and California voters lap all that self-righteousness right up. It resonates with their own deluded sense of self. California is 600 miles long, 300 miles wide, and a quarter of an inch deep
5
California is 900 miles long. It's not that shallow, but i get your point. Entrenched power does tend to serve itself.
People greatly underestimate the degree to which AirBnB contributes to this problem, especially in coastal areas. Investors in Long Beach are buying up multiple properties and turning them into lucrative AirBnB rentals. Two building across from my home were bought by the same investor, the eight apartments were emptied of tenants, then turned into AirBnB rentals. One former tenant I met on the street told me weeks later that he was still couch-surfing with friends because he couldn't find an apartment. It is largely affordable housing that these investors target. From my point of view, the "sharing economy" of short term rentals is a rapacious cause of misery to lower income people.
19
Thank you for exposing the underlying hypocricy of the so-called liberals in that very blue state that try to keep their property values artificially high by excluding others while preaching inclusiveness to the rest of us.
10
I work for a SF company mostly from home and commute in at least once/month. Why don't I move even with the generous relocation allowance??? Housing costs, plain and simple. To find affordable house would involve a 2+hr commute from the office, kids lives disrupted, god awful traffic and NIMBY rampant. No thank you, I'll take the hit in career that working from home entails to keep my family sane and my housing costs well beyond manageable. BTW, my company is missing out on a senior level executive due simply to housing. One would think these CEOs would be lobbying state government like crazy to fix the situation.
4
In Oakland, a large scale housing development mysteriously goes up in flames while the tents underneath the overpasses proliferate. Suspend prop 13. Ease restrictions on developers building x amount of units. Politicians- do something, even if unpopular -- this is a humanitarian crisis.
3
Suspend Prop 13 only for corporations , business owners and second homes
4
PHILADELPHIA, An historical city--the only UNESCO cultural heritage city in the Western Hemisphere, depended upon varied types of housing dating back to colonial times. The grand houses of the owners were on large streets, while the smaller, less elaborate homes were constructed on side streets, resulting in a chock-a-block housing stock that exists in the city to this day. Of course there have been many changes over time. The smaller houses in center city are now very valuable; the larger ones even moreso. But there is a movement to bring back multi-purpose housing to different areas. My wife's brother is an architect who specializes in low cost housing in the New York metropolitan area. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere!
5
The housing crisis in California has been severe since the 1980s. Zoning accounts for a good deal of it: if everyone lives in a single-family home with a back yard, efficient public transportation is impossible, leading to our other major problem: terrible traffic and lack of realistic public transit options. IMO, it's high time California decided to create high-density housing along rail lines and other public transit routes. As a native New Yorker, I know it's possible to learn to love apartment living, especially if stores, restaurants, and good public transit are within walking distance of your home.
19
This is precisely why I left California for New York 18 years ago (after 13 years in S.F. and 13 years in Marin County). Housing was ridiculously expensive to be sure but there was truly no way to get around except by car. And everyone else in the same boat was on the road with me. I reached my saturation point, moved East, and even with the recent NYC transit woes, I have never regretted my decision.
6
Richard Bloom, quoted in the last paragraphs, is the former councilperson and mayor of Santa Monica who owes his seat in the California Assembly to turning the city of Santa Monica into a developers' paradise, and most particularly his association with NMS Properties. It's time to look at the problem another way. The problem is overpopulation, not lack of affordable housing. For years the movies and television have sold a version of LA (I'm looking at you, Lala Land) that is false and unsustainable. Knowing that it is the 8th largest economy in the world people are drawn here to try to make their fortunes, and unfortunately some of them are New York developers who this article seems to be shilling for. There are compelling reasons our culture has evolved the way it has: earthquake, fire and water, that is scarcity of water. I cringe when I see plans for an 80 story tower have been approved by the LA City Council. Get ready for the water wars, folks. One of the greatest travesties imposed on the area was the construction of the freeways. Neighborhoods were decimated. It was an environmental and cultural disaster. A viable system of public transportation was in place that could have been brought up to date and expanded throughout the region. There is no way cities, especially San Francisco, are going to be able to build their way out of this mess. More building will just line developers' pockets without creating affordable housing or a sustainable environment.
24
I wish you would appear on every NPR interview show on this topic, because whoever does get booked never details the reality of the matter as you have here. The fact is, this is a problem without a solution. Development-especially "skyrise" development-in high risk areas on top of the many earthquake faults-not to mention the exorbitant prices on these proposed apartments and the resulting pollution and traffic issues-is not the answer everyone not from here seems to think.
7
Repeal Prop.13 for all non-owner-occupied homes. Then adjust the rest to at least approximate present tax rates.
7
My husband and I were living in a $700,000 home on the San Francisco Bay and after my parents died (who lived with us), the house was way too big for our retired lifestyle. So we picked up and moved to Oregon near Portland, at a less than half cost, with far fewer taxes. We live in a safe small community and love the new lifestyle though we're adapting to the rain. Much more affordable for us, though Oregonians hate Californians invading their state. Senior Oregonians are moving to Idaho I hear. Not easy to do in your 60's to leave friends you've had for years, but financially it was worth our while.
8
Two thoughts that have been applied here in Canada-land for better and worse. In many placed, municipalities were forced to amalgamate, in order to better reflect those that used public services (most suburbs don't have their own transit, water, power services). Second, a provincial (state) level municipal board was given authority to hear construction and zoning appeals in order to put municipal politicians feet to the fire and keep their promises.
While the results have been mixed, positive results are slowly accruing, with city budgets more likely to be balanced and major infrastructure, including affordable housing, being approved as a matter of course.
While the results have been mixed, positive results are slowly accruing, with city budgets more likely to be balanced and major infrastructure, including affordable housing, being approved as a matter of course.
2
For starters, she 'could' certainly afford to live much much closer to her work on her income, but the quality of life is not good in the SF Bay Area and Manteca has beautiful, large, brand new homes on large lots.
Secondly, there is at least one hospital in Manteca, more in San Joaquin County and much closer to where she lives that she could potentially work at. If it were me, I'd start seeking a hospital job close to home to make her quality of life better- and she probably will at some point (I assume) but that's up to this lady in the article.
Thirdly, the tech companies are hurting the housing situation by hiring interns and employees from outside of the local area and especially outside of our country. Everytime a foreigner enters the country for a job, that's one more person to house and commute and drive prices up.
Secondly, there is at least one hospital in Manteca, more in San Joaquin County and much closer to where she lives that she could potentially work at. If it were me, I'd start seeking a hospital job close to home to make her quality of life better- and she probably will at some point (I assume) but that's up to this lady in the article.
Thirdly, the tech companies are hurting the housing situation by hiring interns and employees from outside of the local area and especially outside of our country. Everytime a foreigner enters the country for a job, that's one more person to house and commute and drive prices up.
5
This article only briefly touches on the cost of property tax in the overall cost of home ownership in California.
The property tax on my California castle under Prop 13 is $.40 per square foot. As an example of California corporate property tax, Walt Disney Corporation pays $.05 per square foot on Sleeping Beauty's castle. So I pay 8 times what Disney pays in property taxes.
The average California family income is $61, 635 whereas Walt Disney Corp. annual income is $42,278,000,000 - more than 693,000 times more than the average California family income.
It's high time that Prop 13 was changed to make corporations like Disney pay their fair share so that family homes become more affordable in California.
The property tax on my California castle under Prop 13 is $.40 per square foot. As an example of California corporate property tax, Walt Disney Corporation pays $.05 per square foot on Sleeping Beauty's castle. So I pay 8 times what Disney pays in property taxes.
The average California family income is $61, 635 whereas Walt Disney Corp. annual income is $42,278,000,000 - more than 693,000 times more than the average California family income.
It's high time that Prop 13 was changed to make corporations like Disney pay their fair share so that family homes become more affordable in California.
35
This is as obscene as anything else in the article. Out of curiosity, I would like to see how everyone's property taxes would be affected if prop 13 was completely repealed. I image anyone who has bought a house for more than $500k might see their taxes decline, as older homeowners are charged more. It would probably be different depending on county services as well.
2
Prop 13 limits the increase on the tax basis to 2% a year. My home in SV has appreciated over 200% in the last 20 years. Over 18% in the last 7 months. My income, as an engineer has gone up by a fraction of that.
1
Am I the only one who noticed in the article a reference to a nurse being paid $180,000.00 a year? Good for her, but no wonder our health care costs are so high!
18
My mother was a very successful real estate agent in the '60s and '70s. She said your home should appreciate 7% per year, and double in value every 10. She was right for long term real estate investors.
CA housing costs are an up an down investment. Recessions in 1990 and 2009 cut values in half. And it takes years to recover. I purchased my home in a desirable LA neighborhood in 1999 for less than $300K just as the '90 recession was rebounding upward. By 2008 I could have sold it for nearly $900K, but two years later it could not have sold for more than $650. Now, homes all around me are in the $1M+ range. Mother was right, in two years, my $300K investment should return 7% over 20 years.
CA housing costs are an up an down investment. Recessions in 1990 and 2009 cut values in half. And it takes years to recover. I purchased my home in a desirable LA neighborhood in 1999 for less than $300K just as the '90 recession was rebounding upward. By 2008 I could have sold it for nearly $900K, but two years later it could not have sold for more than $650. Now, homes all around me are in the $1M+ range. Mother was right, in two years, my $300K investment should return 7% over 20 years.
1
Sorry, house appreciation isn't physics, and expecting RE to forever outpace wage growth is a recipe for disaster (see 2007). Buying in a place that continued to boom economically while the housing stock didn't keep pace was either smart, lucky or a combination of the two. But even white collar salaries aren't going to quadruple every 20 years in the best of times so you have to be betting on a forever inflating asset bubble to expect a $300K house in '99 to be worth $4M in 2039.
Could happen. I wouldn't count on it. Just ask someone almost anywhere outside top 5 coastal metro areas how that "doubling every decade" is working out for them.
Could happen. I wouldn't count on it. Just ask someone almost anywhere outside top 5 coastal metro areas how that "doubling every decade" is working out for them.
1
If most of the housing was in the form of apartments like in other big cities in the world, there would be more housing available. Land in a way is wasted by being used for single family homes.
5
California should realistically plan to build affordable housing. In California we are creating a big divide between the house owners and a decent rental house for the working people. One of the biggest problems are corporations purchasing rental homes, these corporations can monopolize the price.
2
Perhaps, if California's legislature would vacate the Howard Jarvis Amendment, Prop 13. While the measure discourages old-ownership land development, it makes affording homes prohibitive for the new buyer, while feathering the nests of those who retain property protected from contemporary property tax rates. A further shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. Now that is an actual conservative republican value!
5
How to make a California-style housing crisis, in 10 easy steps:
1.) Decide you don't want any new neighbors
2.) Make it difficult/expensive to build homes
3.) Have children
4.) Create strong economy that attracts people from around the world
5.) Invest in local politicians who “defend neighborhood character"
6.) Say goodbye to your children, who are forced to move to South Dakota to afford starter home
7.) Distract people from focusing on landlords, preferably by using well-worn tropes about "evil developers."
8.) Profit handsomely off the soaring imbalance between housing supply and demand
9.) Absolve sins with annual $20 check to Sierra Club
10.) Sierra Club announces opposition to local housing, citing “neighborhood character."
1.) Decide you don't want any new neighbors
2.) Make it difficult/expensive to build homes
3.) Have children
4.) Create strong economy that attracts people from around the world
5.) Invest in local politicians who “defend neighborhood character"
6.) Say goodbye to your children, who are forced to move to South Dakota to afford starter home
7.) Distract people from focusing on landlords, preferably by using well-worn tropes about "evil developers."
8.) Profit handsomely off the soaring imbalance between housing supply and demand
9.) Absolve sins with annual $20 check to Sierra Club
10.) Sierra Club announces opposition to local housing, citing “neighborhood character."
8
I don't know how many developers are "evil", but I do know they're in the business of making as much profit as they can-and there's a hell of a lot of profit to be made right now building in Southern California. It's all about making money. There's no philathropy involved in building high rises that "start in the low $700,000s". And actually, "neighborhood character" is a real thing. I care about it exisiting even in places I don't live. But no-let's let people in the game only for profit build more large ugly boxes as cheaply as possible with no green space(not cost effective),water at a premium and pollution rampant. A great plan!
5
Nothing complicated here. California needs to get rid of those beaches, sunshine and mountains and stop being so darn desirable. Just become Kansas. The brilliant governor of Kansas thought people and businesses would flock to the Sunflower state because of no state income tax. This has always been and will always be a problem in CA because people want to live there.
6
I don't think growth is something that can be legislated. At our local library (in Sonoma county CA) there is a DVD called "Rebels with a Cause" (http://rebelsdocumentary.org/) which documents the creation of the Point Reyes national sea shore and the adjoining lands in Marin county. The history lesson there is that there is a cost to protecting land. We all enjoy the Marin and San Francisco coast because of this, but it did help to push Marin county into one of the most expensive places to live in the state, if not the country.
See if you can borrow this DVD, it has some great insights into what happens to paradise when we build. The national sea shore could have looked like the East bay if the developers had their way, but, our children will never be able to afford to live here ...
See if you can borrow this DVD, it has some great insights into what happens to paradise when we build. The national sea shore could have looked like the East bay if the developers had their way, but, our children will never be able to afford to live here ...
2
There is no housing crisis for home owners who are blocking new construction and watching the value of their houses increase. That is the problem. As long as these people don't mind seeing dozens of tents under every freeway overpass, things will change slowly, if at all.
7
Just wait - if the economy goes bust the housing bubble will deflate. It will happen, sooner or later.
1
It's Trump's fault what is happening in California. Pelosi?
3
Of course the NYT ignores what is perhaps the largest factor here, illegal immigration. California has the largest number of "undocumented" residents and they have many millions of children who all compete for housing. There are many negative aspects to unlimited illegal immigration and this is one of them.
9
Judging from a lot of the strongly-held but uninformed opinions here, we need a lot more discussion and education on this very, very difficult, complicated, personal, and crucial issue. We need more articles like this.
Oakland is a classic example. Acres of under-utilised brown-space ripe for infill. Block after block of decaying, unused one-story warehouses which are next to mass transit and could be used for housing or replaced with apartment buildings. Miles of waterfront where thousands of people should be living. The Port of Oakland is sitting on huge areas of land which should have been turned to housing long ago. Yet the anti-business political groups which control the corrupt city government have squashed initiative after initiative for 40 years.
Jerry Brown, while mayor, fought strongly for high-density housing downtown, next to mass transit stations, and was fought tooth-and-nail by anti-business forces. He partially succeeded, but the effort stopped when he left to become governor.
These issues are not simple, but the obstacles are political, not technical.
Oakland is a classic example. Acres of under-utilised brown-space ripe for infill. Block after block of decaying, unused one-story warehouses which are next to mass transit and could be used for housing or replaced with apartment buildings. Miles of waterfront where thousands of people should be living. The Port of Oakland is sitting on huge areas of land which should have been turned to housing long ago. Yet the anti-business political groups which control the corrupt city government have squashed initiative after initiative for 40 years.
Jerry Brown, while mayor, fought strongly for high-density housing downtown, next to mass transit stations, and was fought tooth-and-nail by anti-business forces. He partially succeeded, but the effort stopped when he left to become governor.
These issues are not simple, but the obstacles are political, not technical.
5
Gentrifying Oakland means that one set of people will be able to afford housing in a neighborhood that they believe is now livable, but another set of people will be forced to move out. New Yorkers of a certain age will remember when SoHo, the Meatpacking District, Chelsea -- heck a lot of neighborhoods -- were considered ripe with "under-utilized brown space" and poor folk living in those neighborhoods. Where are those poor people now?
That's one of the reasons why Oakland residents view re-development with a high degree of suspicion.
That's one of the reasons why Oakland residents view re-development with a high degree of suspicion.
7
We should have commuter blimps of Aeroscraft built by Igor Pasternak .
Commuter blimp service from city to city would solve so many problems for our bay area that we all love so much .
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/25/forget-flying-cars-googles-sergey-...
Commuter blimp service from city to city would solve so many problems for our bay area that we all love so much .
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/25/forget-flying-cars-googles-sergey-...
1
I feel very grateful to have a roof over my head.
6
We have seen the irony before...blue states and cities with attitudes for NIMBY prohibitions to the next generation of families. It's happening in NYC, Chicago and other progressive cities. Open-mindedness stops at my gated community...
Meanwhile here in the Midwest, you can live well, you don't need to make $180,000 to be a nurse, and a two hour commute allows you to live on a quiet lake and commute to an urban job center. Not quite sure why so many people think California is the place you oughta be.
Meanwhile here in the Midwest, you can live well, you don't need to make $180,000 to be a nurse, and a two hour commute allows you to live on a quiet lake and commute to an urban job center. Not quite sure why so many people think California is the place you oughta be.
26
two words: weather. beauty.
Here in Napa, wealthy people with lots of cash are buying up houses and renting them on air b&b or VRBO. Where the average hotel room is $400/night, a $180/night room in a house or a whole house at $3000 a week for 3 couples is a steal. This so that wealthy people can come taste and buy wine (that usually starts at $75/bottle and can go up to $400/bottle) made by people making $15 and hour from people mostly making $15/an hour with few if any benefits. Then they go out to eat at restaurants that cost $100 per person-served by people making....$12.50 an hour with no benefits.
One understanding and sympathetic comment from a 'got mine' resident printed in the local paper said "Napa has plenty of affordable housing-its called Fairfield" (45 min away).
Meanwhile, Napa is expecting about another 800 hotel rooms to go on-line in the next 12 months-creating a LOT of ...that's right....$15/hour service jobs.
Welcome to California! Cheers!
One understanding and sympathetic comment from a 'got mine' resident printed in the local paper said "Napa has plenty of affordable housing-its called Fairfield" (45 min away).
Meanwhile, Napa is expecting about another 800 hotel rooms to go on-line in the next 12 months-creating a LOT of ...that's right....$15/hour service jobs.
Welcome to California! Cheers!
53
In NYC and the west coast it is real estate speculators and developer who are intent on destroying living prospects for anyone below the upper class. Their half hearted efforts at designating some apartments affordable are a joke. Yet, the entire world bows down to them and submits, such is their power. The best example: our president the developer.
12
Tiny house movement, reconfigured shipping containers, etc...these are 21st century solutions addressing AFFORDABLE housing...not just lack of housing for the well-to-do. Small spaces are adequate, moveable spaces offer flexibility, etc. In Europe, quality of life is a central consideration; the USA is obsessed by expensive houses, accumulation of money, materialism, consumerism, all very unsustainable for a planet in agony over uber-growth.
Why is now one addressing the idea of forming new economic centers, away from these overpriced, over-speculated metropolises. Just think: a consortium of communities built around small living spaces, economic enterprises, small merchants, shared local agriculture. I know...it's that socialism word creeping up here in the minds of a brainwashed citizenry (eh, consumer base) that keeps them from experiencing a life of meaning with real relationships created without facebooking. Imagine that.
And we wonder why 25% of the population is on antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication?
Why is now one addressing the idea of forming new economic centers, away from these overpriced, over-speculated metropolises. Just think: a consortium of communities built around small living spaces, economic enterprises, small merchants, shared local agriculture. I know...it's that socialism word creeping up here in the minds of a brainwashed citizenry (eh, consumer base) that keeps them from experiencing a life of meaning with real relationships created without facebooking. Imagine that.
And we wonder why 25% of the population is on antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication?
11
Although they don't call it that, New Yorkers have been in the forefront of the "tiny house movement" for decades. Oh, and they'd consider a ship's storage container a palace.
3
Median home in Fresno is just over $210K. The high-speed rail project will put such a home within commuting distance of both the Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles. Or encourage cost-conscious employers to relocate close by.
6
I have trouble believing that someone making $180K a year couldn't find an affordable place in Oakland, just across the bay from San Francisco and a lot less commuting time than two hours.
8
Affordable, yes. Livable, definitely not.
6
If they are a family of 4+ it's plausible that they cannot afford Oakland.
2
You could if you like house sharing. It is very, very tight - hard to find a place that even a well paid nurse can afford. Next door to us is a single bedroom 1 bath 800 sq ft granny unit which just rented to a Doctor for $1800 - that is in Sonoma county, just to give a perspective.
1
My husband and I rent a house in a desirable neighborhood in SF for well under market rates - honestly we just got lucky. It's far cheaper for us to stay in our rented home in SF than buy a much smaller house anywhere else within reasonable commuting distance. While I love our house, there is no sense of community here - our neighbors hate us because we represent the wave of rich tech millennials ruining the "feel" of San Francisco. Which is ironic because I'm a medical resident making 50k a year! Our neighbors, many of whom have lived on the block for decades, also oppose development of any kind - I know because I used to be on the neighborhood newsletter which made that clear. In my experience, there are clearly many layers to the housing crisis in the Bay Area, some of which speak to a deep cultural divide between the old guard and the new.
13
The California water crisis is worse than the housing crisis. Build more and there will be more people using more water, which will end in disaster.
Let's stabilize the world's population of humans, and then let it gradually decline. In the meantime, build in states with sufficient water resources, even if they are not as lovely as California.
Let's stabilize the world's population of humans, and then let it gradually decline. In the meantime, build in states with sufficient water resources, even if they are not as lovely as California.
11
This article completely ignores the other aspects of increasing housing density: namely dealing with infrastructure: roads, school, water, etc. My 35 mile commute home in the SF bay area often takes well over 2 hours. What is CA doing to alleviate this? Frankly, making issues even worse, by converting the left lanes of highways to HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle), or, because the utilization of these has been so poor, charging for being in the left lane. This decreases the net carrying capacity of highways here. Not that leaving the left lane open is a solution. Also, public transportation is very limited, expensive, over-crowded during rush hour, and lately, not safe. My $.02 is that the area is at it's limit, and no more housing should be constructed in the SF bay area. Our politicians need to get a better understanding of the population limits of an area, instead of thinking they can simply cram even more people in, and that somehow things will all work out
19
I'm confused: Why are HOV lanes contributing to the traffic problem? And if people don't use it, THEY'RE the problem, not the HOV lanes.
3
But, but, but, conservatives and Fox have been telling everyone that nobody wants to live in California! Guess they're wrong.
4
No. They're not. I'm conservative, and love the climate and topography of the Bay Area. The politics, meh.
2
Repeal Prop.13 for all non-owner-occupied homes and adjust it for the rest.
9
California was so much better in the 70's and 80's. The only reason my wife and I can afford to live here is the military housing stipend she receives. Just way too many people. I can't wait to leave. I don't care how good the weather is. This isn't living.
20
I have fond memories of sailing a boat in San Diego Bay that I bought with a $3.75/hr job in the mid eighties. It was a magical time where the horizon glittered and the ocean was alive and real people could live there near the water, working everyday jobs.
I don't care if I never return to CA. Those days are over.
I don't care if I never return to CA. Those days are over.
2
Why can't they build apartment buildings again? Increasing high density housing options seems like a nice way to increase supply and thus lower living/housing costs and also indirectly reduce pollution since you'll have fewer commuters who need to spend four hours a day in a car commuting to work.
5
Because there isn't enough water for all of those new people. And the water supply will only diminish over time.
9
Why is there a housing crises in California? Because everyone in red states want to move, live and work here.
4
I agree with another comment on here. California has too many people and that includes illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. Anyone who busts through our borders, breaks our laws and thinks that as long as they crozz the line they're safe is wrong. We can fully employ our workforce of US born citizens and this would greatly help the housing situation.
11
People are actually moving out of California in floods because the state is a wreck at this point. Most are going to Texas and Oregon.
4
The housing crisis can be partly solved by (a) Removing caps on property taxes. If someone who has bought the house in the 70s, 80s and is now paying taxes several thousands below market value needs to be gently pushed out. Either pay market value or please move out and make room for someone who might truly need to live there. Retirees can live in Santa Rosa or Gilroy. (b) People who own investor or rental properties should be taxed at twice or thrice the normal rate unless the whole complex is a multi-family rental unit. Let's not encourage real estate as investments. Both of these ideas should clear up a lot of housing and lower the prices.
9
Removing property tax caps is a terrible idea because this group of homeowners are largely people who are retirement age. I don't know how Santa Rosa and Gilroy fit in to your paragraph but thanks for the random comment. People who own rental properties should not be taed twice because these homes are providing rental space for people who can't buy. If you tax them, they'll raise the rent for renters and then people just whine and complain more. You do live in a bubble however if you're in fact in San Jose
2
Trying to fix the housing problem with traditional old thinking won't work. High density housing will create traffic nightmare. The best way is to change the way how a bus is running. People should able to eat, work, and entertaining on the bus, so long ride will not be a problem. With hi-tech, a bus can equipt with wi-fi, so people can watch tv or doing work on the bus. If people can eat drink on the bus like long range train or airplane, houses can be build in remote low land price area. With self-driving bus, the cost of running bus will be reduced thus running more frequently. With shared ride like Uber, people don't need own cars. With Amazon, you don't need retail shops nearby. If there is people live there, retain shops will be created. the only problem for this is the government need to guarantee to build the road and provide renters or buyers initially. The builders will build house there. Government can give incentive and encourage teachers, government workers to live there.
1
It's not just about "neighborhood character"--for many people, it's about protecting their home values. I live in a desirable area and we have voter approval of some development projects. I asked my neighbor if he was in favor of a proposed local project that was infill, used a not-very-desirable piece of land near a freeway, included affordable housing, and was built to environmentally sustainable specs. He said, "Are you kidding? The fewer houses we have here, the more mine is worth."
13
He's a Republican, I assume?
Odds are very high he's a Democrat.
5
"“It’s giving developers a great gift " That's the bottom line of these "proposed rule changes", brought to by the lobbying efforts of "developers". Corruption at the state level is alive and well here in the Golden State. Local governments get steamrolled by the state's "edicts", and the developers, who, by the way, have NO INTEREST in reducing housing costs for the populace, charge as much as they want for their "projects" with no thought nor interest in any social changes they cause (and there are many negative impacts). Parking not available anymore? Too bad! Water and other basic utilities are NEVER considered with these projects, and we just lived through a 5 year drought, with no optimism those conditions won't soon reappear. There should be a statewide water BUDGET for housing. Don't hold your breath looking for that in any of these considerations. It's just "take the money and run" for developers. And wait until you see the pressure the forthcoming Olympics will apply.
4
It's developers who, you know, develop. Without them, nothing would be built, unless the government did it. Aside from the state not having that kind of money (and people never approving a bond measure), the government is, unfortunately, the most inefficient way to build. Just because a bill is going to give developers — along with the construction trades — work and, yes, some profit, doesn't a fortiori make it a bad bill.
1
In addition to discouraging home turnover, Prop 13 also incentivizes rezoning residential areas to commercial areas, as local municipalities stand to gain more through sales taxes than property taxes. Prop 13 addressed a deal problem, but the longterm damage it has done to the state has been staggering.
6
It's ridiculous that innovation in Silicon Valley and elsewhere has been unable to create innovative communities for their workers. All those high-tech campuses and offices should be required (and allowed) to build quality housing within walking or easy mass-transit range. It should be part of the 'deal' required in any expansion or development.
7
When I moved here on the cusp of the dot.com boom a decent one bedroom apartment was easily available at $500. The same apartment in San Francisco today twenty years later would not rent for under $1200. The worst obstacle to CA's prominence is self-inflicted, sheer greed.
4
Taking into account that $500 would be worth nearly $800 today, that's an increase of $20 a year over 20 years. Not so ridiculous.
Also the average 1br apartment in SF is closer to $4000/mo than $1200. Even a 1br shack in the Sunset's going to run you $2400.
A temporary but much needed fix would be for CA counties and municipalities to change the laws regarding the time limitation on RV/motorhome parking in RV parks and resorts. Fulltime RVing is growing by leaps and bounds and some of these folks are gainfully employed but cannot afford to pay for both their RV loans plus a storage space AND rent or mortgage on a house or apartment in California.
The state should incentivize employers to offer generous telework programs (at least 3 days per week). This would help ease traffic congestion for those who do work that cannot be dome remotely, improve air quality, allow workers a higher quality of life by not having to sit in traffic, and allow workers to disburse to more affordable areas. My employer offers 1 day telework per week and I am not going to take them up on it because I am better off not having to set aside work space in my home or moving further from my city for a measly 1 day telework per week.
The state should start at home with its own workforce. How many thousands are tethered to cities for work and get in cars to drive in from the suburbs?
The state should start at home with its own workforce. How many thousands are tethered to cities for work and get in cars to drive in from the suburbs?
3
How do doctors and nurses telecommute? There are many jobs that aren't tele-commutable.
5
L. Tall chief, so what's your point? People with jobs that are telecommutable and people with jobs that are not are still competing to live in the same space and travel the same roads. Widespread adoption of telecommuting, where possible, should help everyone, including those that must commute by easing congestion.
1
Reading comprehension... AJ said "This would help ease traffic congestion for those who do work that cannot be done remotely....."
1
The article is on point with what many mayors of Silicon Valley call a rental housing crisis.
The Times needs more eyes. As one who has lived in the Bay Area of SF and SJ for 40 years, that the weather IS NOT GREAT everywhere in California. For the past month and a half temperatures are in the one hundreds up until 6:30 PM in the Sacramento region. During the winter, we experienced flooding - catastrophic flooding in SJ, and north of Sacramento. LA experienced for the first time in decades, flash flooding on its highways. Of course you know about the mudslides in Big Sur.
Not only are the oldsters holding on to their Proposition Tax protected properties, but it's a question - where do the dispossessed of California go?
In San Jose, Sacramento and West Sacramento, instead of building breathing and organic like dwellings, developers are building and have built urbane apartments, stacked upon each other, without any trees, abutting a main street or highway, closer to cars' pollution. And these canned properties are expensive, too expensive for the people being displaced by the lack of housing in any of those cities. And the developers are clear. They want to maximize every single square inch with all the dollars they can get, regardless of the exposure to noise, pollution, lack of walking space, or even a garage space.
And garage and parking are big big issues because say in Sacramento - you have to drive to get around - as nearly all of the cities require.
The Times needs more eyes. As one who has lived in the Bay Area of SF and SJ for 40 years, that the weather IS NOT GREAT everywhere in California. For the past month and a half temperatures are in the one hundreds up until 6:30 PM in the Sacramento region. During the winter, we experienced flooding - catastrophic flooding in SJ, and north of Sacramento. LA experienced for the first time in decades, flash flooding on its highways. Of course you know about the mudslides in Big Sur.
Not only are the oldsters holding on to their Proposition Tax protected properties, but it's a question - where do the dispossessed of California go?
In San Jose, Sacramento and West Sacramento, instead of building breathing and organic like dwellings, developers are building and have built urbane apartments, stacked upon each other, without any trees, abutting a main street or highway, closer to cars' pollution. And these canned properties are expensive, too expensive for the people being displaced by the lack of housing in any of those cities. And the developers are clear. They want to maximize every single square inch with all the dollars they can get, regardless of the exposure to noise, pollution, lack of walking space, or even a garage space.
And garage and parking are big big issues because say in Sacramento - you have to drive to get around - as nearly all of the cities require.
5
Keep in mind that "can't" often means "won't." When someone says, "I can't afford to live there" or "I can rent but I can't afford to buy there," and you ask some more questions, you find out that what they actually mean is, "I'm not willing to trade the amount of space I can get two hours away for a studio closer to where I work." And that's understandable -- but it doesn't mean you *cannot* rent or even buy closer to where you work.
If you're making $180,000 and you want to get a foothold in a competitive real estate market, you may have to make some compromises but you can probably do it. If you're not willing to live in a really small place to start, then the compromise you choose is a long commute. There are always trade-offs, but there's more choice involved than a lot of people are willing to cop to.
If you're making $180,000 and you want to get a foothold in a competitive real estate market, you may have to make some compromises but you can probably do it. If you're not willing to live in a really small place to start, then the compromise you choose is a long commute. There are always trade-offs, but there's more choice involved than a lot of people are willing to cop to.
7
I don't know about that. I'm not in California but I feel lucky I bought into my neighborhood a long time ago. A one bedroom apartment is now $2000/month in my neighborhood. There are a lot of professional people who would have difficulty affording that (plus pay utilities, eat, etc).
And some people are single parents and actually might need more than one bedroom.
And some people are single parents and actually might need more than one bedroom.
5
Tell me where I'm supposed to move my family. Two working parents, one child, currently living in a one bedroom. We've sacrificed everything we know how, starting with the dilapidated apartment we pay way too much for. We sold our cars, we walk/bike/bus everywhere. Generally, we're ok with these sacrifices as they reflect our values but at some point my child is going to need a room that isn't also where we eat dinner.
If your answer is to leave the city, that's exactly the attitude that created this mess. There's no "trade-off" possible for far too many people, this is just moralizing and recalcitrance.
If your answer is to leave the city, that's exactly the attitude that created this mess. There's no "trade-off" possible for far too many people, this is just moralizing and recalcitrance.
19
Kind of hard to live in a 350 ft studio with a partner and children. They CAN do....maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe the landlord won't allow it. If a person chooses to live in a shoebox, they are choosing not to have a family and that just isn't a choice most people want to make. Not to mention when mom and/or dad can no longer live in his or her shoebox anymore due to health concerns.
1
We have to restrict home ownership to our citizens just like other countries, who have a lower homelessness rate as a result. We have to prohibit cities from building commercial space without building equivalent residential space, thereby dumping their housing needs on other cities while enjoying the fruits of added business revenue. We have to prevent the federal government from allowing immigrants into overcrowded cities without providing the necessary housing, forcing angry citizens to compete with foreigners for scarce rental units.
San Francisco - a notoriously NIMBY city - gave Twitter a $100 million tax break to build its HQ here while ignoring skyrocketing rents. Cupertino gave Apple permission to build a 2nd campus for its headquarters without building one additional house, forcing all the cities around it to absorb the added housing, transportation, schooling and security costs. The government is complicit in this by favoring owners over renters - i.e., the mortgage interest tax deduction, untaxed imputed rents, and a half-million exemption from capital gains taxes.
San Francisco - a notoriously NIMBY city - gave Twitter a $100 million tax break to build its HQ here while ignoring skyrocketing rents. Cupertino gave Apple permission to build a 2nd campus for its headquarters without building one additional house, forcing all the cities around it to absorb the added housing, transportation, schooling and security costs. The government is complicit in this by favoring owners over renters - i.e., the mortgage interest tax deduction, untaxed imputed rents, and a half-million exemption from capital gains taxes.
321
Switzerland no longer allows foreign buyers if they don't make the house their primary, full time residence.
9
I agree with most of your your points.
Prop 13 creates an incentive for cities to approve commercial development and discourage residential development. Businesses usually add more to the tax revenue, compared to what they might use in city/county services. The opposite is true for residential development. Any kind of reform to prop 13 would be very controversial.
CEQA is the law that has had the worst impact on housing and mass transit. Nothing will change in California without CEQA reform. Developers have to do endless environmental reports, which often takes many years and often costs millions. Developers often don't even want to build in California due to the problems with CEQA. The potential to make money is low, while the potential for them to lose money and get tied down with CEQA litigation is high. Jerry Brown and the state republican reps have tried to reform CEQA, but state democrats have prevented it.
Prop 13 creates an incentive for cities to approve commercial development and discourage residential development. Businesses usually add more to the tax revenue, compared to what they might use in city/county services. The opposite is true for residential development. Any kind of reform to prop 13 would be very controversial.
CEQA is the law that has had the worst impact on housing and mass transit. Nothing will change in California without CEQA reform. Developers have to do endless environmental reports, which often takes many years and often costs millions. Developers often don't even want to build in California due to the problems with CEQA. The potential to make money is low, while the potential for them to lose money and get tied down with CEQA litigation is high. Jerry Brown and the state republican reps have tried to reform CEQA, but state democrats have prevented it.
2
perfectly stated.
If California can get their housing situation figured out then maybe less Californians will move to Oregon. Fingers crossed!
5
I for one am tired of hearing about people making $180k and not being able to "afford" to live near their work in SF or any other "desirable" locale. This sense of entitlement sickens me. Its more like "I cant afford the mc mansion and lifestyle i feel i deserve on $180k." The starting first year salary for a college grad at the run of the mill tech company is over $150k with bonus and stock. That is for a 22 year old kid. Why would someone think $180k is enough to live a fancy lifestyle here? As for prop 13 complainers, how would you like to be pushed out of your home of 20 years because entitled politicians and "disruptors" think you dont need it any more? And the people on section 8 who demand 3 bedroom units how about having fewer kids? As for the "disruptors," why cant you game changers figure out a way to stagger your commute times to reduce congestion or work remotely? And finally, all of these problems were forseeable in terms of globalization, technological change, and population growth projections. Too many so called bay area natives had decades to buy for themselves and their kids when things were cheaper yet they blew all their cash on expensive cars, fancy trips, designer clothes, and other stupid stuff. Not being able to buy a home where you grew up? I am only here because this is where my business and my family is. I would move in a heartbeat to escape all the entitled whiners and people demanding luxury handouts.
17
Exactly this! I was taken off by the fact that she says "180k" is not enough to live in SF. Like, who is she trying to fool?
4
It's not enough. Come here and check it out. Nobody I know, or their kids, can afford to live in SF, unless you already own a house or are willing to share a 2-BR with three other people. Kids? Forget about it. There are more dogs than kids in SF.
22
She could easily afford to buy a house in many parts of Oakland.
As a former NYC resident, let me assure those in CA that housing prices will absolutely NOT go down, no matter what. People in NY screamed about how unfair rent control was. That it prevented landlords from asking "realistic" prices for the middle class. Well, less than 2% of housing in NY is now rent controlled. A freaking shipload of apartments came back on the market in the 80s, 90s and 00s. What happened to rents? They went up.
But wait! That couldn't possibly happen! The market was supposed to correct itself and prices would normalize as scads more housing units were available at market rates. Well, my $1450 non-rent controlled apartment became a "luxury condo" and it sold for $859k, then $1,050,000 and just months ago, I saw it sold for $1.35M. Tons more tenements have been demolished and high rises have taken their places. Thousands -- not hundreds, but thousands -- of brand new units hit the market. Prices went even higher. The subways and buses are groaning under the increased population as 3 and 4, 5, 6 people share one and two bedroom apartments just to make the rent.
Your housing prices will never go down, Cali, yet your traffic and pollution will get worse so you should think long and hard before switching to high density housing. Many people pushing for high density housing are relatives of real estate developers (as are owners of newspapers whose op ed pieces clamor for high density housing)
But wait! That couldn't possibly happen! The market was supposed to correct itself and prices would normalize as scads more housing units were available at market rates. Well, my $1450 non-rent controlled apartment became a "luxury condo" and it sold for $859k, then $1,050,000 and just months ago, I saw it sold for $1.35M. Tons more tenements have been demolished and high rises have taken their places. Thousands -- not hundreds, but thousands -- of brand new units hit the market. Prices went even higher. The subways and buses are groaning under the increased population as 3 and 4, 5, 6 people share one and two bedroom apartments just to make the rent.
Your housing prices will never go down, Cali, yet your traffic and pollution will get worse so you should think long and hard before switching to high density housing. Many people pushing for high density housing are relatives of real estate developers (as are owners of newspapers whose op ed pieces clamor for high density housing)
274
According to the Furman Center, as of 2011, 60% of NYC housing units were under some form of price control, so where are you getting this 4%??
5
@Hychkok
"As a former NYC resident, let me assure those in CA that housing prices will absolutely NOT go down, no matter what."
Guess you have a short memory. Housing prices and rents went down substantially after the beginning of the Great Recession. My kids started grad school in NYC in the fall of 2008. I rented an apartment for them in Morningside Heights. The following fall, housing prices and rental prices had fallen all across the city, and the landlord gave me a substantial discount off the rent.
So, never say never.
"As a former NYC resident, let me assure those in CA that housing prices will absolutely NOT go down, no matter what."
Guess you have a short memory. Housing prices and rents went down substantially after the beginning of the Great Recession. My kids started grad school in NYC in the fall of 2008. I rented an apartment for them in Morningside Heights. The following fall, housing prices and rental prices had fallen all across the city, and the landlord gave me a substantial discount off the rent.
So, never say never.
1
If you count on the government to take care of your needs, then somehow it is going to come back and bite you. It's a pity that somehow you couldn't figure out a way to capitalize on this trend in housing prices. Sounds to me like severely sour grapes. You are right. Housing prices will have higher highs and higher lows when there is an economic downturn, as there will be at some point. So what will YOU do then?
The solution is easy, let's place limits on foreign real estate investment and call it a day.
24
It's a mess, and the word missing from the article is "immigration." The more dense the population, the more the cost of living rises. The water shortage wasn't enough to pound that message home, but if you can't affordably house your children, or you feel you're just working for gas money, that's when you get conservatism which, at the end of the day, is a quality of life philosophy.
The other missing word is "transportation." Much of the brutal commutes could be eased by remaking California--Southern Cal in particular--into the new face of mass transit. It currently takes an hour to drive five miles at any given time of day in L.A., and that is not sustainable. Especially given the fact that nobody can drive worth a flip. They need to get past this ridiculous car culture, and install elevated trains and subways exponentially.
Evolve or die.
The other missing word is "transportation." Much of the brutal commutes could be eased by remaking California--Southern Cal in particular--into the new face of mass transit. It currently takes an hour to drive five miles at any given time of day in L.A., and that is not sustainable. Especially given the fact that nobody can drive worth a flip. They need to get past this ridiculous car culture, and install elevated trains and subways exponentially.
Evolve or die.
21
Californians, like the rest of the nation, ignores the plight of low paid workers. Most middle class folks refuse to observe that their lives absolutely depend on minimum wage earners. Fast food, janitorial, many cashiers, gardeners, hotel housekeeping, etc., are absolutely required to support our way of life. Not optional. And the location of those low paid jobs is right exactly in the middle of the communities where middle class folks live.
What kind of arrogance leads to statements that state that people just don't have to live in expensive areas if they can't afford it. At minimum wage, commuting a few hours each way to work takes a very significant fraction of income.
Hidden away from public view where affluent folks don't have to see them are the homeless camps that have exploded into existence over the last few years. My community recently proudly announced and implemented the removal of several camps to warm the hearts of the affluent residents. The homeless camps are indeed a huge sanitary problem and probably support a some level of minor theft -- not the primary source of local thievery, however.
Nevertheless, where exactly are those folks supposed to go? Vaporize?
They really really can't afford housing; they really really won't be able to find $20/hr. jobs. Just exactly what sort of brutal human elimination scheme do rich folks have in mind when they oust homeless folks rather than implement a program to find them housing and a way of life?
What kind of arrogance leads to statements that state that people just don't have to live in expensive areas if they can't afford it. At minimum wage, commuting a few hours each way to work takes a very significant fraction of income.
Hidden away from public view where affluent folks don't have to see them are the homeless camps that have exploded into existence over the last few years. My community recently proudly announced and implemented the removal of several camps to warm the hearts of the affluent residents. The homeless camps are indeed a huge sanitary problem and probably support a some level of minor theft -- not the primary source of local thievery, however.
Nevertheless, where exactly are those folks supposed to go? Vaporize?
They really really can't afford housing; they really really won't be able to find $20/hr. jobs. Just exactly what sort of brutal human elimination scheme do rich folks have in mind when they oust homeless folks rather than implement a program to find them housing and a way of life?
27
how about improving the economy so they can get decent jobs. A start might be to force the government to cut the defense budget in half and raise taxes on the top 10%.. We know where the cancer is.
Whatever happened to affordable housing? I thought this was always built in to cities to provide diversity amongst the population?
2
Yes, Silicon Valley needs to house it's Caucasian workers too!
1
These types of problems (economic) generally solve themselves.
It all boils down to incentive.
It all boils down to incentive.
1
NIMBY is destructive certainly. Worse yet would be rent control which creates rundown properties wherever it is instituted.
I gave up on buying property in CA a few years ago. There is no subdividing large acreage. A friend wanted to sell me 10 acres of his 40 acre lot. No dice. Either buy a large piece of land with no bank help or buy into a development. A five or ten acre piece cut out of 40 is possible in VT or NH and many other states. Not CA. Only the rich can buy land and only in large unaffordable acreages.
3
The only way out of this trap is to find a way to eliminate half the surface parking dedicated to parking and moving cars. You can get relative density by adding more units to a parcel of land. You can get absolute density by increasing the amount of land available for housing. That magic happens when you move away from a car-centric culture. Think Amsterdam. Or Singapore.
8
This is not a new problem. I resided in Silicon Valley for 6 months in 2000. My coworkers who lived there fulltime were doubling and tripling up in crummy apartments. I looked into moving there when a higher paying opening became available, but the housing costs made it impossible. I stayed in the lower paying job, moved back to my sanely priced region, and telecommuted.
5
A lot of people have mentioned Prop 13 and infrastructure issues, both big problems, but I'd also like to point out that we have a huge density problem on the Peninsula. San Francisco is at the tip of a narrow strip of land, there's just not much there to build on, and what land there is is largely single family homes. I love my little house and yard, but it's not an efficient use of the limited space on the Peninsula. We need large apartment buildings but there's nowhere to put them.
1
This is a fine starting point; it is clear that Prop 13 and rampant NIMBYism completely sold out the current generation at the benefit of the prior one, but that is another discussion.
As someone living this real-time, the 800 lb. dancing elephant in the room remains the flood of many times ill-gotten overseas money (China currently the largest culprit) coming in and using the CA real estate market as an offshore money laundering machine, with no penalties. We remain the only first-world nation that allows it to happen freely, and we are reaping those 'rewards' now. Great if you're a Boomer looking to cash out, but we're leaving the next generation of would-be first time buyers hanging out to dry. Every open house around here (even smallish homes in middle class suburbs) has at least one broker from China willing to pay all cash and can close the next day, over asking. Until we follow the lead of other developed nations (Canada, NZ, Australia, UK, even Mexico has restrictions on who can own land) and restrict or penalize nonresident ownership, this will continue.
But no politicians around here want to go near that third rail, with a significant part of their voting base of Chinese descent. So they will blame tech, the drought, the Google Bus and any other bogeyman first and avoid this issue.
As someone living this real-time, the 800 lb. dancing elephant in the room remains the flood of many times ill-gotten overseas money (China currently the largest culprit) coming in and using the CA real estate market as an offshore money laundering machine, with no penalties. We remain the only first-world nation that allows it to happen freely, and we are reaping those 'rewards' now. Great if you're a Boomer looking to cash out, but we're leaving the next generation of would-be first time buyers hanging out to dry. Every open house around here (even smallish homes in middle class suburbs) has at least one broker from China willing to pay all cash and can close the next day, over asking. Until we follow the lead of other developed nations (Canada, NZ, Australia, UK, even Mexico has restrictions on who can own land) and restrict or penalize nonresident ownership, this will continue.
But no politicians around here want to go near that third rail, with a significant part of their voting base of Chinese descent. So they will blame tech, the drought, the Google Bus and any other bogeyman first and avoid this issue.
54
Uh, buddy, have you looked at the Canadian housing market lately? Canada has the exact same problem with Chinese money that California does. In fact, I'd say it's significantly worse. First Vancouver, then Toronto, both implemented a 15% foreign buyer's tax. It's had more effect in Vancouver than Toronto, but believe me, Canada does not have any restrictions on non-residents buying residential real estate. You're not alone in this crisis.
I have watched high-density housing mushroom in both the city I live in and the city adjacent to ours. My city has been slower to approve such projects, but we're already seeing how it affects our public school system. Many people I know (my family included) moved further out into the 'burbs so our kids could go to the public schools there. Now, many families can't even get into the schools in their district because of the surge of new residents. I even saw some new residents protesting outside their community, wanting to sue the developers because their kids couldn't access public education. (Not really the developer's fault, but there you go.)
I'm all for creating affordable housing in the Bay Area, but cities need to be responsible in ensuring the quality of education remains high and public transportation systems are expanded to reduce traffic and pollution. Simply building more homes isn't going to solve everything.
I'm all for creating affordable housing in the Bay Area, but cities need to be responsible in ensuring the quality of education remains high and public transportation systems are expanded to reduce traffic and pollution. Simply building more homes isn't going to solve everything.
108
Developers used to be responsible for building/funding new schools as part of the package of getting new housing developments approved in California. This practice needs to be brought back.
2
Your comment that "kids couldn't access public education" in a CA suburb is very troubling because the CA Supreme Court has interpreted Article IX, Section 5 of the California Constitution to provide that each child is entitled to a free public education in his/her own school district. If you see those protesters again, please get out of your car and tell them to contact the ACLA or any "public interest lawyer" because they can recover "full rack rate" attorneys fees from the school district in enforcing that right
New house buyers DID in fact make a very large contribution to their local school district to build new classrooms, because virtually every school district in the state charges a very hefty school fee for each new housing unit built. Those school fees are passed on to a new home/condo buyer in the price of their new home
As of Feb 2016 "statutory school facilities fees" aka "Level I School Fees" were payable on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis at a newly established rates of $3.48 for residential and $0.56 for commercial/industrial. That means that if someone bought a new 2,000 square foot house $6,960 of their purchase price was paid to their local school district
ACLU of So Cal.has been very active in combating school district's attempts to charge parents "fees" in addition to their school funding money from the State and their website provides guidance on how to formally complain because school fees for books, transportation, copying, etc. are unconstitutional
New house buyers DID in fact make a very large contribution to their local school district to build new classrooms, because virtually every school district in the state charges a very hefty school fee for each new housing unit built. Those school fees are passed on to a new home/condo buyer in the price of their new home
As of Feb 2016 "statutory school facilities fees" aka "Level I School Fees" were payable on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis at a newly established rates of $3.48 for residential and $0.56 for commercial/industrial. That means that if someone bought a new 2,000 square foot house $6,960 of their purchase price was paid to their local school district
ACLU of So Cal.has been very active in combating school district's attempts to charge parents "fees" in addition to their school funding money from the State and their website provides guidance on how to formally complain because school fees for books, transportation, copying, etc. are unconstitutional
2
In Goleta, near Santa Barbara, many of the recent large scale housing projects seem to be built by investors specifically as rentals. Perhaps more stringent rent controls would discourage these sorts of schemes.
2
I'm not getting this. If there's a housing shortage, what's wrong with people building large-scale rental housing???
Because that doesn't create affordable homes for people to buy.
Prices convey information. The information conveyed by high prices in California is there are too many people living there, higher density housing must be allowed. The wages (such as those of the nurse who earns $180k, also inform. Employers who don't have to be in California, shouldn't be there.
The Midwest is loaded with room. Let a company like Google, Amazon or Apple move there and they can find fine cities where a excellent family home can be had for less than $100k.
But, I don't have much patience for a Californian's whining about high housing costs.
The Midwest is loaded with room. Let a company like Google, Amazon or Apple move there and they can find fine cities where a excellent family home can be had for less than $100k.
But, I don't have much patience for a Californian's whining about high housing costs.
8
I left 25 years ago and it was bad then. I'm here to tell you, there is life outside of California.
7
One thing I see in CA is noone can afford to buy a home. As a renter, slumlords don't even pay for garbage and water, basic utilities that contribute to upkeep of their property, besides charging exorbitant prices for rents and deposits. No wonder so many people are on the streets.
1
Hey, maybe you might have missed this, but the US is a capitalistic society. The way that works is that when supplies are low, prices are high. Landlords are business owners-they operate according to capitalistic principles. Don't blame the landlords if you aren't happy about the high rents-blame the economic system that the US is based on. There are sensible solutions to this problem, but expecting landlords to not run their business the way everyone else does is not one of them.
4
how about discussing rapid public transit connectong outlying communities to jobs?
Who "pays" for garbage? Landlords pay indirectly for garbage pick-up through property taxes, but the city is responsible for that. And where are there building where there is now water because the landlord refuses to pay for it?
Why do companies want to stay in California?
Why cant they move to Idaho or Montana or Wyoming?
Why cant the Intels, Googles, Apples and Facebook of the world move to another location.
Have they heard of things called Skype? Cell phones? Internet?
Maybe the author should remind those tech CEOs :P
Its breathtakingly beautiful here. Less than 5M people in all three states put together. If companies decide to move to remote locations,People will come.
This is totally artificial shortage problem that does not warrant an article a week from NYT.
There are millions of sq miles of unused undeveloped land in the United States. As one commenter said below, "WHO is forcing these people to live and work in CA in such misery?"
Nobody!!
People get what they deserve.
I for one will not spend 4 hours a day inside a car or train or company shuttle in order to enjoy "year round great California weather".
I actually enjoy it by being outside, because my commute is 3 miles to work at a tech company.
Why cant they move to Idaho or Montana or Wyoming?
Why cant the Intels, Googles, Apples and Facebook of the world move to another location.
Have they heard of things called Skype? Cell phones? Internet?
Maybe the author should remind those tech CEOs :P
Its breathtakingly beautiful here. Less than 5M people in all three states put together. If companies decide to move to remote locations,People will come.
This is totally artificial shortage problem that does not warrant an article a week from NYT.
There are millions of sq miles of unused undeveloped land in the United States. As one commenter said below, "WHO is forcing these people to live and work in CA in such misery?"
Nobody!!
People get what they deserve.
I for one will not spend 4 hours a day inside a car or train or company shuttle in order to enjoy "year round great California weather".
I actually enjoy it by being outside, because my commute is 3 miles to work at a tech company.
9
I'm a little uncomfortable saying this but having recently moved here from the midwest, I think that culture and demographics are a significant factor. Many people I know who live in the Bay Area would be uncomfortable living in a place where the majority of the residents are Trump supporters. I'm not sure about others, but I didn't feel this way about Reagan or either Bush.
2
You're characterizing the Northwest, where the major cities are Portland, Seattle and Vancouver as full of Trump supporters, and the two states are solid blue as Trump Country?
Most of the net worth accumulated by middle-class families is represented by the equity in their homes. But it's really tough to participate in this American dream if you can't buy one. In CA, we're really screwed, because if you can't buy a home, you must rent - and the rents range from exorbitant to outrageous to unbelievable. Combine a high state income tax, no mortgage interest deduction for renters, and a higher than average wage - and you will see a blueprint for disaster. Many bright, talented young people will still move to CA for a few years after graduating from college. But they won't stay because they can't afford to. They will hone their skills here before they move again, taking their talents and families elsewhere.
8
If undocumented migrants would return to their home countries), there would be many more housing units available for citizens and for legal immigrants. Canada has next-to-no undocumented migrants. No one can be employed, open a bank account, etc. without a special government identification. We should follow Canada’s example to free up a lot of housing units, jobs, hospital beds, etc.
8
I notice you have no recommendations for your post other than mine. But having 11 million undocumented immigrants putting pressure on local housing markets surely can't help the situation. Not that anyone wants to admit it.
And then, what happened to the concept of rent control?
And then, what happened to the concept of rent control?
6
Hi Ann, have you seen the kind of housing an undocumented migrant lives in? Do you know the kind of jobs they do? Nobody in our middle class would want their beds, jobs or houses even if those free up. If all the illegals leave, all you will get are more expensive groceries, messier yards and forget about eating out. Illegals are the backbones that support services consumed by the middle class. Take them out, the exact people you want to help will suffer.
Ann-- sounds like the same arguments Dems were making 150 years ago. "But who will pick the cotton??"
I don't understand the uproar. There have been articles for the last twenty years on how unaffordable California is and how nobody with a working job can succeed. I tried to move the Bay area in 1996 just as the dot com burst started its rumble. I was paying $500.00 for a large two bedroom on the east coast back then and the idea of paying $1600/month in Emeryville jumbled my cost of living calculations so I opted to try elsewhere.
5
There are several strategies that can bias housing in favor of local residents. A very high out-of-state or out-of-country surcharge to purchase property is one. Vancouver BC did this, but it moved all the overseas home investors to Seattle making the bad situation here worse.
Another strategy would be to not allow new office development without ensuring proportional housing and infrastructure (i.e. tax the tech companies more). Rather than increasing building permit fees that would drive up costs, cities could take the approach of reducing them for well balanced development proposals.
Yet another tact would be to make no-growth measures that have been in place for a very long time, illegal and exclusionary. Cities can manage their growth through better urban planning, but not by denying housing through no-growth measures. This "we got here first, so you cant" approach has to stop.
On the affordability end, cities should use their increased revenues to acquire land and lease it to developers for affordable housing, Housing becomes a lot cheaper when the cost of land is taken out of the equation. As land increases in value over time, so will each city's financial leveraging capacity.
Another strategy would be to not allow new office development without ensuring proportional housing and infrastructure (i.e. tax the tech companies more). Rather than increasing building permit fees that would drive up costs, cities could take the approach of reducing them for well balanced development proposals.
Yet another tact would be to make no-growth measures that have been in place for a very long time, illegal and exclusionary. Cities can manage their growth through better urban planning, but not by denying housing through no-growth measures. This "we got here first, so you cant" approach has to stop.
On the affordability end, cities should use their increased revenues to acquire land and lease it to developers for affordable housing, Housing becomes a lot cheaper when the cost of land is taken out of the equation. As land increases in value over time, so will each city's financial leveraging capacity.
5
A nurse who makes $180,000 a year? I think that's a typo. And if you look online at housing prices in cities like St. Louis, or Jacksonville, the prices are reasonable..
At this point, with nearly everything imaginable available on Amazon.com, and lots of great restaurants and neighborhoods available everywhere - is it SO necessary to live in California?
Feels like tulip-mania is setting in again, with the same predictable result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
At this point, with nearly everything imaginable available on Amazon.com, and lots of great restaurants and neighborhoods available everywhere - is it SO necessary to live in California?
Feels like tulip-mania is setting in again, with the same predictable result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
4
It's probably not a typo. The starting salary for a nurse at the hospital I was receiving cancer treatment the last 6 months was $47/hour (or $98K a year if working 40 hours/week), or so I was told. Add in OT, holiday pay, etc, and that nurse is easily making 6 figures. The nursing staff had a large number of young nurses who were from all over the US. What attracted them to come to the Bay Area? The salary (plus great weather)! And that's at a non-descript hospital in the East Bay. I wouldn't be surprised if those at UCSF and Stanford make quite a bit more than that.
2
One word. JOBS.
1
You know what the GOP response to this crises is?
"WHO CARES!" (To be said laughing out loud while drinking $1000 bottles of champagne on a million dollar yacht)
After all, they're all filthy rich so they can afford to live where ever they want. So, for them, there is no "problem".
Actually this is great news for the GOP.
"WHO CARES!" (To be said laughing out loud while drinking $1000 bottles of champagne on a million dollar yacht)
After all, they're all filthy rich so they can afford to live where ever they want. So, for them, there is no "problem".
Actually this is great news for the GOP.
I wonder where we are supposed to get the water for all these people who want to live in the area. I, for one, am tired of not flushing my toilet and taking two minute showers all so some developers can build more hotels for visitors. They certainly don't care that we live an area that persistently has water problems. I'm tired of the short sighted view of the politicians in our state. We don't have the water to support more people.
287
Urban water isn't the problem in California, agricultural water is. Only 10% of water use in the state is for urban consumption, while 50% goes to ag: http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/. Furthermore, denser cities (i.e. more in-fill development) doesn't raise urban consumption very much - single family homes spend a large portion of their water use on lawns and pools and such, while apartment complexes and the like use almost all their water for people. People just don't use very much compared to grass.
Along with scrapping Prop. 13, California needs to get serious about reforming the system of water rights in the state. Ag users often pay less than the cost of pumping and maintenance for their water, while urban users have some of the highest rates in the country.
Along with scrapping Prop. 13, California needs to get serious about reforming the system of water rights in the state. Ag users often pay less than the cost of pumping and maintenance for their water, while urban users have some of the highest rates in the country.
2
Too much water goes to farms at extremely low prices.
1
There are many opportunities to build really massive new dams in northern California, which is blessed by enormous rain and snow, which mostly goes to the ocean.
California's population growth is entirely driven by immigration. So much for "sustainability"-which California professes to care about.
8
Almost all of California is beautiful and easy to live in.
With consistent, high growth, and the state’s continuing ability to attract the best and the brightest, what is preventing the State of California to work on establishing new, planned out Tech Cities and connect them to the (current) Silicon Valley with fast and modern transportation? If there is one place with the resources and imagination to do so, it is California.
Just think of it: What if Apple’s new Spaceship headquarter was a greenfield project someplace else in California? I am sure there are communities in California that would have done anything to attract such investment and tax base.
With consistent, high growth, and the state’s continuing ability to attract the best and the brightest, what is preventing the State of California to work on establishing new, planned out Tech Cities and connect them to the (current) Silicon Valley with fast and modern transportation? If there is one place with the resources and imagination to do so, it is California.
Just think of it: What if Apple’s new Spaceship headquarter was a greenfield project someplace else in California? I am sure there are communities in California that would have done anything to attract such investment and tax base.
8
Too many people in California and everywhere on the planet. That's the problem.
22
Great, at least in Southern California where will the water come from? Southern California will return to being a desert, the question is how much time will it take? At this pace they are hastening that end.
2
May I recommend Stockton, California, where you can still buy a gorgeous Arts and Crafts house in mid-town in the 200,000 range. We're an hour and fifteen minutes to Berkeley and 4o miles south of Sacramento.
5
Careful what you wish for.
4
It's a catch-22 I suppose. People in California enjoy the prosperous economy and high growth tech industries, but at the same time don't want their property values to take a hit if there's new housing.
Well, I guess residents there are going to have to decide, because workers will eventually decide for them, by moving away. I think California is a beautiful and wonderful state, and obviously one of our nation's economic powerhouses. That being said, cities are not national parks, and workers need affordable places to live (especially younger workers). How much of this is NIMBY, and how much is just plain greed?
Well, I guess residents there are going to have to decide, because workers will eventually decide for them, by moving away. I think California is a beautiful and wonderful state, and obviously one of our nation's economic powerhouses. That being said, cities are not national parks, and workers need affordable places to live (especially younger workers). How much of this is NIMBY, and how much is just plain greed?
3
In Temple City, CA, there was a chance to have low-cost housing for military veterans and the disabled. This housing was to be on L.A County territory. The nearest city Temple City had new homeowners, many of whom had torn down old housing to build McMansions, and whose $$ had come from overseas,stage protests/rallies against the affordable housing.They claimed that affordable housing would drive their property values down, and they threatened their city officials. In the end, the affordable housing developer gave up. It SHOULD NOT be up to the "community' in CA to decide housing;too many are from overseas,destroy housing stock, and only buy houses as a way to park their $$ in the U.S.
11
I can't agree in principle that communities should have no say about what happens to their neighborhoods (discrimination issues aside). But to the extent that the housing crisis is in part artificially exacerbated by non-resident owners, it seems that a logical solution would be to pass regulations and penalties on buyers who have no plans to live there.
Detroit did this to recover from the fallout and avoid having outsiders buy distressed properties for pennies and make no direct investment in the city. I'm not sure about the status of Detroit's recovery, but as long as the policy is in place, they are insulated from outside developers, absenteeism and vulture capitalists.
Detroit did this to recover from the fallout and avoid having outsiders buy distressed properties for pennies and make no direct investment in the city. I'm not sure about the status of Detroit's recovery, but as long as the policy is in place, they are insulated from outside developers, absenteeism and vulture capitalists.
While this issue is specific to California, the issue of disenfranchised middle class, working and poor people is not.
15
So that's the ticket: get rid of any regulation that might inhibit international investment in California real estate and watch the prices go down?
1
Prop 8 froze property taxes, which had two undesired results. First, it transformed California's school system from one of the nations best into one of its weakest. Second, it fueled the spiraling property values responsible for the housing crisis.
The fix isn't complicated but it will not be politically popular.
The fix isn't complicated but it will not be politically popular.
1
Prop 8 was Marriage Equality. Surely you meant Prop 13.
2
You mean Prop. 13.
2
See the destructive power unleashed by raising taxes on the rich?
Out of control environment where public employees are making multiple six figure incomes and the median income for everyone else is $32,000 per year. So happy I left after spend 30 years feeding the Urban Elite agenda.
2
The housing prices here in the Bay Area are prohibitive. We have couples making salaries easily in the six digits yet they can not afford to buy a home or even a condo. This paradigm is multi-fold. Down payments are a thing of the past. Now people pay cash - the full amount - and actually need to bid up, pay more than the asking price. If it is a "fixer-upper", a contractor comes in, remodels it, then turns around and successfully sells it for an exorbitant price.
California has a lot going for it, for sure. But make no mistake...our developers and realtors are exploiting us and manipulating the housing market. Our own "Trump-lites."
California has a lot going for it, for sure. But make no mistake...our developers and realtors are exploiting us and manipulating the housing market. Our own "Trump-lites."
6
Prohibitive? How about exorbitant, outrageous, astronomical, sky-high?
2
Simply amazing how an overwhelmingly Democratic state has some of the same problems as everyone else! Almost like they're humans or something
3
California cities are ecologically unsustainable. Crowded, inadequate housing, short of water, inadequate mass transit, and terrible traffic. Where is the logic in trying to shoe-horn even more people into the state's urban centers?
11
Count me in as a "YIMBY." In LA, at least, there is a lot of underutilized land, but homeowners block construction at every turn. The result is that young, middle-class people are being pushed out. Many of the NIMBYs say they care about income inequality while ignoring the fact that the housing crisis is one of the biggest drivers of inequality. We are resigned to being renters forever, but even that is a dicey proposition now. A vacant unit identical to ours is going for 800 more than we are paying. I know a lot of people say, "You should just move," but it's not that simple. Our jobs are here, and we don't want to uproot our child. We are also caring for an elderly family member who is settled here. Also, for multiracial families like ours, moving to a cheaper red state or rural area would mean putting up with more overt racism. I don't want to put my child through that.
6
I don't think you should have to move out of state simply because you want to buy an affordable home, but I would urge you not to overstate the specter of racism in places you haven't been to. I've lived all over the country in circumstances like yours, and can tell you that there is no epidemic of bigotry like what you read in the headlines. People are people, just trying to do their best with their own lives and are basically a good and tolerant sort. The overt racists are invariably people with bigger problems than their targets, with limited educations and few economic opportunities. They tend to be looked down upon by everyone or seen as an embarrassment, and have no real power to harm you in today's world.
But best of luck to you all the same.
But best of luck to you all the same.
2
I collaborate wirh people in Silicon Valley and thing about Silicon Valley is the networking -- you won't get that in Idaho! I mention an idea to a colleague and they put me in touch with the right people with the click of an email or phone call right then. Things HAPPEN there and they happen quickly. Again, you b won't get that somewhere else. So people put up with the LA type traffic and terrible housing problem.
8
One of my very savvy friends could not afford a home on a 30k a year salary in the Bay Area. Along came the housing crisis and people were desperate to sell homes. She bought a fixer upper with a large yard in a marginal neighborhood for under 300k in San Jose. That area is now gentrifying. Her hard work is paying off as Google is buying property there and lofts are being built. The secret is to buy in neighborhoods that are run down. They will eventually be discovered in the Silicon Valley region. Patience is the key to home ownership and lots of elbow grease. The area where Google is buying is mixed use with some light industry and traffic. Most home buyers are looking in the suburban or residential areas for quiet tree lined streets and good schools. They need to investigate some of the industrial areas in San Jose. Good public transportation and walkable areas are available at affordable prices but your friends might not be impressed. Look for the coffee shops with young people working on laptops. That is a sign of gentrification.
1
What about for families with children? Do these industrial areas have good public schools?
2
A family member did exactly the same in Daly City -- with Pacific views, no less. And it has paid off in spades. Off course now they don't want to move!
2
Easy enough to take a chance and buy into less-loved neighborhoods when you're single and only responsible for yourself. A very different equation when you have children and are unwilling to risk their futures by enrolling them in an underperforming school.
2
The problem is that developers do not want to build housing for the middle and low classes. It's just not profitable. They are choosing the most desirable areas and building either exorbitantly expensive upper end units for the very wealthy or smaller expensive units (think one bedrooms and studios) for wealthy singletons. Where is the housing for families, the middle class and low income? It's not being built. So in essence when you encourage the YIMBY-neoliberalistic philosophy of deregulation and"build baby build", you are promoting a Trumpian policy of trickle down housing. And we all know how well trickle down economics has worked in this country.
30
AmieE -- that's not trickle down economics. Developers want to build whatever is most profitable, just like every business wants to do whatever is most profitable. What doesn't help are policies that make luxury development more profitable thank middle income development.
One such policy is the flat tax many cities put on new housing. For instance, SF, Boston and even Portland have inclusionary zoning and/or affordable housing requirements based on the the number of housing units created. For example, Portland, as now allowed by SB1533, requires developers create 20% affordable units in new developments. That means that the buyer of the market rate units is paying for 25% of one affordable unit. Generally, affordable units costs what they are going to cost, the relative burden in dollar terms is much less for a luxury development than for a middle-income development.
Essentially, it is akin to making the sales tax on cars based on the number of wheels they have rather than the value of the car.
One such policy is the flat tax many cities put on new housing. For instance, SF, Boston and even Portland have inclusionary zoning and/or affordable housing requirements based on the the number of housing units created. For example, Portland, as now allowed by SB1533, requires developers create 20% affordable units in new developments. That means that the buyer of the market rate units is paying for 25% of one affordable unit. Generally, affordable units costs what they are going to cost, the relative burden in dollar terms is much less for a luxury development than for a middle-income development.
Essentially, it is akin to making the sales tax on cars based on the number of wheels they have rather than the value of the car.
1
Unlike trickle-down economics, trickle-down housing actually works. If you build 100 luxury apartments, you don't spontaneously create 100 new rich households to live in them. Those households already existed, and my moving IN to the new luxury housing, they move OUT of somewhere else. Someone slightly less wealthy moves into the old place, and so on.
Building more housing supply of any kind is the most important thing. Once enough building is allowed to satisfy luxury demand, middle-income housing will follow (developers simply want to make money, whichever market segment best achieves that is where they will build). Preventing construction of luxury housing as a means to make housing more affordable is contradictory.
Building more housing supply of any kind is the most important thing. Once enough building is allowed to satisfy luxury demand, middle-income housing will follow (developers simply want to make money, whichever market segment best achieves that is where they will build). Preventing construction of luxury housing as a means to make housing more affordable is contradictory.
1
Except that most areas of the US don't need 80% luxury housing and 20% middle income housing. They need 80% middle income housing and 20% luxury housing. Nobody will build that. In many places like NYC, landlords can deduct the costs of unrented space from their taxes. So they can get along fine without renting all of their units. If I rent 60% of my luxury units and don't rent the other 40%, I can still make a nice profit thanks to tax deductions on my empty units. So I'm not about to lower rents to fill all the units.
Take a look at Bleecker Street. Landlords raised rents so high that shops on the first floor closed down. No problem. They own the apartments above the shops. They own other residential buildings. They get a YUGE tax break from their empty storefronts which helps them make more profit on other properties.
You have to look at more than supply and demand. Too many variables like tax credits for empty space, and foreign investors who buy up housing, causing rents to increase, but never live there. People don't know how to think nowadays; they don't bother to thoroughly research everything. Politicians and their developer pals love that.
Take a look at Bleecker Street. Landlords raised rents so high that shops on the first floor closed down. No problem. They own the apartments above the shops. They own other residential buildings. They get a YUGE tax break from their empty storefronts which helps them make more profit on other properties.
You have to look at more than supply and demand. Too many variables like tax credits for empty space, and foreign investors who buy up housing, causing rents to increase, but never live there. People don't know how to think nowadays; they don't bother to thoroughly research everything. Politicians and their developer pals love that.
5
Woody Guthrie pretty much nailed it in 1937.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qCpFn1iIqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qCpFn1iIqk
6
It's important to emphasize that even though California's economy is booming (in most areas), new housing production has been very marginal compared to the number of jobs that have been created. CA has long been a suburban utopia--great weather, outdoor activities, job opportunities, and progressive political views--but now that model is being thrown into limbo quickly as the number of people (and high paying jobs) has finally come to a head with the lack of denser housing to provide variety of options for people to access the housing market. The result is that places that were once middle class strongholds are now occupied by the 1% and overseas/out of state investors. Eventually cities (and states) run out if room to build single family homes near job centers, and the only way to grow without accepting 2-hr commutes and sky high real estate is by looking up.
13
Not everyone agrees that "utopia" and so called "progessive values" belong in the same sentence. Speak for yourself.
Unless the scarcity of water is part of the conversation, none of this is to the point.
8
Too many people. Not enough water. Freeways that resemble parking lots.
Where will this be in another 20 years or less? And not just in California alone.
The coastal cities of the US have enough too. Where do we keep putting recent immigrants and refugees, at the rate of 2 million a year? They don't move to Wichita and Sioux Falls. Our public transportation is maxed out too.
Where will this be in another 20 years or less? And not just in California alone.
The coastal cities of the US have enough too. Where do we keep putting recent immigrants and refugees, at the rate of 2 million a year? They don't move to Wichita and Sioux Falls. Our public transportation is maxed out too.
9
We put many Muslim immigrants in the northern tier of the US, near the Canadian border. Places like Dearborn,MI and Lockport, NY. Don't ask me what kind of industry is in those states, but it makes travel between the borders of both countries easier.
"We" didn't "put" Muslims in cities like Dearborn, which was historically since the 19th century an enclave of Lebanese Christians and thus became a place where people from the Mideast felt comfortable.
2
As in most modern concerns, the human side of the overpopulation problem.
16
In Oakland California the low income residents fight gentrification and the arrival of new housing development by burning down construction projects as they near completion. It's happened several times, most recently in early July 2017.
7
Is it time to consider massive units of apartments? Surely centralised buildings have the efficiency that will be needed as the world population continues to soar. (Soon to be 10 billion)
Forget the american dream, look for american survival, build buildings to last 100s of years. Preserve and create habitat, and potential areas for photosynthesis and or photovoltaics.
Forget the american dream, look for american survival, build buildings to last 100s of years. Preserve and create habitat, and potential areas for photosynthesis and or photovoltaics.
3
A lot of this is simply fake news. Most large metro areas and coastal property have always had high housing prices. The reality here in CA is that most housing has not even recovered from the 2008 recession. There is no housing crisis here - only some people with unrealistic expectations that feel that they are entitled to live like wealthy people but are unwilling to do the work necessary to achieve wealth. I wish that housing prices would actually recover to levels that are quite a bit higher.
2
I don't know where you live in California (Fresno maybe) but here in San Jose, my neighbor with the same house as mine (2400 sq. feet 2 level) sold for $1.37M last week. The buyer sold their home for $1M and with the Facebook options covering the difference, is buying this $1.37M home for the schools. Fortunately, the cure for high price is "high price". Just like oil/gas prices, it will come. The only unknown is the timeline with Chinese buyers scrambling to hide their money in real estate around the world (Vancouver, Sydney and now even Barcelona).
6
We actually had middle income housing in NYC, thanks to a republican and a democratic lawmaker. That housing was deliberately put in "iffy" areas that might turn bad. The politicians, who were named Mitchell and Lams, thought that a city with only rich and poor residents was more like South America than North America. The housing was dense -- in some cases the highest high rises in the area -- and it was rented on a sliding scale according to salary.
It was very successful. Too successful for the middle.class. They opened shops and small businesses in previously shuttered storefronts. They turned the neighborhood around, making it a desirable area. Next thing we knew, they started pulling down the old 5 story walk ups and replacing them with luxury high rises.
The middle class got priced out and the city did wind up with only poor and wealthy people.
But middle income housing worked and turned s tidy profit. It wasn't until every year had to show "growth" and sky high profits that we got priced out. So the coasts weren't always high priced.
It was very successful. Too successful for the middle.class. They opened shops and small businesses in previously shuttered storefronts. They turned the neighborhood around, making it a desirable area. Next thing we knew, they started pulling down the old 5 story walk ups and replacing them with luxury high rises.
The middle class got priced out and the city did wind up with only poor and wealthy people.
But middle income housing worked and turned s tidy profit. It wasn't until every year had to show "growth" and sky high profits that we got priced out. So the coasts weren't always high priced.
Complicating factor -- hugely increased traffic congestion. To GET to work from home is punishingly difficult for many, and the traffic in SF is now at gridlock much of the time. Uber-and-Lyft double-parking is often blamed for thickening the tie-ups, and they can't be regulated. And the worse it gets, the handier they are -- though overall they seriously contribute to the problem.
4
Disappointed that the emphasis of the article wasn't how to fix the problem, but instead how politicians are using a government-caused problem to push to more central planning. Let the land owners develop what they want and price-coordinated economics will take care of the rest. When value increases, so does supply, until an equilibrium is met, or supply exceeds demand.
More housing development only accommodates more job growth, which brings more people. The only way to fix the housing problem is to move the jobs, but only to areas that can accommodate the growth. Areas where the land and construction costs are cheap is where this type of growth can be accommodated. Vegas, Phoenix, all area of the southeastern US. Basically everywhere highly educated, ethnically diverse liberals do not want to live.
4
You ever live in Phoenix,or Vegas? The heat alone makes it unsuitable for most people.
7
Just a few thoughts on the article:
1. The nurse making $180K can most definitely afford to live closer to San Francisco. While the Bay Area is very expensive, it isn't that crazy- yet.
2. The Bay Area could be a lot more dense and can easily build more housing. For instance, in my commute on BART from East Oakland to SF, I pass by many surface parking lots, rundown 1-2 story buildings, etc. While some of that around West Oakland will be developed in the near future, a lot elsewhere will not be. Oakland has done a good job in building housing in Uptown, but is just starting to do so around MacArthur BART. Berkeley has an anti-development city council and mayor unfortunately, and housing there will only get more and more unaffordable.
3. Easing up zoning laws to allow homeowners to turn detached garages and "sheds" in their yards into housing is a step in the right direction. I believe that is now do-able in the state, whereas it was not before (at least in many locales).
4. Increasing supply a lot more certainly won't solve the housing crisis, but it will certainly not hurt it either.
1. The nurse making $180K can most definitely afford to live closer to San Francisco. While the Bay Area is very expensive, it isn't that crazy- yet.
2. The Bay Area could be a lot more dense and can easily build more housing. For instance, in my commute on BART from East Oakland to SF, I pass by many surface parking lots, rundown 1-2 story buildings, etc. While some of that around West Oakland will be developed in the near future, a lot elsewhere will not be. Oakland has done a good job in building housing in Uptown, but is just starting to do so around MacArthur BART. Berkeley has an anti-development city council and mayor unfortunately, and housing there will only get more and more unaffordable.
3. Easing up zoning laws to allow homeowners to turn detached garages and "sheds" in their yards into housing is a step in the right direction. I believe that is now do-able in the state, whereas it was not before (at least in many locales).
4. Increasing supply a lot more certainly won't solve the housing crisis, but it will certainly not hurt it either.
11
Knock off the tax benefits and the investment benefits would diminish. To keep building more will just fuel the investment gold-rush.
6
I've been expecting this to happen for the past 30 years. My childhood home in Los Angeles, which my parents paid $35k for in 1955, is now, according to Zillow, worth $1.4 million. It's only a 3 bed, 2 bath home, near the Farmer's Market. Who can buy it now and pay the property taxes?
11
Prop 13 continues to plague California, decades on. Housing, and more importantly, education, has suffered immeasurably.
How much longer until we finally correct the greed and ignorance of this terrible legacy?
How much longer until we finally correct the greed and ignorance of this terrible legacy?
11
this sounds like the best case i've ever heard for truly highh speed mass transit systems. housing problem in sf? no problem, lay 100miles of high speed track (200/250 mph) away from sf and build an entirely affordable housing city, so that residents there can commute to sf in under 30 min (no stops along the way, that usually kills high speed rail ideas) using taxes paid by the weathly across the state who refuse to allow for more affordable housing to be built. i think keeping the low density model (especially in cosatal towns) is great, but you have to pay for that privalege elsehwere... like a reliable high speed transportation system for those that work in your neighborhood, but cannot afford to live there..
2
What amazes me is that the buildings going up are required to provide very little landscaping and many trees or green spaces have been lost. The builders use the cheapest possible materials and construction methods. The rent to be charged is hardly within possibility for those in a middle income range, let alone low income people. In an unscientific inquiry about what people are paying, it seems that the "low income" rentals' cost would be double the mortgage now paid by condominium owners. It would be great if there could be a gradual model, where a renter could start with a very low rent, which would increase incrementally over time.
4
Has any 'developer' on the last 40 years decided to build housing so they could 'provide' a place for middle/low income people to live out of their innate goodwill and concern for their fellow man - of course not! Developers build to make money. That's why 'lo income units' are legislated. This goes for 'good' developers as well as 'bad' ones. Real estate is how the improperly taxed classes use/hide their money. Make no mistake the housing issue will not go away until there is true equality in personal and corporate taxation.....
8
Building more housing is not going to fix the problem. Its going to do two things:
1) accommodate the creation of more job growth 2) make current traffic gridlock much worse.
People need to understand housing demand is not fixed. If you build housing more jobs will be created because the area can accommodate more job growth and that means more people move into the area. Housing prices never go down because job creation continues to increase. To fix the housing crisis in California's cities, the jobs must be moved! The best areas are those that can accommodate growth. Typically that would be places where there is ample land for development and the cost of construction is very low, like Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The challenge is finding places where highly educated, ethnically diverse, and mostly liberal people want to live where the land is cheap.
1) accommodate the creation of more job growth 2) make current traffic gridlock much worse.
People need to understand housing demand is not fixed. If you build housing more jobs will be created because the area can accommodate more job growth and that means more people move into the area. Housing prices never go down because job creation continues to increase. To fix the housing crisis in California's cities, the jobs must be moved! The best areas are those that can accommodate growth. Typically that would be places where there is ample land for development and the cost of construction is very low, like Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The challenge is finding places where highly educated, ethnically diverse, and mostly liberal people want to live where the land is cheap.
4
If you visit certain neighborhoods in LA it is very clear that the properties there are not worth $1 million or even a fraction of that amount. But the residents will beat (or worse) anyone whose skin has a lighter hue than theirs. A clever way of keeping house prices affordable.
2
I am a native San Franciscan who lived in a community near Manteca for many years. In my opinion, people who do that terrible commute to the SF Bay Area want a McMansion with a yard. Housing prices are high, but if you can't afford a place to live on 180k salary, you are not managing money well
33
An article in The Economist points out that it is smart for people to resist high-rise apartments and condominiums because such buildings reduce the quality of life in an area. Instead, companies should locate their facilities in areas that have cheeper housing. "Dense as in Smart" Here is a link: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21717976-after-50-years-cam...
8
Wah, wah, wah. The nicest places are always the most expensive. Just because you were born in one them doesn't give you some right to stay there. These places are highly desirable because they are exclusive. Jobs in Indiana go begging because it is Indiana. Forbid having to move somewhere more affordable.
8
Wouldn't it be better for cities to incentivise companies going to undeveloped areas and building new homes there ? This would relieve population density in existing cities and help our extreme bridge commute problems. I never understood why silicon valley didn't expand southward more. Increasing population density doesn't seem like a good answer to me.
4
Climate for one-Silicon Valley has a better climate then Fresno,say. If the desert was habitable, companies would have moved there already for the cheap land.
2
Just to remind everyone, California's economy is a three legged thing. Water, Property, Technology.
In San Luis Obispo, they prevent most new housing by restricting building due to a lack of water. There are just the two reservoirs and wells for the whole region. They got this (as voters some years ago) by rejecting adding themselves on to the state aqueduct project. Plenty of water flows right by the area but it takes none.
I am not sure how politicians work around that type of NIMBYism because, it is a legit restriction but, artificially mandated (or legitimately mandated, depending on how you view it). Variations on this theme are repeated throughout the state.
One problem is that San Francisco and much of the Bay Area is hemmed in by ocean, bay, and mountains. One solution is to make commuting very fast. For instance, having an Elon Musk type tube system from north, south, and east of the Bay Area, feeding out to areas that have a high quality of life but lower costs. If people could commute from virtually anywhere to the two major urban areas in under an hour, living some distance would be OK.
At the same time, the major urban areas need to go vertical ASAP for industry, office, and homes. It is more efficient and has the added benefit of also being a way of living that is lower in carbon use.
The traditional poured slab and wall construction of the Silicon Valley will have to change to vertical factories next to vertical apartment and condominiums.
In San Luis Obispo, they prevent most new housing by restricting building due to a lack of water. There are just the two reservoirs and wells for the whole region. They got this (as voters some years ago) by rejecting adding themselves on to the state aqueduct project. Plenty of water flows right by the area but it takes none.
I am not sure how politicians work around that type of NIMBYism because, it is a legit restriction but, artificially mandated (or legitimately mandated, depending on how you view it). Variations on this theme are repeated throughout the state.
One problem is that San Francisco and much of the Bay Area is hemmed in by ocean, bay, and mountains. One solution is to make commuting very fast. For instance, having an Elon Musk type tube system from north, south, and east of the Bay Area, feeding out to areas that have a high quality of life but lower costs. If people could commute from virtually anywhere to the two major urban areas in under an hour, living some distance would be OK.
At the same time, the major urban areas need to go vertical ASAP for industry, office, and homes. It is more efficient and has the added benefit of also being a way of living that is lower in carbon use.
The traditional poured slab and wall construction of the Silicon Valley will have to change to vertical factories next to vertical apartment and condominiums.
8
The world's rich decided years ago that stock market returns weren't high enough, so they turned to real estate, where an annual return of more than 10% is typical and the risk is lower. In markets such as San Francisco, condos are bought and sold to drive up prices and make the owners money. It is easier to do this if the condos are kept vacant, so you end up with a housing shortage while thousands of units are vacant. What exactly is Scott Weiner doing about THIS? Development restrictions are just a minor part of the problem -- San Francisco is in the midst of condo construction boom. Vancouver, BC, got so fed up it decided to tax the owners of vacant units.
16
Proposition 13 is an enormous problem, penalizing precisely those who the need assistance. Unfortunately, there will never be votes for a repeal.
9
Prop 13 fixes property taxes to the purchase price of the home. If Prop 13 didn't exist, retired folks on fixed incomes would pay taxes based on appraisal rates which can be ten times higher or more than what they paid for their home.
5
Manhattan has gone crazy with over-development. The result: The highest housing prices in the country (world?) because all the development is for the super-rich. Oh yes, and a pittance of "affordable" housing.
The same thing would happen if California lifted its restrictions. Tall buildings for the super-rich.
Too many people want to live in the same place.
Extremely high density, like Bloomberg and DeBlasio have caused in Manhattan, overcrowds everything, and prices grow only higher.
We need a different solution.
The same thing would happen if California lifted its restrictions. Tall buildings for the super-rich.
Too many people want to live in the same place.
Extremely high density, like Bloomberg and DeBlasio have caused in Manhattan, overcrowds everything, and prices grow only higher.
We need a different solution.
7
Everyone wants to live where the Bohemians were so they can play at being (rich) hipsters. Like ignorant tourists they trample the ecology trying to pretend to be part of it. Low rent artist districts like San Francisco and the Lower East Side of NYC become real estate bubbles waiting to burst. You can't buy into being an Artist.
2
the high-rises for the rich are an ongoing issue in SF. They keep building towers and high-end for sale housing, neglecting the prior premise of garden rental apartment communities and the stepping stones towards home-ownership. The imbalance only has become more skewed in cities. They need to study prior solutions and reinvent more with a modern twist. Instead of cul-de-sacs and sprawl in California in the valley they should be building a transit network and system upgrades for population growth.
1
The arrogance of the person who assumes the right to drive her car from Manteca to San Francisco, literally over the heads of the impoverished neighborhoods of Oakland, while earning $180000/year, is astonishing. Probably the best thing we can do for regional housing policy is charge these people $50 to drive down I-580.
8
Huh? Oakland housing is 3X the cost of Manteca. She lives in Manteca because you can afford to buy a decent Manteca on $180K /year. Not so much in Oakland.
Sure, I think that's an awful trade-off and would choose an Oakland apartment to a Manteca house if I worked in SF but this isn't exactly an example of class warfare.
Sure, I think that's an awful trade-off and would choose an Oakland apartment to a Manteca house if I worked in SF but this isn't exactly an example of class warfare.
12
Preposterous. No arrogance involved when affordable housing cannot be found closer to San Francisco. And what do the neighborhoods of Oakland have to do with this issue? Oh, and also there IS a right to drive from Manteca to Oakland just as there is a right to drive anywhere else. Would you suggest a toll for any trip on California highways?
5
Yes I do recommend tolls on all California highways, because California has a massive backlog of road maintenance and our current funding mecahnisms, the fuel tax and vehicle license fees, cover less than half of it. However, what makes the actions of this top-5%-earning exurban homeowner arrogant are that the costs of her free choice are asthma, cancer, and reduced intelligence in the neighborhoods polluted by her driving. These costs are born entirely by the poor majority black people who live adjacent to the freeways, none of whom are making anywhere near $180k/year, in part because their IQs are 5-10 points lower than yours, because they grew up breathing car exhaust.
I assure you there is lots and lots of housing in SF and Oakland for someone making that kind of money. The subtext of her complaint is that she doesn't want to live with the other people who live in those places.
I assure you there is lots and lots of housing in SF and Oakland for someone making that kind of money. The subtext of her complaint is that she doesn't want to live with the other people who live in those places.
NYT copy desk! Where were you on this one??
2
Let me give a real & current example. In Feb 2016, I submitted application to City of St Helena for an 8-unit MF apt complex on a lot zoned High Density Res. The project was at lowest density allowed for this zoning. It took 10 months to get the application deemed completed after traffic studies, bio studies, etc and soils analysis due to the prior owner storing automobiles on site. My app. was approved narrowly by PC despite everything being with zoning codes. No variances or exceptions were requested. The project was appealed and went to City Council in Jan 17, where Appeal was denied. The neighbors then sued under CEQA despite project meeting CEQA Infill Exemption. As condition of application one is required to indemnify the City for legal action. I have spent over $100k to-date and we have not even filed our brief yet. Court date in November. In addition I have spent $100k thus far removing the soil that had low level concentration of Pb due to practice of prior owner. The City fees are close to $250k. Before we even break ground, I will have spent at least $500k on legal costs, soil remediation, and city fees. Even if we win opposition will likely go to Appellate court. Lot cost nearly $1M. So we spend $1.5M and 2 years before we break ground. If I placed 8 tents on the lot approved lot rent would have to be approx $1500/tent to get a single digit return.
CEQA must be NA for infill that meets zoning reqts, and discretionary design review must be eliminated for same
CEQA must be NA for infill that meets zoning reqts, and discretionary design review must be eliminated for same
20
Everyone should prepare themselves: any one of our many enemies in the world can bring us down with the distribution of weapons to the millions of homeless Americans and they will rid the country of all those who have caused this greed to devour their futures/pray this never happens-rent controls are required in a nation of 350 million.
1
This is why my husband and I left Southern California at the end of 2015. Together we made a very good amount of money (he's an engineer and I'm an IP attorney), but the prospect of us being able to afford to buy a house in Orange County was not good (at least not until my student loans are paid off in another couple years, which is its own issue...) While we were certainly able to afford the cost of renting a home, which many people cannot in the state, it really seemed like we were getting nowhere while so many of our friends from school were buying homes in other parts of the country. We absolutely miss living there and often do consider moving back, but it really is a tough question of whether it's worth it in the end.
179
I did the same move with my wife to another state. It's been tough adjusting to living outside of Cali. We miss the beach, the nice weather and all those things S. Cali has to offer. But at the same time we didn't want to rent for ever, trying to save $ for a down payment would of been tedious and long. Is it worth it? Can't say at this moment but I own a beautiful house and have money in my account.
87
so depressing
1
@Marissa E Cleveland, OH
Let’s keep things in perspective. While housing in Orange County is certainly expensive, since your husband is an engineer and you are an IP attorney, there are clearly other critical factors, including the student loans you mentioned, that keep you from buying here.
The average OC resident just doesn't have your income.
Let’s keep things in perspective. While housing in Orange County is certainly expensive, since your husband is an engineer and you are an IP attorney, there are clearly other critical factors, including the student loans you mentioned, that keep you from buying here.
The average OC resident just doesn't have your income.
As usual, no mention at all of unfashionable central California, where there is plenty of room, low cost of living, and building galore. Sure, it's really really hot in the summer. But the coast is only three hours away, the mountains even closer. And that's what AC is for. Fresno and other CV cities would welcome new business to boost their economies. When the high speed rail gets built, the fashionable towns will be even closer. We even have our own professional symphony orchestras and arts festivals. There is an awful lot of California out there, folks, it ain't just two or three cities and their sprawl.
28
Given the type of bigots who live there,I don't think Fresno will be any great destination for businesses soon.
Seemed to us, my husband and I, even 20 years ago that THIS is or should be the natural "next place" for so much tech to move from the SF area. Why it hasn't continues to confound. If tech said "yes," no doubt the "good stuff" would follow which would lead to more economic development. These towns already have universities and brewpubs, housing is affordable, there are activities after 6 pm and on weekends. If it's the heat that keeps everyone away, surely someone can help subsidize AC, at least for a time for new-comers. It can be done.
3
Key words: WHEN THE HIGH SPEED RAIL GETS BUILT and therein lies the problem. You know as I do, that while the central valley has lower cost living, the people living there are not working the same level of jobs as those on the coast.
It's not all about fashion, it's about high-paying jobs.
And when is that high-speed rail going to get built? And will it extend to the airports?
It's not all about fashion, it's about high-paying jobs.
And when is that high-speed rail going to get built? And will it extend to the airports?
1
we seriously need to rein in the real estate industry --but it won't ever happen. They are largely to blame for the high cost of housing, and the lack thereof. Demand keeps the prices high, commissions all but ensure that it will stay high. when houses are sold,cities and counties tax on that amount, but they themselves do not evaluate the worth opf property--leaving it up to those--like bankers--who both profit from and regulate the values in their business.
clearly there are some states that "call" both tourists and residents and CA is one of them--unfortunately. Too many "living out under the starts" where a lot freeze to death in the winter, or starve for lack of jobs, housing and care. To those of us who live here, California--desite the advertising--is too good to be true. IT is overcrowded, underfunded and soon to be a total mess.
clearly there are some states that "call" both tourists and residents and CA is one of them--unfortunately. Too many "living out under the starts" where a lot freeze to death in the winter, or starve for lack of jobs, housing and care. To those of us who live here, California--desite the advertising--is too good to be true. IT is overcrowded, underfunded and soon to be a total mess.
6
I had relatives who worked for real estate appraisers, realtors, and banks. The scams they used before the last bubble,(5-6 incomes used to qualify loans,fake appraisals,etc.) should have thrown them all in prison. CA missed their chance to regulate housing when the bubble broke; I do not think it ever will be fixed.
3
The problem is that young workers don't vote, and they don't get involved in local politics, especially on local issues such as zoning. The Millennial turnout rate in the last NYC mayoral race was 11%. The reason they don't get involved is because they are forced into expensive temporary rental housing, and don't view their host city as their "forever" home due to it's outrageous housing cost. To compound this political problem, protectionist "tenant advocacy" groups label them "gentrifiers" and outsiders who have no right to be in their communities.
It's a cycle, and it's not going to be solved until Millennials wake up and ask where and what their future will look like. Will they settle down, buy a house and raise a family, or will they be 45, childless and continue to rent? Until we fix the housing shortage my fear is that we are heading to the later.
It's a cycle, and it's not going to be solved until Millennials wake up and ask where and what their future will look like. Will they settle down, buy a house and raise a family, or will they be 45, childless and continue to rent? Until we fix the housing shortage my fear is that we are heading to the later.
5
The solution is simple. Speed up the development and approval of autonomous driving. This will open a wide swath of more affordable housing within a hours commute of metro areas. Workers will relax, read, get caught up, and be more productive and Happy!
I live in Silicon Valley, in an apartment I am thankfully able to afford. I have a degree in urban planning. My job is really good, and I have an six figure salary. I will never own a home here. I could perhaps buy a house somewhere in the Central Valley, and enjoy 4 hours of commuting every day. My job and my love of this state keep me here. I'm very lucky. Others are far less so- a few minutes from my place, there's a growing RV encampment along the freeway, with a dozen or so families trying to scrape by. They likely have jobs, but can't afford a permanent place to live. There are RVs parked on my street, behind the nearby Target, all clearly being lived in. It's an absolute mess, fueled by vast income disparity and limited housing stock.
60
The sprawl in the valley is due to lacking investment in transit infrastructure. Most of the bank-driven development ignored mass-transit solutions, or alternative projects like garden rental apartment communities like Parkmerced in suburban areas near new transit lines. Redensification of the suburbs is the next stage.
3
As a planner, you might have realized that,
"This place is already overcrowded, I should not aggravate the situation by jumping into the pile."
There are good places all over this country, many of them occupied by former Californians.
"This place is already overcrowded, I should not aggravate the situation by jumping into the pile."
There are good places all over this country, many of them occupied by former Californians.
1
To everyone who says "if you can't afford to live there... move!" Where do you expect all of the people essential to a smoothly running city to live. What are the retail workers, the grocery clerks, the construction workers, the EMTs, the nurses, the janitors, the fast-food workers, the teachers the gas station attendants - what are they all supposed to do? If a highly skilled nurse who makes $180,000 can't afford to live closer than a 2-hour commute, what hope do they have? And if the service workers all pack up and move away, then the city collapses and there is nothing left but housing that only the ultra-wealthy can afford and no longer want, now that there is no one left to serve them and ensure their comfort. It is a complex problem. There needs to be more affordable housing available. Otherwise that booming economy isn't going to be able to sustain itself much longer.
75
SF is nowhere near this imagined future.
Finally an intelligent comment.
3
" There needs to be more affordable housing available."
...And who will support this affordability?
Taxpayers? Santa Claus?
...And who will support this affordability?
Taxpayers? Santa Claus?
1
If you build it, they will come... no matter how many more houses we build, if California continues to be as attractive, then the crisis will continue, simple supply and demand. The only real solution that these proposals may provide is that increased housing density will further cripple infrastructure and make the place less attractive.
I think the underlying issue is not unique to California, and is growing worldwide: global companies can turn the work of a few key individuals into billions of revenue, and have found that it is worth having those key people work in the same place. They pay a steep cost in wages to attract people to somewhere nice (California, London, NYC....), but generate far more in profits by having this critical mass together. As long as this trend continues, we will have small parts of the world that are highly unaffordable for those that aren't in a very special part of the job market.
I think the underlying issue is not unique to California, and is growing worldwide: global companies can turn the work of a few key individuals into billions of revenue, and have found that it is worth having those key people work in the same place. They pay a steep cost in wages to attract people to somewhere nice (California, London, NYC....), but generate far more in profits by having this critical mass together. As long as this trend continues, we will have small parts of the world that are highly unaffordable for those that aren't in a very special part of the job market.
13
To address the commonly made point that nobody is forcing someone to live in the Bay Area, I'll list a couple of good reasons. One, family may be near. As a native Californian, it's upsetting to struggle to make a living within the state I was born in. Two, some great colleges are unfortunately located in Urban areas and cities of California, which are incredibly expensive as far as rent goes. Also, communities need services. Services like retail, medical. They're all part of what makes a city a city, so housing for people working low income/minimum wage jobs is a necessity. The Bay Area wouldn't function if it was comprised of only tech workers and offices, they need food preparers, retail workers and janitors just like any other town.
27
This starts and ends with Prop 13. It's easy to be a staunch NIMBY when you bought in at < 10% of current market rates and reap the benefits of the region's booming economy and culture but pay literal pennies on the dollar for the privilege.
No one should lose their home to rising property tax but their have to be better solutions than Prop 13 (0% interest liens, incentives for in-law development / infill, something... anything but the status quo). The fact that it applies to commercial RE or rental properties is insane. Rent control is also a bad solution that's unfortunately expanding in the Bay Area. I'd be all for capped rent increases that reset to market every 5 (or 3, or 7?) years to give renters stability but as it stands it creates totally perverse incentives for both renters and landlords.
No one should lose their home to rising property tax but their have to be better solutions than Prop 13 (0% interest liens, incentives for in-law development / infill, something... anything but the status quo). The fact that it applies to commercial RE or rental properties is insane. Rent control is also a bad solution that's unfortunately expanding in the Bay Area. I'd be all for capped rent increases that reset to market every 5 (or 3, or 7?) years to give renters stability but as it stands it creates totally perverse incentives for both renters and landlords.
11
While I agree that new housing developments should have to include affordable housing (and not buy their way out of it), I don't think we need to build and build to accommodate more and more people.
Supply and demand will eventually force changes to the housing landscape. Instead of having people commuting 2 hours into the bay area, businesses will begin to relocate to places like Sacramento. But if you keep channeling water to places that don't have enough, widening highways where traffic is getting congested, and building houses where the prices are rising then you are only kicking the can down the road. The water will get depleted, the traffic congestion will return and the housing costs will rise again.
Supply and demand will eventually force changes to the housing landscape. Instead of having people commuting 2 hours into the bay area, businesses will begin to relocate to places like Sacramento. But if you keep channeling water to places that don't have enough, widening highways where traffic is getting congested, and building houses where the prices are rising then you are only kicking the can down the road. The water will get depleted, the traffic congestion will return and the housing costs will rise again.
13
Is it a housing crisis or a transportation crisis? They need to more train lines (not buses) and more roads connecting I5 and 101.that connect the new eastern suburbs to the city centers. London, New York, Chicago all do better at rush hour.
7
hit the nail on the head.... transit investment is sorely lacking in SF and the bay-area, and bi-county and cross-regional transit is not built sufficiently to deal with the bank-driven sprawl.
Only by re-working the transit networks can we build more. In SF they build more housing but not the capacity in mass-transit, therefore the google bus and lyft-uber debacles....
Only by re-working the transit networks can we build more. In SF they build more housing but not the capacity in mass-transit, therefore the google bus and lyft-uber debacles....
3
I am lucky enough to own a medium sized (~2400 sq ft) home in a nice (but hardly pristine...Burlingame is no Greenwich or Highland Park) suburb 12 miles south of SF. I could easily sell it tomorrow for $3M. Virtually anywhere but here the home would be worth $550K, tops. That's simply nuts.
My three teenage kids have little hope of returning to the Bay Area after college -- they won't be able to afford it.
And although it certainly doesn't mean politicians should do nothing about the problem, unless the huge swaths of protected open space between SF and San Jose are opened up to development, the housing crisis will persist. 300 unit luxury units in Los Gatos are needed, but even 20 of those projects won't even put a dent in what's going on around here .
My three teenage kids have little hope of returning to the Bay Area after college -- they won't be able to afford it.
And although it certainly doesn't mean politicians should do nothing about the problem, unless the huge swaths of protected open space between SF and San Jose are opened up to development, the housing crisis will persist. 300 unit luxury units in Los Gatos are needed, but even 20 of those projects won't even put a dent in what's going on around here .
9
A 2400 sq ft home is medium sized?? How big is your family?? This, right here, is the problem.
8
At the heart of housing crisis in California is the self-inflicted distortion caused by Proposition 13 that basically freezes property tax to when the house was purchased. This results in profoundly inefficient use of housing. To use my family as an example, my parents-in-law live in a four-bedroom 2,500 square foot house in South Pasadena that they purchased in 1975 for $78,000. What keeps two them there property tax is $2,500 per year, if they move to a new $600,000 one-bedroom townhouse down the street, their property tax would be $7,500. In my own case, the $445,000 house I purchased in 2004 is now worth a mind numbing $1.3 million. Our property tax is $6,500 that is based on the purchase price. With two kids now in college, it doesn't make any sense for us to live in our four-bedroom house, but any two-bedroom unit near our work in coastal Los Angeles will cost nearly $800,000 and will trigger a $10,000 plus property tax--making down-sizing a non-starter: Any windfall from rise in housing price gets eaten up by bi-annual tax payments to the state. So, with all this, millions of older Californians are trapped in big houses meant for a house full of kids, representing colossal waste of housing capacity. Any California resident will tell you that scrapping Proposition 13 is a non-starter. But, I do think a workable solution to this problem is to give a one-time exemption on assessment to homeowners who are down-sizing. This will make a huge and immediate difference.
912
Some counties allow those over 55 to trade down to a smaller house and take their tax rate with them. This is allowed by state law but apparently must be adopted by individual counties.
11
This is exactly correct. Prop 13 is the root of all this mess, and until California starts to phase it out, the housing situation will be a disaster. California is going to be expensive regardless, but a large contributor is that folks are locked into their house - you're punished mightily for moving or downsizing, so no one moves. I lived in California for 5 years, and a large part of why I left was that I knew I wouldn't be able to improve my housing situation by steadily moving to better or different neighborhoods if I changed jobs - I was essentially going to be stuck living in the same place forever, and have to commute all over. It's a crazy system.
4
This is true, but it's been adopted by very few counties. It also doesn't apply if you move elsewhere in your current county of residence.
2
I don't know....Bergen County NJ is not that much less expensive...
2
Bergen County is not a state. Every state has affluent areas where the median property price is quite high. The point here is that this is a statewide problem.
4
Bergen County is not a state, but it is highly representative of the area around NYC. Not NYC itself - the nearby area that's commutable into the city. Try finding a decent house for under $400K anywhere within an hour of Manhattan!
I love the Bay Area, particularly the Peninsula, since I grew up there, but it has not been affordable for many years. Sad that I can never live where I grew up, but I have come to terms with it.
22
I was born & raised in SF. Dad was a plumber, mom stayed home and raised us kids. We had a 2-story, 3 bedroom house - that was completely paid for. That was fifty years ago. There is no way I can ever return to living in SF -- the closest I can get is Sacramento, and even here, prices are exploding. I'm about to start house-hunting for my retirement home, knowing that my choices will be extremely limited. I'll count myself lucky if I can find a fixer in a reasonably decent neighborhood for under $250K.
4
Heather, Your job is your life line. Without it, there's no income for you to survive. To protect that (and yourself from exhaustion) couldn't you rent a room closer to your job? You wouldn't have a "home" for a while, but you'd be saving time, money, and effort of the traffic each day. Use that to plan toward being able to buy a place in the next few years, until the market eases back up. As much time as you spend on the road has to be costly every day. You might be able to find someone who's willing to share a room, an apartment, or whatever you need. That way, less stress on you would enable you to do your job well. Consider it?
8
you can't save money fast enough—even with a solid six figure income and incredibly frugal habits—to keep pace with appreciation. Even if you could save, say $250K in the last five years, the house you were looking at in 2012 in the inner Bay Area is likely $500K+ more expensive than it was then. If it's in SF or Silicon Valley it's likely $1M+ more than before.
29
Yep, $180,000 is enough even in San Francisco to rent housing,
4
You have given some very well meaning advice but very naive. If the market eases up, it will ease up to a point where millionaires might be able to afford something, and I mean millionaires who make millions and who have saved millions. The solution you propose probably does not exist because the ones renting rooms probably make 250,000 and up.
2
Don't want a life? Live in California!
4
For the most part, we're quite happy, James. We don't seem to be suffering from the crises, such as mass opiod addiction, that are gutting states all over. California is amazing. I think of this every day on my commute, as I marvel at the beauty of the land. It's expensive, but it's a great place to have a life.
12
I'm sipping my coffee and looking at the blue Pacific as I read this.
8
when a small modest home in el Segundo goes for 1mil, me thinks we're in bubble territory.
6
There are houses in El Monte, with 2 gangs fighting over territory that are listed at $550,000-$700,000. Good look to those home buyers.
2
One of the reasons that California has a housing crisis is due to the high cost of regulations and development fees. Solana Beach, an upscale beach town just North of San Diego, is a perfect example. They recently approved a fee to pay for transportation costs on all new developments:
"The change will add $15,714 to the cost of a new single-family home and $11,206 for each new apartment in Solana Beach. The fee also will be applied on a square-footage basis to new commercial and industrial development." - San Diego Union Tribune
Poor folk, need not apply.
"The change will add $15,714 to the cost of a new single-family home and $11,206 for each new apartment in Solana Beach. The fee also will be applied on a square-footage basis to new commercial and industrial development." - San Diego Union Tribune
Poor folk, need not apply.
8
The reason there are so many fees on developers is because of Prop 13! It's a vicious circle. Because cities have had to make up the massive losses from Prop 13, they have had to fee everyone to death, including developers.
Prop 13 is at the root of a LOT of the housing problems that study after study has shown. It's not the STATE implementing the fees, it's the individual cities. And it slows down development.
Housing is not desirable because it doesn't bring in tax base for cities. That's why you have seen more COMMERCIAL development since Prop 13 has passed rather than residential. Residential development is a drain on cities because they don't provide revenues anymore. But they require services. Commercial provides revenues.
Cities need REVENUES to survive and Prop 13 cut off much of those needed revenues. Go look it up.
Prop 13 is at the root of a LOT of the housing problems that study after study has shown. It's not the STATE implementing the fees, it's the individual cities. And it slows down development.
Housing is not desirable because it doesn't bring in tax base for cities. That's why you have seen more COMMERCIAL development since Prop 13 has passed rather than residential. Residential development is a drain on cities because they don't provide revenues anymore. But they require services. Commercial provides revenues.
Cities need REVENUES to survive and Prop 13 cut off much of those needed revenues. Go look it up.
7
Karen, it's not Prop 13 that pushes cities to favor commercial over residential development. Both types generate property tax under Prop 13. The difference is sales taxes, as voters approve more and more sales taxes to fund transportation and other services, while resisting income tax. Commercial property generates sales tax while needing few services. Homes generate NO sales tax and residents need lots of services.
2
It is Prop 13. Before Prop 13, property taxes were sent to the local governments. AFTER Prop 13, all property taxes were sent TO THE STATE! And the STATE doled out the money to local governments. With the massive cut in property taxes (especially on commercial, industrial and rental properties!), the state had little to dole out. That is why the local governments began feeing everyone to death, including developers. It became a huge mess. And it's also why local governments became far more interested in commercial development than residential. I can tell you from my own involvement with local government that new developments are a hindrance. Our city gets precious little in the way of property taxes but new developments mean a drag on services, including water and schools. We do NOT have the space to build new schools and things got dicey before this year's rainy season on water. Commercial development brings in a steady tax base. But residential development just brings in one-time fees.
1
I have no confidence, that is to say I am 100% convinced, that our California state (or federal) government would be capable of solving this problem. They will utter talking points to help get reelected and acknowledge it's a problem but ultimately there measures will do absolutely nothing. It would be useful to describe how many homes in California are purchased by foreign investment. It would be useful to stop that. Stop foreign investments from buying single family homes and enable the taxpayers of this country to buy them.
11
I bought my first home in 1974 when I was 30 at 751 47th Ave. In the outer Richmond for $25,000. I paid the down payment with my credit card. I laughed and cried all the way home from the realtor's.
25 years later I retired to the south of France. My lesson in life was to not stop making choices until you get it right!
Moving to Provence was the best decision of my life!
25 years later I retired to the south of France. My lesson in life was to not stop making choices until you get it right!
Moving to Provence was the best decision of my life!
6
How much do houses cost in Provence? Can only rich people buy them, or can middle-income afford them?
9
I'm with Joy - can we just skip ahead to the Provence part? I can't afford steps 1 and 2.
3
The CEQA law is in dire need of reform. Developers often need to spend millions of dollars for consultants and environmental impact reports (EIRs) to meet the requirements of CEQA. The process of developing initial EIRs, ammended EIRs and final EIRs (and their corresponding government hearings) usually takes at least a year or so - sometimes it takes decades. The only way most developers can afford to do this is by proposing high-density and expensive apartment buildings, which neighborhoods tend to oppose, especially in suburban areas.
Conservations extremists, NIMBY groups and some local governments like the CEQA law and lobby hard to keep it exactly as is.
In Marin County (directly north of SF), conservation extremist groups use the CEQA law to prevent things like bike infrastructure and mass transit. This is because there the heavily populated east side of the county is mostly situated in or near marsh land with various endangered species. Property owners near watershed creeks have major restrictions on what they can build due to the impact of construction on creek sediment. Many bay shore property owners bought property with water access, but later lost that water access because dredging would impact an endangered mouse. The ferry is often at capacity and wanted to add a boat, but CEQA prevented that because the ferry wakes are impacting the bay shore species... CEQA stops everything:
http://ceqaworkinggroup.com/category/case-studies
Conservations extremists, NIMBY groups and some local governments like the CEQA law and lobby hard to keep it exactly as is.
In Marin County (directly north of SF), conservation extremist groups use the CEQA law to prevent things like bike infrastructure and mass transit. This is because there the heavily populated east side of the county is mostly situated in or near marsh land with various endangered species. Property owners near watershed creeks have major restrictions on what they can build due to the impact of construction on creek sediment. Many bay shore property owners bought property with water access, but later lost that water access because dredging would impact an endangered mouse. The ferry is often at capacity and wanted to add a boat, but CEQA prevented that because the ferry wakes are impacting the bay shore species... CEQA stops everything:
http://ceqaworkinggroup.com/category/case-studies
5
This is pretty simple. I don't believe in taking away local control, but also, if you own a house that you don't live in, Prop. 13 shouldn't apply to you. This will force people sitting on vacant homes to have to sell them, and that would increase the inventory considerably. I own a home here, and this would actually hurt me, but you have to look at the future and how better the economy works when more people are a apart of it.
29
We also need to close the COMMERCIAL LOOPHOLES. Commercial buyers get to KEEP the original tax rate if three companies purchase a property. Many commercial real estate buyers use shell companies to do this. Look up the Hotel Peninsula in Santa Monica. One man purchased it with three companies HE OWNED! This is a common practice. Commercial, industrial, million dollar homes, vacation homes and rental properties should NEVER have been included in Prop 13. But Howard Jarvis was a LOBBYIST for the PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES in LA! That's why he wrote and lobbied for Prop 13!
7
Florida has a similar proposition that does restrict it to owner occupied.
2
You nailed it!! Most people don't understand what's REALLY going on, they've been primed by years of propaganda that 'we're saving mom and dad from being thrown out...'
2
15 million people live in Cali when I grew up here. We're now nearly at 40 million.
What's the optimum population for the state? 100 million? 500 million?
Taking a city like SF and making it Manhattan or Hong Kong - is that the endgame? Does L.A. become the size of Mexico City? Is that a good thing?
At some point, do we also address the issue of what we call economic "growth" - which always implies more? More widgets sold, more housing starts?
What's the optimum population for the state? 100 million? 500 million?
Taking a city like SF and making it Manhattan or Hong Kong - is that the endgame? Does L.A. become the size of Mexico City? Is that a good thing?
At some point, do we also address the issue of what we call economic "growth" - which always implies more? More widgets sold, more housing starts?
71
"Taking a city like SF and making it Manhattan or Hong Kong - is that the endgame? Does L.A. become the size of Mexico City? Is that a good thing?"
Yes, it is a good thing. Cities are wonderful places that produce wonderful things. Both SF and LA Are way less dense than they could be. The efficiencies that can be achieved with a larger tax base + mass transit will benefit everyone. Discouraging development will only mean people will move further out and spend more time commuting/polluting the environment.
Yes, it is a good thing. Cities are wonderful places that produce wonderful things. Both SF and LA Are way less dense than they could be. The efficiencies that can be achieved with a larger tax base + mass transit will benefit everyone. Discouraging development will only mean people will move further out and spend more time commuting/polluting the environment.
4
The planet's population is leveling off. It probably won't exceed 20 billion; not even three times the current total population. Meanwhile, the most population dense state in the country, which is nothing but suburbs in the northern half and farmland in the southern half, has nearly five times the population density of California.
So whatever the endgame is, it'll be fine.
So whatever the endgame is, it'll be fine.
I spent most of my adult life in California--most of it in Silicon Valley, the end in the Silver Lake section of Los Angeles. I now live in rural South Carolina in a small town where I have a much higher quality of living at a fraction of the cost. We have it all: food, culture, health clubs, diversity and plenty of opportunities to get involved.
7
There's more to this. Wiener is and has been a consistent pro-development politician (or a tool of the real estate industry depending on one's perspective), but like similar politicians inc. Brown won't touch Prop 13, a massive disincentive to sell that shrinks the pool of existing houses for sale and does more to drive up costs than any nimby...
5
If it's too expensive, move.
12
The use the term "nimbyism" always seems to come with a marked tone of entitlement and condescension, as if the people who spent years working and saving to buy a house in a leafy single-family neighborhood did so out of malign motives and a specific intention to exclude everyone else. In fact, they worked hard and wanted a back yard, or maybe a pool, and not one that suddenly becomes visible to multiple apartment units. These people are not the landed gentry, and they have a legitimate point.
It escapes me how a policy that keeps packing 'em in will help the overcrowding, nightmare traffic, and pollution we are already suffering with in Los Angeles. Do progressives now accept "growth" as a self-evident good? It was recently reported that plans are moving ahead to transform the Warner Center in the San Fernando Valley into the "Manhattan of the Valley." One imagines all of the problems, and few of the benefits, implied by that comparison: horrible traffic, shrinking living spaces, noise, and pollution, while the developers and politicians chanting "growth" are unlikely to see their own quality of life diminished.
It escapes me how a policy that keeps packing 'em in will help the overcrowding, nightmare traffic, and pollution we are already suffering with in Los Angeles. Do progressives now accept "growth" as a self-evident good? It was recently reported that plans are moving ahead to transform the Warner Center in the San Fernando Valley into the "Manhattan of the Valley." One imagines all of the problems, and few of the benefits, implied by that comparison: horrible traffic, shrinking living spaces, noise, and pollution, while the developers and politicians chanting "growth" are unlikely to see their own quality of life diminished.
67
Believe it or not, higher population density can reduce congestion. It makes public transportation more economical, and shorter distances to work (or anything else you want) proportionally reduce total traffic.
In places like Manhattan, or the entire Tokyo metropolitan area, the streets are clear because the only people in motor vehicles have some business to do. It's all trucks, taxis, and law enforcement.
Sometimes, conservatives can be right: they've been chanting "growth" (and also "supply-side") for a whole lot longer.
In places like Manhattan, or the entire Tokyo metropolitan area, the streets are clear because the only people in motor vehicles have some business to do. It's all trucks, taxis, and law enforcement.
Sometimes, conservatives can be right: they've been chanting "growth" (and also "supply-side") for a whole lot longer.
3
Very well said. Thank you.
This is a partial list of the greatest hits you hear from homeowners at Bay Area public hearings when they show up to give many reasons as to why there should not be more housing. Cities are people, and cities, by their nature, change. That apartment building you reference will ideally be filled with people who cannot yet afford houses, and maybe never will, and yet they are people who contribute a great deal to the personality and values of the city. Whether or not they can see your pool seems like a lesser concern than whether the city can accommodate them. I doubt anyone views growth as a self-evident good, which you surely know; rather, it is time to stop the insane appreciation of house prices created by scarcity, scarcity that indeed creates a landed gentry, whether that was the original intention or not.
5
My husband and I just moved from Santa Barbara to the metro DC area. Affordable housing is difficult in both places but for different reasons. In Santa Barbara, most people can't afford houses--most people I know in their 30s and 40s with good jobs are still living with roommates. For ~$300,000 you can buy a trailer to live in. For ~$500,00, you can buy a house that needs about $250,000 worth of work. For a house that's move-in ready (not necessarily in great condition, just that there's nothing major that needs to be fixed), you're starting at $750,000. There is a large percentage of homeowners who don't even live in Santa Barbara, it's their retirement/vacation house and they're renting it out at outrageous prices. But with that said, I would still rather live in Santa Barbara. You can't beat the gorgeous location and the fantastic year-round weather.
We now live in metro DC where we pay just as much for housing but without any of the niceties of Santa Barbara. The problem with this region is that there is simply way too many people and infrastructure, particularly transportation, has just not kept pace with the amount of people who have moved here. I work 12 miles away from home, it takes me 45 min on the metro or 1.5 hours by car. If that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is. The drivers here are very inattentive--there's no law that requires handsfree while driving--so biking to work is out of the question.
At least in California, your price gets you nice weather.
We now live in metro DC where we pay just as much for housing but without any of the niceties of Santa Barbara. The problem with this region is that there is simply way too many people and infrastructure, particularly transportation, has just not kept pace with the amount of people who have moved here. I work 12 miles away from home, it takes me 45 min on the metro or 1.5 hours by car. If that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is. The drivers here are very inattentive--there's no law that requires handsfree while driving--so biking to work is out of the question.
At least in California, your price gets you nice weather.
78
your price gets you nice weather."................
That is truly a laugh , at least this year. The humidity is awful, it is now like living in Louisiana or texas. downtown SB is NOT what it used to be 50 years ago, where you didn't see homeless people lining the sidewwalks. There were many many bookstores, and now there are maybe 2 and no major bookstores in the downtown area. For a university town, that is pathetic.
SB has always been a "rich" place but it was old money or celebrities in SB or Montecito. Now it is not that same place. SB started started downhll in the 1980's ---like everywhere else.
That is truly a laugh , at least this year. The humidity is awful, it is now like living in Louisiana or texas. downtown SB is NOT what it used to be 50 years ago, where you didn't see homeless people lining the sidewwalks. There were many many bookstores, and now there are maybe 2 and no major bookstores in the downtown area. For a university town, that is pathetic.
SB has always been a "rich" place but it was old money or celebrities in SB or Montecito. Now it is not that same place. SB started started downhll in the 1980's ---like everywhere else.
4
DC was overcrowded before you arrived.
Why did you just pile in, anyhow?
Why did you just pile in, anyhow?
2
I bought my first home in 1974 when I was 30 years old at 751 47th Ave. In the Outer Richmond District of San Francisco. It cost $25,000. I paid the down payment by a cash advance from my credit card. I laughed and cried all the way home from the realtor's office.
A year later I bought a four unit apartment building on LA Playa St. In the Outer Sunset District on Ocean Beach for $135,000. Six properties later I retired to Provence in the south of France where I'm writing this now.
The lesson of life I learned from all these real estate adventures is that happiness in life has very little to do with real estate and everything to do with choices made from the heart. Don't stop trying until you get it right!
A year later I bought a four unit apartment building on LA Playa St. In the Outer Sunset District on Ocean Beach for $135,000. Six properties later I retired to Provence in the south of France where I'm writing this now.
The lesson of life I learned from all these real estate adventures is that happiness in life has very little to do with real estate and everything to do with choices made from the heart. Don't stop trying until you get it right!
5
So what you're saying is for the rest of us to get a DeLorean and a flux capacitor to go back to a time when making investments of this variety were attainable by just about everyone?
25
"Six properties later I retired to Provence in the south of France...."
So it would seem that the people who rent, or rented your properties mad a BAD choice but supporting a distant landlord, enormous greed, you had little conscience how you were living/retiring in the South of FRance, off the hard work of other people--another rentier.
So it would seem that the people who rent, or rented your properties mad a BAD choice but supporting a distant landlord, enormous greed, you had little conscience how you were living/retiring in the South of FRance, off the hard work of other people--another rentier.
13
This is very actionable. Thank you.
4
Zoning is biggest power that local governments have, and oddly, liberal cities seem to abuse it in the most. There are certainly good things about zoning laws, but as this article notes, they are often used to stop development, keep out low-income folks, and keep supply below demand in order to prop up values for existing owners. It is understandable that many existing residents would want to restrict development. They not only want to keep their neighborhood they way it is, they also want to keep growing their home value (which is likely their most valuable asset); however, it is very disheartening to see the level to which greed and parochialism guide the politics of some of our best cities.
It's good that California is taking steps to correct this, although the state has a history of screwing up these kinds of things with unforeseen consequences (see Proposition 13).
It's good that California is taking steps to correct this, although the state has a history of screwing up these kinds of things with unforeseen consequences (see Proposition 13).
4
No way Jose. My CA neighborhood has commercial businesses, rental units, small single family bungalows and duplexes. We call it mixed use. We like the conviences of walking everywhere. It's a good neighborhood with a low crime rate. Some snobs don't want to live next door to renters and want to live in a gated community to keep out the riff raff. That is not a liberal zoning problem.
4
Perfect example of a real problem that is completely unnecessary and never should have happened.
But greedy narcisstic power abusing jerks are always with us. Trump is but a hood ornament of that tribe. I wonder. Does Nancy Peilosi have a nice house? Hmmmmm? Dianne Feinstein? Three of a kind when push comes to shove.
But greedy narcisstic power abusing jerks are always with us. Trump is but a hood ornament of that tribe. I wonder. Does Nancy Peilosi have a nice house? Hmmmmm? Dianne Feinstein? Three of a kind when push comes to shove.
7
You could add Bernie and his rich houses too.
If you want add Bernie. And FDR.
But both demanded something else from government.
As you know.
But whatever dude.
But both demanded something else from government.
As you know.
But whatever dude.
California government causes housing crisis. People turn to government for solutions.
2
Ummm. Last I checked the terrible housing collapse that hit your home town of Vegas so hard in 2008 was brought on largely by runaway banks and lenders. We needed MORE government not less to prevent that disaster.
33
Actually you could argue it's local governments, mostly controlled by baby boomers who have never been about sharing in the prosperity they received from their parents.
2
Those loans happened with government approval and then government forgave the banks and used tax money to bail them out. Every time government fails on a large scale they tell us we need more government.
What were you thinking? You can't get richer and richer with no consequences
1
Geez I wish houses cost $500,000 in NYC. Its hard to find even a garbage dump of a house for less than $900,000 here unless you move far out to Ozone park or something. Im so sick of hearing how entitled the millenials are when the MOST entitled generation, the baby boomers, has left this country in such shambles.
20
That's the median for the ENTIRE STATE of CA, including the 80% plus of the state's 164,000 sq miles that remains largely rural. I believe NY state's median is just above $300K.
The Bay Area and most of LA and San Diego are as bad or worse than NYC. San Francisco proper has an median of something like $1.3M now. The Peninsula is much higher still. Think $3M plus for a ranch house.
The Bay Area and most of LA and San Diego are as bad or worse than NYC. San Francisco proper has an median of something like $1.3M now. The Peninsula is much higher still. Think $3M plus for a ranch house.
7
That's a statewide average--so you can't compare it to NYC. A small, very average house, in erstwhile lowly Mountain View (where I grew up), is easily well north of $1.5 million now. Don't even ask about the prices in the more elite communities around it.
3
$500K is the average for the STATE, not cities like SF, LA, or SD. I also wish houses cost $500K in San Francisco!
5
You want to see a hot real estate market and no rental housing, come to Cape Cod. What little that is available is usually sub par and severely overpriced too.
Thanks to the advent of online vacation rentals on Air BnB, HomeAway, VRBO and many others, there are less and less places for the permanent population to live in. This is happening all over the country. From the San Juan Islands to the Florida Keys. It is not uncommon for renters to pay 50-75% of their incomes to pay for rental housing today. Just to move in costs well north of $5000 for first, last and security deposit. Who has that kind of cash laying around?
Some of the city streets full of homeless individuals and families is starting to resemble Calcutta.
I highly recommend the homeless series in the Honolulu Advertiser. There's an eye opener.
Thanks to the advent of online vacation rentals on Air BnB, HomeAway, VRBO and many others, there are less and less places for the permanent population to live in. This is happening all over the country. From the San Juan Islands to the Florida Keys. It is not uncommon for renters to pay 50-75% of their incomes to pay for rental housing today. Just to move in costs well north of $5000 for first, last and security deposit. Who has that kind of cash laying around?
Some of the city streets full of homeless individuals and families is starting to resemble Calcutta.
I highly recommend the homeless series in the Honolulu Advertiser. There's an eye opener.
23
I am a fourth generation California and grew up in Marin County, which was at that time (50-60 years ago), for the most part, very middle class. When I got married, we could not afford to buy in Marin, and moved to Sonoma County. When I divorced, I could not afford to buy in Sonoma County and so moved to Solano.
I know many native/long time Californians who have been pushed out of the communities they grew up in.
I know many native/long time Californians who have been pushed out of the communities they grew up in.
28
Very true. I was raised in Marin with working class parents and they managed OK. The only people I know who grew up here and live here now are people who moved away for college and came back later in life when they inherited property. Everyone else is either wealthy (lots of tech industry folks who move here from SF after having kids) or they are original owners in the 60 - 100 age range who bought property way back when it was affordable.
There is a very interesting dynamic in the area where I live (Novato), which basically consists of tract homes that were once cheap. The houses of older residents, who often purchased in the 60's and 70's, are often run down and have not been renovated in decades. There are often older cars parked out front, some of which are rarely or never used. Mixed in are extensively renovated houses purchased by newer and wealthier residents, usually younger families with kids. Usually, they have expensive new cars parked out front. It is interesting to see this when you drive through the neighborhoods.
I think it detracts from neighborhood community creation because there have become such large socio-economic differences between neighbors.
There is a very interesting dynamic in the area where I live (Novato), which basically consists of tract homes that were once cheap. The houses of older residents, who often purchased in the 60's and 70's, are often run down and have not been renovated in decades. There are often older cars parked out front, some of which are rarely or never used. Mixed in are extensively renovated houses purchased by newer and wealthier residents, usually younger families with kids. Usually, they have expensive new cars parked out front. It is interesting to see this when you drive through the neighborhoods.
I think it detracts from neighborhood community creation because there have become such large socio-economic differences between neighbors.
2
Dear California companies:
Move to Chicago. We offer a surfeit of outstanding universities, world-class cultural opportunities, delicious restaurants, beautiful vistas, nice people, fabulous mass transit, and lots of relatively affordable housing. There are even days you can surf. Your employees will need to buy parkas and boots, but they will learn to love the four seasons, and winter is not really that long.
Sincerely,
People with reasonable commutes and lots to do on the weekends
Move to Chicago. We offer a surfeit of outstanding universities, world-class cultural opportunities, delicious restaurants, beautiful vistas, nice people, fabulous mass transit, and lots of relatively affordable housing. There are even days you can surf. Your employees will need to buy parkas and boots, but they will learn to love the four seasons, and winter is not really that long.
Sincerely,
People with reasonable commutes and lots to do on the weekends
17
Chicago also has horrible weather, high crime, a weak economy, flat as a pancake, no ocean and no nearby scenery. And I would hardly call the Chicago L "fabulous mass transit".
And the really nice parts of Chicagoland are basically as expensive as CA.
And the really nice parts of Chicagoland are basically as expensive as CA.
7
I like Chicago. I will say that I believe the "high crime" thing is a bit overstated. Often when this is used to describe a place people apply it to the whole location when in fact it is often merely a section or two that quite frankly most middle and upper income people would never go anyway rendering the statement hyperbolic and misleading.
That said, regarding the L, it has the same problem that NYC's subway, Boston's T and SF's BART has, mainly needing infrastructure upgrades and soon. It doesn't have an ocean but it does have a rather large fresh water lake that is as big as any sea. It also does have nice nearby scenery. I've lived and been to the cities in CA, trust me Chicago is a lot more interesting than SD or LA. By far, the weather thing is a matter of taste though with climate change I don't know if it is as severe as it was in the past. Perhaps compared to CA coasts its job market seems tame but it is growing and will continue to do so as more co.'s give up the 'burbs and move to the city. That does lead to the other thing though, a once reasonably priced rental/owner market is now suddenly rather pricey. It seemed like it happened overnight too. I suspect that is the wave of cities around the world though from looking at prices in a variety of countries with desirable locations and/or infrastructure.
That said, regarding the L, it has the same problem that NYC's subway, Boston's T and SF's BART has, mainly needing infrastructure upgrades and soon. It doesn't have an ocean but it does have a rather large fresh water lake that is as big as any sea. It also does have nice nearby scenery. I've lived and been to the cities in CA, trust me Chicago is a lot more interesting than SD or LA. By far, the weather thing is a matter of taste though with climate change I don't know if it is as severe as it was in the past. Perhaps compared to CA coasts its job market seems tame but it is growing and will continue to do so as more co.'s give up the 'burbs and move to the city. That does lead to the other thing though, a once reasonably priced rental/owner market is now suddenly rather pricey. It seemed like it happened overnight too. I suspect that is the wave of cities around the world though from looking at prices in a variety of countries with desirable locations and/or infrastructure.
We need a new approach to housing that emphasizes building high density housing near jobs and/or good public transit. Too much emphasis on getting wealthy suburban communities to build their "fair share" even when those communities don't offer jobs or good transit. Big commercial developments should be required to build housing in order to avoid the Brisbane problem noted in the article.
6
I'm not sure this problem is about housing. If a house costs 1 mil and a developer builds 100 new homes hearby, they will cost 1 mil+ also. I think this is more about the wealthy getting the nice places to live and the non-wealthy getting bumped out. This is what happens in nice places when density reaches max.
23
So the laws of supply and demand are entirely suspended when it comes to housing? 500K new units appearing out of thin air tomorrow wouldn't lower SF prices or rents one penny? Come on.
1
ALL government live of taxes--and real estate are among the easiet to gather. Million dollar homes bring in lots of money and the sell multiple times. Selling a $75 book is much more effective tha 3 $25 books. There is no neighborhood where you will find a $50,000 house when everything else sells for $ 1million.
1
That was the logic that led to the real estate bubble a decade ago. Regardless, density has not reached max in the Bay Area. Just look at other cities in the world with much higher density (and still have a pretty good quality of life).
I've lived in Los Angeles all my life and have worked in real estate - both commercial and residential - for the past 30 years. What this article conveniently omits is the rampant corruption in state and local governments - all of which are controlled by Democrats. These restrictive zoning laws weren't developed by "the rich"; they're purpose-built as a chokepoint on progress, so local councilmen and legislators can funnel "campaign contributions" from homeowners "greedy developers" straight into their coffers. I've witnessed this firsthand so many times I've lost count. Ten years ago, I applied to add a second story and an out unit to my own home, on a half-acre lot. The LA Dept of Building and Safety laughed at me while citing myriad covenants and commission rules which forbade such additions. Several years later, a Chinese developer bought the house next to mine on a 5500 sq.ft. lot, scraped it, and immediately put up a two-story concrete box with a two-story out unit. When I asked how this could be allowed, I was ignored by LADBS and my local councilman. So I sued. Discovery uncovered a $10000 bribe - whoops "contribution" - and the project was halted and forced to be restructured.
We in California need to get government out of the zoning process altogether. Just make a few simple rules that apply equally to everyone, and let people build what they want to build without having to have connections or make payoffs. Housing should not be used as a Democrat ATM.
We in California need to get government out of the zoning process altogether. Just make a few simple rules that apply equally to everyone, and let people build what they want to build without having to have connections or make payoffs. Housing should not be used as a Democrat ATM.
22
Sean:
Thanks for the informative post to give some badly needed insight on what has happened in the "Golden State." Government corruption needs to be held in check, but how? Who's held accountable?
Thanks for the informative post to give some badly needed insight on what has happened in the "Golden State." Government corruption needs to be held in check, but how? Who's held accountable?
Oh please spare us...
1
How much of this problem stems from the capital gains tax exclusion created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997? The bill allows homeowners to take tax-free profits up to $500,000 every two years from selling their primary residence.
When written, median price for houses in America was $146,000, and average price was $176,200. (census.gov). Math shows it takes a $3.2 million house appreciating at 8% annually to max out or take advantage of that exclusion limit. While an average house appreciating at the same 8% would generate a little over $28,000. Why did Congress create an exclusion amount that was 18 times higher than what the profits of average homes sales produced? And this is based on 8% growth, which most consider quite high.
So the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 changed the previous exclusion from a once-in-a-lifetime $125,000 to a $500,000-every-two-years exclusion. Wouldn't that create tremendous incentives to buy larger houses of more speculative nature? Especially if you relaxed lending standards and increased loan amounts.
Do you think that had any influence on exploding housing prices in California?
When written, median price for houses in America was $146,000, and average price was $176,200. (census.gov). Math shows it takes a $3.2 million house appreciating at 8% annually to max out or take advantage of that exclusion limit. While an average house appreciating at the same 8% would generate a little over $28,000. Why did Congress create an exclusion amount that was 18 times higher than what the profits of average homes sales produced? And this is based on 8% growth, which most consider quite high.
So the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 changed the previous exclusion from a once-in-a-lifetime $125,000 to a $500,000-every-two-years exclusion. Wouldn't that create tremendous incentives to buy larger houses of more speculative nature? Especially if you relaxed lending standards and increased loan amounts.
Do you think that had any influence on exploding housing prices in California?
22
I don't know how many ways the same thing can be written. The problem with our country, most of our world and species is greed. Instead of fighting with swords or dueling with pistols the way to prove your social worth is to have a lot of money. It defeats its own purpose if you start building low income housing in wealthy areas so no can distinguish between the wealthy and everyone else. Problems like inequality in housing and education and the degradation of the environment cannot be addressed until good people of all classes get together and do something about greedy sociopaths gobbling up much more than they will ever need just to prove they are king of the hill.
27
Unfortunately that is a pathology that we are nowhere near confronting even though we no it to be true.
Vacant homes should not be able to be turned into AirBnBs. Foreign investors should not be allowed to park their money into residential US real estate.
82
For every problem, there is an authoritarian solution...
that will not be implemented
that will not be implemented
1
One game changer for the Bay area is the proposed high speed rail link to LA. There is 100's of square miles to the South of San Jose, currently farm land, that is easy to build on. Funding is being held hostage by state GOP officials and the ongoing dispute between California and Trump.
Silicon Valley sits on top of the San Andreas fault; which has a 30% chance of a major quake in the next 30 years. One to two story wood framed houses are fairly safe in a large quake, but multi-story high density building require extensive engineering and design for seismic survivability.
Add to that the large mountain range the runs the length of the peninsula. In my location, in the foot hills, there are lots for sale, but they are on steep wooded slopes. Building a house takes one year just to put in the foundation, and the cost for that is 250,000 - $1M on top of the $1M for the land.
Silicon Valley sits on top of the San Andreas fault; which has a 30% chance of a major quake in the next 30 years. One to two story wood framed houses are fairly safe in a large quake, but multi-story high density building require extensive engineering and design for seismic survivability.
Add to that the large mountain range the runs the length of the peninsula. In my location, in the foot hills, there are lots for sale, but they are on steep wooded slopes. Building a house takes one year just to put in the foundation, and the cost for that is 250,000 - $1M on top of the $1M for the land.
6
Duh. When we all want a thing, we all can't have the thing. Obvious exaggeration: all Americans cannot live in San Francisco. Less obvious exaggeration: all Americans who want to cannot live in San Francisco. One more truism: the qualities that make many places desirable would be significantly diminished or even destroyed by greatly increasing the population density. Anyone who does not accept this is either delusional or deceitful.
Once upon a time (and almost certainly still true), employers deliberately located in less trendy parts of the country in order to avoid inflated real estate costs, both for the business and for employees. In fact, it was (and is) a recruiting tool: the attraction of lower cost housing for staff across the income spectrum.
Perhaps the lifestyle priorities (along with job marketing) have changed. If people put top ten metro area living, trendy neighborhoods and pleasant, walkable urban style amenities ahead of family-sized and affordable housing, then we (and they) should not be surprised.
Once upon a time (and almost certainly still true), employers deliberately located in less trendy parts of the country in order to avoid inflated real estate costs, both for the business and for employees. In fact, it was (and is) a recruiting tool: the attraction of lower cost housing for staff across the income spectrum.
Perhaps the lifestyle priorities (along with job marketing) have changed. If people put top ten metro area living, trendy neighborhoods and pleasant, walkable urban style amenities ahead of family-sized and affordable housing, then we (and they) should not be surprised.
30
Many folks living in expensive cities say they are there for the cultural amenities, but upon questioning admit that they seldom avail themselves of said amenities. They don't have the time or the funds, or whatever.
Could it be that snob appeal is what keeps them there?
Could it be that snob appeal is what keeps them there?
2
I think it's worth noting the underlying economics at work in American housing. The people that live in the suburbs do not pay for what they get. What they get are subsidies for a driving lifestyle: no carbon tax (they dump pollutants for free), few or no tolls for roads, and no congestion pricing.
Things that are underpriced or free are inevitably overused, and the result is a distorted market--exactly what you are seeing in CA. The people that live in the suburbs are not getting direct price signals that their lifestyle choices cost more than urban arrangements, and so they continue to fight against rational housing policies. The costs of those choices are externalized to everyone.
Yes, charging more for driving is a regressive burden on the poor. We can offset any increased costs by taking the money collected and giving some to poor people. Then they can CHOOSE to live where they want based on their needs. But subsidizing upper middle class and rich suburban people driving around is just bad economics, bad planning, and immoral.
Things that are underpriced or free are inevitably overused, and the result is a distorted market--exactly what you are seeing in CA. The people that live in the suburbs are not getting direct price signals that their lifestyle choices cost more than urban arrangements, and so they continue to fight against rational housing policies. The costs of those choices are externalized to everyone.
Yes, charging more for driving is a regressive burden on the poor. We can offset any increased costs by taking the money collected and giving some to poor people. Then they can CHOOSE to live where they want based on their needs. But subsidizing upper middle class and rich suburban people driving around is just bad economics, bad planning, and immoral.
9
I live in Southern California. Gas in not cheap here-in fact, it's doubie what it is in MA. That is a bit of a "penalty"-an additional tax in part to pay for our "free" roads. Have you spent much time here? Because it's laughable and insulting to suggest that those who drive everywhere are "upper middle class and rich". I see very few expensive cars on 1 hour commute from Altadena into Hollywood. Most are 12 year old beaters like mine. Also delivery trucks and semis driven by working class people. Driving is a must, sadly. This region is not suitable for biking and public transit to work, not in my generation or likely the next.
3
I think it's also worth noting that the people who live in the suburbs and have to commute to cities are still paying, but they are paying in time. I live in a working class part of an "outer borough" of NYC and would love to be able to afford Manhattan and to walk to work and stores and errands instead of having to take 70 minutes on a local train each way just to get to work. Unfortunately, I cannot afford Manhattan, so I moved to an area I could afford. It's not only upper middle class and rich people who live far away from city centers. It's also just regular working class folks who go where they can afford to live. Let's get some better transit options in these areas first and then we can discuss the morality of living in far out areas.
1
Asset prices are high relative to income levels because interest rates are low. Interest rates are low because government, across all levels, are insolvent, having made promises they cannot keep (entitlements and pensions, mostly). That's the ultimate cause of why there's an affordability crisis. Anything else is just proximate.
8
There is always a problem in a market when you do not pay for what you get. Artificially low interest rates is one issue. But another issue is that burning gasoline costs more than the price at the pump reflects (carbon pollution and particulates are externalized costs on everyone). Another is that the road infrastructure that is required for suburban people to commute to the city is not fully paid for by those that use it. Again, the cost is distributed across everyone.
Market distortions like what we see in CA are a result of people not paying for what they get. In this case it's upper middle class and rich suburban residents being subsidized to drive around. If they had to pay the full cost of those lifestyle choices, there would be market pressure to build more rationally.
Market distortions like what we see in CA are a result of people not paying for what they get. In this case it's upper middle class and rich suburban residents being subsidized to drive around. If they had to pay the full cost of those lifestyle choices, there would be market pressure to build more rationally.
2
As long as housing is a get rich commodity for hedge funds, billionaires and private investment companies, this will be the outcome. They are trading the quality of life like its chips at the casino. It's hitting New York City big time as the number of rent stabilized and affordable apartments in NY is in free fall and what's replacing them in our middle and working class neighborhoods are condos for the wealthiest 2%. On 79th Street at Amsterdam Avenue a new condo development which replaced a smaller middle income low rise is advertising condos starting at $3.95 million up to $15 million. The advertising in very large type on the building exterior seems to sneer at the community where so many raised their children and in which they grew old. A neighborhood that not long ago, most "well-heeled" people would not dare set foot in, and which average citizens improved by taking a stake and sticking it out. To eventually be pushed out.
Way too much resignation from our elected leaders for whom big real estate is the cash cow. And from the citizens that this is just the way it is. Nothing changes until the grass roots make it change.
Way too much resignation from our elected leaders for whom big real estate is the cash cow. And from the citizens that this is just the way it is. Nothing changes until the grass roots make it change.
30
I find the current home pricing situation in Los Angeles vulgar and immoral. My wife and I are both professionals (teacher and nurse), and if we were in the market to buy a home, the starting price would be $1 million. The message those prices send is very clear. We want you to teach our children, and to take care of our loved ones. But when your shift ends, please return to YOUR side of town.
42
I live here and I would never say that to you. If anyone "says" it, it's the developers who build high density and condos staring at 1 million dollars "and up". Bottom line: simply too many people-and nothing you or I, a lifelong resident can do about that.
2
Fellow professional in LA. Know other professionals who bought 3-br homes in the 700k range in the last two months. While I agree with you that prices are high, to say that the "starting price would be $1 million" suggests to me you're looking at the most over-priced area. Try the valley or highland park.
1
"Vulgar and immoral" Whew!
Tony, if you don't like the deal, you should check out.
Teaching and nursing have the trappings of professions but they are more like trades. These days clippers of fingernails claim to be "professionals."
Tony, if you don't like the deal, you should check out.
Teaching and nursing have the trappings of professions but they are more like trades. These days clippers of fingernails claim to be "professionals."
1
The answer isn't government. If Apple, Google and the other big tech companies cannot house the workers they need in CA, let them start setting up shop in locales where the cost of living is reasonable. Just because people like living in SF, LA and NYC, doesn't mean it is up to the government to make it affordable.
22
Except that the people that Apple, Google, and so forth are hiring can choose to work somewhere else that isn't bleak,awful, and ,depending on the worker, outright hostile.
Another reason to encourage remote work and telecommuting, unlike the regressive policies of IBM and Yahoo driving employees into open office nightmares to create "collaboration".
2
The higher density building recommended here often causes two problems that significantly affect our quality of life. First, parking and the stupid suggestions from developer-centered City Hall lead to a significant decline in the local small business sector and these small businesses that provided much needed services and products are forced out. Already Palo Alto lacks book, stationary, wearable clothing, art and other similar stores, stores that encourage residents to shop locally.
Second, it drives out the really good restaurants and small family, non-chain restaurants. There are no places in Palo Alto where one can dine quietly in comfort. All places are so noisy because diners are crowded close together and far too many think they are on some sort of farm where they need to shout all the time.
We also need smaller non-multiplex movie theaters that show movies not on the mass media lists.
We do not want high rises in the residential neighborhoods. Keep such things downtown.
Second, it drives out the really good restaurants and small family, non-chain restaurants. There are no places in Palo Alto where one can dine quietly in comfort. All places are so noisy because diners are crowded close together and far too many think they are on some sort of farm where they need to shout all the time.
We also need smaller non-multiplex movie theaters that show movies not on the mass media lists.
We do not want high rises in the residential neighborhoods. Keep such things downtown.
10
Your missive makes no sense. More residents with more money means an increased tax base and an invigorated market for small businesses. To follow conventional wisdom and restrict development, you will see your small business sector atrophy.
No offense, but it is not reasonable to expect to freeze Palo Alto in time to suit yourself. The trajectory of the city is larger than yourself by several orders of magnitude. If it too dense for you, sell your home for a fortune and move 50 miles away. I am sure they have single theater movie houses there and quiet places to dine.
No offense, but it is not reasonable to expect to freeze Palo Alto in time to suit yourself. The trajectory of the city is larger than yourself by several orders of magnitude. If it too dense for you, sell your home for a fortune and move 50 miles away. I am sure they have single theater movie houses there and quiet places to dine.
5
Your assessments are consistently wrong. Please realize the state and Palo Alto in particular is more populated than it used to be.
Actually, more residents with more money also means higher rents which leads to mega chains who can afford to get through the hump before the invigorated markets kick in.
This is why if you look at Manhattan you see a lot of mega chains but not anywhere near as many small businesses.
This is why if you look at Manhattan you see a lot of mega chains but not anywhere near as many small businesses.
I reside in Los Angeles and we desperately need tens of thousands of new lower and middle income housing units. That housing for working people is so scarce is definitely an elitism problem that results in massive auto pollution and homelessness. The irrational fear of upper middle class and rich people who live in dense urban centers of others with less money should no longer control the state agenda. We have had 50 years of this and it's enough. In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to build an expansive three or four story apartment buildings on streches of busy thoroughfares on the perimeters of exclusive enclaves. For anyone of means who finds this objectionable or doesn't wish to live in a diverse or densely populated environment, there are beautiful low density suburbs full of lovely homes within driving distance of the city. What they must no longer and never again be able to do is to hamstring the rest of society.
Los Angeles's other problem is that to build anything here is a regulatory boondoggle of legendary proportions. Massive dysfunctional regulations have made development so expensive that it just doesn't pay for builders to erect anything but luxury housing. This is the fault of the state, county, and city equally and it needs to be aggressively addressed. The regulatory agencies need to have their processes streamlined, expedited, and made cheaper and this needs to happen yesterday.
Los Angeles's other problem is that to build anything here is a regulatory boondoggle of legendary proportions. Massive dysfunctional regulations have made development so expensive that it just doesn't pay for builders to erect anything but luxury housing. This is the fault of the state, county, and city equally and it needs to be aggressively addressed. The regulatory agencies need to have their processes streamlined, expedited, and made cheaper and this needs to happen yesterday.
26
But any developer who builds that "three or four story"-more like 20 stories, it it were alowed at all-fantasy apartment-is going to charge how much to live there? Rents or a purchase price for the same 1%! How does that help our housing crisis? It sounds "fair" but it's totally unrealistic. I don't live in Brentwood or San Marino amd never will and I still oppose turning them into land choked with "hi-rises".
Government regulations are like cholesterol. HDL... bad cholesterol... LDL.. good cholesterol. As I see it, all of the developmental hurdles to building lower and middle class housing in Los Angeles are akin to HDL cholesterol and all of the regulations that will diversify communities and build state of the art public transport are like LDL cholesterol. The constant variable we have to remember is that the city is both aging and growing and nobody can do anything to stop it. Los Angeles is a living breathing organism and has different nourishment needs through every stage of its life. As it gets older, it needs to adapt to a massively growing population which should not and must not be stopped by the interests of an elite few. We need to start paying more attention to cities like Amsterdam and Paris with their highly developed bike infrastructure and public transport networks, and while we are at it we should take a good hard look at Massachusettes who imposes large taxes on people who buy up desirable neighborhoods and don't live there.
Is it possible to keep "affordable" housing in the hands of relatively poor people? I doubt it.
Politics can trump economics in the short run,
but eventually, economics prevails over politics.
Politics can trump economics in the short run,
but eventually, economics prevails over politics.
1
The lack of affordable housing may be one the greatest problems in these United States. Not that it cannot be solved, as demonstrated in other countries, where outstanding architects/engineers, imbued by social justice towards their fellow men/women, have built just such projects, with the wise assistance of inspired local governments, with unlimited rewards of a happy, and productive, citizenry. This is applicable also to homeless folks, anxious to join the community as productive members, secure in their dwellings, and then without the need for emergency services in health and labor and education. For this to occur, we need truly conscientious leaders, where the social distance is acceptably small, and the responsibility of a job well done shared equally among it's members. Housing can, and must, be solved, if we are to diminish the killer of any democracy, inequality...and it's inequities a rich capitalistic society like ours ought not tolerate.
19
Most of the United States contains plenty of affordable housing. A married couple each making $10/hour can rent a 1-bedroom apartment for $600 in a two-family house in most cities, and save enough money to purchase a $100,000 3-bedroom house. In safe neighborhoods. Nothing fancy, but better than most of the world.
1
I don't know the solution to the housing affordability issue in California. But as someone who has lived in CA for over 40 years, I do know the following: The CA housing market traditionally follows a boom-bust cycle. The current "crunch" suggests to me that we're reaching the peak of the current boom. So my advice--and this likely extends to the broader U.S. economy and financial markets--is: Watch out!
47
I agree about the historical boom-bust cycle. A big difference now is that Silicon Valley has now moved into downtown SF versus SF being a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. This problem is far more entrenched now and won't go away soon due to an impending bust.
7
it's not simply a California issue. Portland, Oregon, is going through a massive housing boom, and subsequent housing crisis as well. In the four years I've lived here, I've seen this city go from the overly stereotyped and quirky generalized Portlandia town, into a place many are now calling the New Portland. Some of the change is good. Many older homes that were an eyesore are being torn down to create new homes and apartments. Construction jobs are booming. However, many other older homes and buildings that have historic and cultural value have also been destroyed. Housing prices are going through the roof creating problems for low and medium income families. The homeless situation is everywhere with only symbolic solutions being proposed. The streets and highways are both overcrowded and in terrible need of repair. Opioids like heroin are on the rise. While Portland remains a friendly city with growing programs in the arts, access to natural wonders throughout Oregon, and a focus on healthy living and open doors to a variety of lifestyles and cultures, the city faces some real and growing problems that need immediate attention. I can only hope the city government looks south to California and sees a future it needs to avoid today so we can have a better tomorrow.
47
Portland has designated areas for mid-rise apartment buildings, like the Vancouver-Williams corridor, and high rise buildings, as in the north end of the Pearl on the Conway properties, and they are going up fast. The legislature is considering HB2007 that would require cities and counties to relax regulations, for example, would allow duplexes in all current single family zones. Portland is moving toward making ADUs easier to finance and build, so a house could have a back yard dwelling or studio. All these government measures do help, but the core problem is more people want to live close in, near the center of the city, than can be accommodated even with dense new development. We have a new house across the street from us that sold for nearly $1 million, and we are three miles from downtown, not in a hip neighborhood. I wonder if it would make more sense for companies that create new jobs to consider locating in smaller cities in Oregon, as happened already in Bend.
2
Good points. I agree with your suggestions.
I doubt there is an "institutional" solution to the problem.
Additional people just keep piling in, piling on.
Anybody know a great place that is not under threat of being overrun?
Additional people just keep piling in, piling on.
Anybody know a great place that is not under threat of being overrun?
1
In Santa Barbara, a small town, but with housing costs on par with SF, the crisis is in many ways artificially created. The the open area (garden) requirement for each sq. feet of a house prevents any high rises from being built. Long time residents does not want the town's population to grow. Companies can't get suitable employees coz most people move away when they want to start nesting.
7
$500k isn't even close on the Westside of LA. Everything is $1M and up. Everything!
17
AirBnB is a very bid part of the housing crisis. It takes hundreds of units off the rental market in my small coastal tourist town of Fort Bragg, CA. It takes over 6,000 rental units off the market in a place like San Francisco. A healthy housing market has a vacancy rate of more than 5%. IN these tourist towns and cities the vacancy rate is well below 1% due to AirBnB which drives up rental costs and leads to homelessness of working families. Get rid of AirBnB and half of our housing crisis in beautiful coastal and other tourist towns would be solved!!!! New York Times should do an article on the impact of AirBnB on the high cost of rental housing.
213
It is not just AirBnB alone. There are dozens of short term or vacation rental companies online today. HomeAway, VRBO, CraigsList and many others help to promote rental housing deserts. Especially in anyplace desirable.
18
I second the request for an investigation into the impact of short-term rentals like AirBnB on markets in CA and elsewhere. On the one hand, it enables some people to supplement their incomes. That's one thing if you are renting out a room, or your own home when you are on vacation. It's quite another if you buy a property in which you do not reside and do short-term rentals all the time. Not only does that remove long-term rentals from the market, but it truly changes the character of a place.
41
Seconded, Adam Nagourney and Conor Dogherty should take a look at the impact VRBOs have had on tourist towns that also have thriving businesses. Especially UC/CSU college towns.
1
I'm a liberal, but I don't think it's up to the government to provide affordable housing. California, like other desirable places such as Aspen, or Palm Beach, will ALWAYS draw people who want to live there. You can't build your way out of that because people will just keep moving there until you have another ruined place. It's not a supply problem--it's a demand problem.
We rented for 9 years in another great location, Ashland Oregon. Everyone wants to live there (including Californians who could no longer afford California, which has driven up prices). But we didn't couldn't afford a house there. What did we do? We MOVED to somewhere more affordable.
I understand the connections people have in areas--friends, family, schools, etc.
But take the nurse mentioned. Nurses are in demand everywhere. Is she so married to that particular job? There are nursing jobs across the country, where housing is affordable and commuting is a breeze. We live in a free country where people can move to more affordable and better areas.
Because if people refuse to move come what may, what's the alternative? Foul, crowded, overpriced urban blight.
We rented for 9 years in another great location, Ashland Oregon. Everyone wants to live there (including Californians who could no longer afford California, which has driven up prices). But we didn't couldn't afford a house there. What did we do? We MOVED to somewhere more affordable.
I understand the connections people have in areas--friends, family, schools, etc.
But take the nurse mentioned. Nurses are in demand everywhere. Is she so married to that particular job? There are nursing jobs across the country, where housing is affordable and commuting is a breeze. We live in a free country where people can move to more affordable and better areas.
Because if people refuse to move come what may, what's the alternative? Foul, crowded, overpriced urban blight.
148
The difference with Aspen and Palm Beach is that they aren't simultaneously attracting/courting/growing/encouraging employment growth, while alternately suppressing housing. I'd love to live in Aspen, but I'd never find a decent job or housing. But in California, the tech industry has concentrated their employment, so people feel they need to be there to start a career. (Kind of like LA with entertainment). So people who work for Google, Amazon, or want to build a career in tech can't live out in North Dakota for cheap.
And cities across America have affordability issues that are quite severe. And a lot of it is about the concentration of economic opportunity.
Yes, you can live for cheap in West Virginia- and there is demand for a small group of fields. But your spouse may not find a job there.
And cities across America have affordability issues that are quite severe. And a lot of it is about the concentration of economic opportunity.
Yes, you can live for cheap in West Virginia- and there is demand for a small group of fields. But your spouse may not find a job there.
3
She wouldn't be making $180,000 a year in another part of the country...
5
But Mr. Cole who is going to wash your dishes in the restaurant, make your bed in a hotel or dump you bed pan when you are elderly? Not to forget teach your children, put out fires and find felons in your neighborhood? Who stocks your grocery shelves and rings them up? Please. No man is an island.
10
Never mind the self interested neighborhoods, the main culprit here in San Francisco is the City Planning Office. I wanted to replace the weakly structured third floor on my house with a new floor and add a floor. And here's what happened:
City Planning told me the property was historic and could not be touched. (All properties in SF older than 50 years are historic). So I had to prove a negative - that it was not historic. I had to have a large architectural firm prepare a study, and PAY THE CITY $ 5,700 to read it at a hearing closed to the public, where no notes are taken than can be obtained. Cost? $15,000. Delay 1 1/2 years. Is this a dictatorship? You bet.
Three different sets of plans were provided to the City Planning manager assigned over the next 3 years. City Planning used it's vague "City Planning Guidelines" to shoot down every one of them, althoug providing no info about what their concerns were. Although well within the zoning height limit for my property, they denied my plans, with a planner referring to them as "gigantic".
Since nothing would please City Planning, I did a formal submission of plans. Then City Planning told me how to design the building - what kind of roof they would allow and what kind of height. Where does this power originate in law? Beats me.
Finally I had objections from neighbors, which caused additional design changes.
My project is done. Never again.
City Planning told me the property was historic and could not be touched. (All properties in SF older than 50 years are historic). So I had to prove a negative - that it was not historic. I had to have a large architectural firm prepare a study, and PAY THE CITY $ 5,700 to read it at a hearing closed to the public, where no notes are taken than can be obtained. Cost? $15,000. Delay 1 1/2 years. Is this a dictatorship? You bet.
Three different sets of plans were provided to the City Planning manager assigned over the next 3 years. City Planning used it's vague "City Planning Guidelines" to shoot down every one of them, althoug providing no info about what their concerns were. Although well within the zoning height limit for my property, they denied my plans, with a planner referring to them as "gigantic".
Since nothing would please City Planning, I did a formal submission of plans. Then City Planning told me how to design the building - what kind of roof they would allow and what kind of height. Where does this power originate in law? Beats me.
Finally I had objections from neighbors, which caused additional design changes.
My project is done. Never again.
83
If the height of your proposed addition was within the limit for your zoning district, this can not have been the reason for the denial.
1
Based on your description, it's pretty clear that your project was a monstrosity.
The photo of the house under construction in Mateca helps illustrate the problem.
First, Manteca is prime farm land, as good as there is. Covering that ground with big houses is foolish. BTW, the freeway to the Bay is already clogged.
Second, the house seems at least 5000 square feet, more than double the size of the comfortable town house in Oakland where we raised two children. The Manteca house is a 1950s fantasy of house-yard-pool, three car garage, no longer even remotely realistic.
First, Manteca is prime farm land, as good as there is. Covering that ground with big houses is foolish. BTW, the freeway to the Bay is already clogged.
Second, the house seems at least 5000 square feet, more than double the size of the comfortable town house in Oakland where we raised two children. The Manteca house is a 1950s fantasy of house-yard-pool, three car garage, no longer even remotely realistic.
282
This, exactly! My husband and I are raising our son in a 990 square foot bungalow in Oakland. Two bedrooms, 1.5 baths. It's cozy for sure, but it's ours. Oh, and we are within minutes of public transportation. Both of us use BART to get to work in San Francisco. I have a lot of sympathy for our many friends and colleagues affected by the very real hpusing crisis here, however the nurse in Manteca with the $180k salary is perhaps not the best example. Smaller, older homes are available in closer proximity to San Francisco. It's all about trade-offs. For us, we would rather live in a small home that's closer to urban amenities and our jobs. The folks who are really in a bind are those with blue collar/service jobs who don't have six figire incomes and must live in places like Manteca (though in far more modest homes than the new build shown here) because they truly can't afford anything else.
2
And yet those are the homes that builders want to build because they make more on the high-end developments, and municipalities are happy to have because of the high tax assessments, as they are not under Prop 13. My husband and I, empty-nesters, have rented for 30 years. We'd love to even live in a 3BR 1.5BA home that maxes out at 1500 feet. That's all we want. That's all we need. But even homes of that size are rare, at any price. They mostly all went huge in the 70s onward and the homes before are tiny, just 2BR and 1BA. Not a disaster, but not what many/most seek today.
1
Are most realtors corrupt?
Our President provides a good look inside the
greed, corruption and the control of the markets.
The percent paid to the realtor to sell a property is outrageous for the amount of work done, yet we pay without question. In any other deal we would request an itemized list of work completed.
Realtors control the market, foreign money controls the real estate developers.
Just like Trump, greed controls all.
Our President provides a good look inside the
greed, corruption and the control of the markets.
The percent paid to the realtor to sell a property is outrageous for the amount of work done, yet we pay without question. In any other deal we would request an itemized list of work completed.
Realtors control the market, foreign money controls the real estate developers.
Just like Trump, greed controls all.
16
The photo of the house under construction gives a clue to one of the factors here. Many people prefer to live in a 4,000 square foot, free-standing "luxury" house than in (even) a 2000 square foot condo or apartment in a multi-unit building. Unless Americans re-balance their quality-of-life criteria, and if they continue to prefer long commutes to more efficient dwellings, sprawl is exacerbated.
120
Believe me, there are many who also do prefer to live in 1,200 or 1500 square feet, in a multi-family complex. We are the young Boomers and Older Gen X-ers who have no need for large lawns, big empty houses - the kids are growing and gone - and we are everywhere, California included. As others have written here, downsizing is not much of an option as buyers have to pay more for less space than they did even recently and they wind up paying much more taxes. So why sell and why move? Totally nuts. We should make it easy to downsize and free up living space.
4
At some point we Californians have to ask, "what do we want our towns and cities to look like?" I think many of us would be happy if they looked like European cities--dense housing, with well-planned streets and public transit--but that would take something that we haven't had for a long time: strong planning and local government. Our town councils are terrified of NIMBY neighbors, but we should all be afraid of the alternative: a loosening of zoning laws so that we have everyone building shack-like second units in their backyards. And that's exactly what Scott Weiner is proposing. Loosening zoning laws and building more single family homes in distant communities like Manteca is exactly what we should not be doing.
25
Anywhere the economy is good (blue states) there are affordable housing shortages. The stack and pack solution keeps on coming up as the only solution. It solves things temporarily and causes other infrastructure problems.
Key elements to solve these issues should be good rail transportation, remote working environments and country/small town "villages".
Whenever development happens people who are being forced to give things up are called NIMBY. Think about it. Are people supposed to be happy to give up what they have for someone else's benefit without protest. Ridiculous. Until people recognize that others are sacrificing and stop the shaming and blaming you can expect anger and resistance.
Key elements to solve these issues should be good rail transportation, remote working environments and country/small town "villages".
Whenever development happens people who are being forced to give things up are called NIMBY. Think about it. Are people supposed to be happy to give up what they have for someone else's benefit without protest. Ridiculous. Until people recognize that others are sacrificing and stop the shaming and blaming you can expect anger and resistance.
20
So much for "let the market handle it"advice from our Republican Party.
Who benefits?who loses?
Who benefits?who loses?
2
But all involved are Democrats ... California state and local governments are controlled by Democrats, none of whom want pockets of high density low income housing next door.
5
I live in rural Colorado, and home prices have jumped 77% in the last 6 years. Why? Well, a good part of the reason is the explosion in vacation rentals and second homes, which are now about 40% of the housing stock. New housing is primarily being built for non-residents. This phenomenon is not unique to our area or our state. The NYT has printed articles about a similar situation in San Francisco--housing no longer available to local, full time residents. Taking zoning and land use issues away from local communities would be a dream come true for developers, as well as those who make money from short term rentals and second and third home owners.
19
I think this article failed to mention the foreigners purchasing property in California. How are US residents able to purchase when the real estate is snatched up by people looking to send their kids to the US in the future?
82
Indeed. Foreign buyers who can and do buy with cash. Domestic buyers, Americans, simply cannot compete. End of story.
2
"For the past several decades, California has had a process that sets a number of housing units, including low-income units, that each city should build over the next several years based on projected growth.”
**************
In the 1990s, I looked at the number of affordable housing units that California cities and counties were required to build to meet their affordable housing requirement. The median built over the previous 5 years was zero units! Only a couple of cities (notably Los Angeles) actually built any affordable units. Some cities (e.g., Santa Barbara) were even declaring Section 8 housing certificates as built affordable units (which they are not).
In theory, Proposition 13 should have encouraged more housing units since it restricted the amount of tax revenue per building for local governments. But, the benefit would be short-term, limited to when the unit was built (afterwards, tax revenue would be capped).
Most local governments were reluctant to add more units for a variety of reasons - to protect housing prices, to limit traffic in their cities, and to protect environmental resources (like parks or agricultural land). But, the effect made housing expensive and pushed affordable housing further to the urban periphery.
There is a need for the state to override local restrictions to allow more housing to be built. Otherwise, local governance becomes a means to exacerbate income and wealth inequality.
**************
In the 1990s, I looked at the number of affordable housing units that California cities and counties were required to build to meet their affordable housing requirement. The median built over the previous 5 years was zero units! Only a couple of cities (notably Los Angeles) actually built any affordable units. Some cities (e.g., Santa Barbara) were even declaring Section 8 housing certificates as built affordable units (which they are not).
In theory, Proposition 13 should have encouraged more housing units since it restricted the amount of tax revenue per building for local governments. But, the benefit would be short-term, limited to when the unit was built (afterwards, tax revenue would be capped).
Most local governments were reluctant to add more units for a variety of reasons - to protect housing prices, to limit traffic in their cities, and to protect environmental resources (like parks or agricultural land). But, the effect made housing expensive and pushed affordable housing further to the urban periphery.
There is a need for the state to override local restrictions to allow more housing to be built. Otherwise, local governance becomes a means to exacerbate income and wealth inequality.
3
I live here in Sacramento. The housing market is ridiculous. We lived in Folsom, which in Sacramento in 2014 the rent was $1400 and in 2016 the rent was up to $1800 for the same apartment. We are poor with a family income of 55k per year. To move out of apartments and into a house was not easy. My wife is pregnant with first child and I didn't want to have the baby come home to an apartment. That being said we ended up paying $1700 in a poor- middle class area for a small house. I thought the rent was high for what it was but when we looked at five others wanted it also but we got the house.
California has so many foreigners it's causing price distortion. Between the people brought in by tech companies from India and wealthy PRC nationals, the natives that grew up here have no chance.
California has so many foreigners it's causing price distortion. Between the people brought in by tech companies from India and wealthy PRC nationals, the natives that grew up here have no chance.
17
Why would you think you should have a house at any income level? 55K isn't much higher than minimum wage of two people.
2
Only foreigners cause price distortion?
4
Great..Immigrants are the problem for everything wrong under the sun. Thanks for your well-thought out analysis.
1
Does California have the ugliest houses in the US ? Must be close.
The phrase " little boxes made of ticky tacky " was about rows of houses in California just like these. They are still there and if you take the train to SFO airport you can see them.
The phrase " little boxes made of ticky tacky " was about rows of houses in California just like these. They are still there and if you take the train to SFO airport you can see them.
9
Exactly. So many ugly old houses with commercial and industrial neighbors. So much growth prior to sound zoning and master planning. This is what the article (and the debate) misses: people earning $100k will not necessarily choose to reside in a dark, cramped and outdated ranch with popcorn ceilings one block off El Camino. Instead their preference is for a sunny two story with central air, modern bathrooms and quiet streets. This is more a question of a mismatch in the reality of the housing stock condition versus personal aspirations (fueled by Veranda profiles of houses in lower cost areas of Texas) than a housing shortage for higher income workers. If we want this demographic to choose close-in housing regardless of aesthetics then the penalties for commuting from Tracy, Lathrop, Roseville will need to be much harsher.
2
"And Proposition 13, the sweeping voter initiative passed in 1978 that capped property taxes, has made things worse: It had the effect of shrinking the housing stock by encouraging homeowners to hold on to properties to take advantage of the low taxes."
That "housing stock" is lived in or rented out. That does not decrease housing stock. Please quit bashing Prop 13 at every opportunity. It has nothing to do with a shortage of housing. High prices have meant people are selling and selling and selling again, and property tax is reassessed at each sale.
That "housing stock" is lived in or rented out. That does not decrease housing stock. Please quit bashing Prop 13 at every opportunity. It has nothing to do with a shortage of housing. High prices have meant people are selling and selling and selling again, and property tax is reassessed at each sale.
39
When an elderly person lives alone in a big suburban house after the kids are gone and the spouse has died, because they can't afford to move to a smaller place, there is a misallocation of resources. Prop 13 has done exactly this.
3
Before prop 13 real estate in California changed ownership twice as often as it does today . In my SF neighborhood the old folks hold on until they die because their kids will pay no capital gains when they inherit. So the big house sits practically empty and the government (which, of course you must revile) gets no tax money from the property tax for years and years
7
But the property tax is a fraction of what it would be had Proposition 13 never passed.
1
It's not just a problem in California. I worked in DC for 17 years and commuted there by train, bus, subway and finally by car. All transportation options in the DC area are dreadful and the federal government has a long way to go in supporting telecommuting options. My commute averaged 2.5 hours each way by train and 1.5 hours each way by car. I eventually just drove to work as it took less time. However, the road system here cannot handle the tremendous volume of people driving to and from work each day.
I think we need to seriously rethink the idea of working together in an office building. Unless you are making someone a sandwich or in a profession where you have to be in a specific location (educator or medics etc.) it makes no sense.
I think the entire concept of commuting to an office to work when you can work at home is ridiculous given the environmental, physical and financial costs.
Like San Fransansico, housing costs in DC are outrageous thus forcing most to live well outside the city. It is only getting worse and is now a problem in most metropolitan areas. We need to rethink our work models and develop affordable housing for lower income workers in cities so not just the rich can afford to live near their jobs! It's absurd to think someone making $180,000 cannord live near her job. Imagine what it's like for minimum wage workers or even school teachers.
This is where the state needs to step in a provide some sanity to this ever growing problem.
I think we need to seriously rethink the idea of working together in an office building. Unless you are making someone a sandwich or in a profession where you have to be in a specific location (educator or medics etc.) it makes no sense.
I think the entire concept of commuting to an office to work when you can work at home is ridiculous given the environmental, physical and financial costs.
Like San Fransansico, housing costs in DC are outrageous thus forcing most to live well outside the city. It is only getting worse and is now a problem in most metropolitan areas. We need to rethink our work models and develop affordable housing for lower income workers in cities so not just the rich can afford to live near their jobs! It's absurd to think someone making $180,000 cannord live near her job. Imagine what it's like for minimum wage workers or even school teachers.
This is where the state needs to step in a provide some sanity to this ever growing problem.
129
She could live quite a bit closer. But I'm sure she has this American idea that she should have a house with a huge yard.
30
That seems especially true for places like Silicon Valley. Why sit in a campus-like workplace tapping on a laptop all day which could just as easily be done from anywhere where cost of living is a fraction? Daycare centers shouldn't be allowed to drive everyone else out of towns they can no longer afford to live in.
You're right-but the work culture is about control and no boss here in Hollywood wants to only Skype with their workforce, in my experience(although I wish they did).
1
We have limited water and periodic droughts. Commute times have doubled and tripled. bART is at capacity. This isn't the time to be building more housing unless infrastructure increases to match.
201
The Bay Area could easily be all metro areas in the nation. Take a look at NYC or Chicago for instance... this is just as much the case.
2
Exactly!!!!!
On the plus side this encourages Democrats to move to Texas, where, for the good of the nation, their votes are desperately needed.
415
I hope you mean that once in Texas they will continue to vote Democrat and actively recruit others to the fold.
Texas has some of the most misogynist laws in the country.
I can't begin to think of living there.
Texas has some of the most misogynist laws in the country.
I can't begin to think of living there.
3
So right you are!
Absolutely love this comment. Same thing can be said for Boston. I have an idea, you go first and let us know how you like it.
1
Case in point. The SMART train, a voter approved light rail service between Marin and Sonoma counties has had numerous delays initiating service. One obstacle has been the difficulty in hiring conductors. While the pay was generous, qualified applicants balked at the high housing costs (especially those being recruited from out of state - with little existing rail infrastructure in CA there is a dearth of local candidates).
NIMBYism has a strong following here, and if you look closely, a lot of the loudest voices against higher density, affordable housing are recent "immigrants" who want to lock the door behind them. If "low or moderate income" are used in a housing proposal, good luck even getting your ideas through a planning commission. Environmental Impact Reports and traffic studies are the new tools of economic segregation - evidently the highest "value" many embrace here is that of their own property. In Marin county there are few public employees that can afford to live in the towns and cities they work in; police and fire chiefs are induced to apply with the prospects of mortgage subsidies provided by the councils. When the big one (earthquake) strikes how many emergency responders willing (or able) to respond when their "two hour commute" becomes impassable. Just sayin...
NIMBYism has a strong following here, and if you look closely, a lot of the loudest voices against higher density, affordable housing are recent "immigrants" who want to lock the door behind them. If "low or moderate income" are used in a housing proposal, good luck even getting your ideas through a planning commission. Environmental Impact Reports and traffic studies are the new tools of economic segregation - evidently the highest "value" many embrace here is that of their own property. In Marin county there are few public employees that can afford to live in the towns and cities they work in; police and fire chiefs are induced to apply with the prospects of mortgage subsidies provided by the councils. When the big one (earthquake) strikes how many emergency responders willing (or able) to respond when their "two hour commute" becomes impassable. Just sayin...
46
Actually the SMART train is an example of government stupidity - it will fail because it goes nowhere useful and serves a population too small to support train service.
4
Excellent post.
People see it, want it, grab it, and it turns to ashes in their mouth
People see it, want it, grab it, and it turns to ashes in their mouth
2
Cake and eat it too.
Californians need to adjust their thinking. their reality doesn’t match their expectations. if they want open sky living then sprawl is the only answer, if governments want the income from industry, the only answer for housing is up. All this of course would be moot if an extensive high-speed transit system were in place. They have three choices and Wieners bill is the worst of all possible solutions for it will certainly cause the eventual deflation of values in these areas when the inevitable UP rules. For once California will follow the lead of the rest of the country, where the suburbs have become the slums due to the movement of people back to urban areas.
Californians need to adjust their thinking. their reality doesn’t match their expectations. if they want open sky living then sprawl is the only answer, if governments want the income from industry, the only answer for housing is up. All this of course would be moot if an extensive high-speed transit system were in place. They have three choices and Wieners bill is the worst of all possible solutions for it will certainly cause the eventual deflation of values in these areas when the inevitable UP rules. For once California will follow the lead of the rest of the country, where the suburbs have become the slums due to the movement of people back to urban areas.
1
Building up in earthquake land is not a good option.
5
If it is built correctly, which much of CA is not, a high speed rail system, both long and short range, is desperately needed.
To see what a difference it would make, try the TGV in France.
To see what a difference it would make, try the TGV in France.
3
Scott Wiener is a hypocrite. In San Francisco as Supervisor, he pushed through the Corbett Heights plan -the type of local development curb for his own cronied constituency - he now decrys Sacramento. He toughened CEQA as well.
7
The picture shown makes me think about earthquakes and fires. No one could get in or out and many might burn to death in homes or cars.
3
You know, there is this city called Tokyo which also has earthquakes from time to time. It really isn't a problem: we know how to build safe high rises in earthquakes.
9
Don't overlook the effect of Prop 13, which has been distorting the real estate market for a generation. It's got to go.
107
You have no idea WHY Proposition 13 passed. It was because people were being taxed out of their homes. Home were being reappraised at much higher value, the property tax rate stayed the same, so taxes were doubling and tripling. The state legislature didn't want to fix the problem so the people did. If you just end Prop 13 it will happen again, and we will pass something like Prop 13 again.
12
Please explain how it has "distorted" the market.
3
Capital gains replaced it. Who wants to sell their house and lose all that money in capital gains. In California it's almost 30%.
1
Build, build, build. Glad to see this effort to reduce the onerous construction barriers in California. LA could triple its population and still be less dense than Brooklyn.
6
But it won't ever have Brooklyn's subway. No, you can't compare the areas-they are completely different.
1
}}} If the project were higher or denser than current zoning laws allow, it would still have to go through the City Council.
SO, to translate:
This is a sound-good piece of useless legislation, since the real problem is increasing density (via verticality) in places, not "more of the same ol', same ol'..."
SO, to translate:
This is a sound-good piece of useless legislation, since the real problem is increasing density (via verticality) in places, not "more of the same ol', same ol'..."
1
Some advice from MA: Don't let the state overrule local zoning. Developers move into the wealthiest neighborhoods to build 10 times the existing density of luxury apartments with a few affordable units. It simply destroys context and enriches developers without helping the people who need affordable housing.
59
And in my small town (7,000 approximately) 67 miles East of San Francisco (off highway 80) we are getting 395 new homes after a smaller development of 50+ homes were built. The starting price for these homes? the mid--$300,000. What the market has done though is driven up the price. Now moving into one of the new homes (already built) will cost a family $450,000. In the bigger development coming soon, only 40 of the units will be "affordable" housing. I'm not sure more homes built is going to solve the problem of unaffordable housing.
5
This could be NYC as well.
1
Hear, hear, Cran. I live in Chestnut Hill and a monstrosity is being built down the block under 40B "affordable housing" law. Just a handout to real estate developers.
A nurse makes $180,000 a year in California?
17
And still can't afford to live within 75 miles of her workplace!
8
California definitely needs more, better and denser development. However, building a bunch of apartments and multi-family homes in Santa Rosa and Los Gatos isn't going to solve anything unless California simultaneously gets serious about building new roads and public transit. Santa Rosa and Los Gatos are both over an hour from San Francisco (although Los Gatos is perhaps more accurately described as a suburb of San Jose/Silicon Valley). Both cities have more residents than quality jobs. People commute from these cities to San Francisco and San Jose. So why are we trying to increase the housing density of exurbs (like Santa Rosa) instead of concentrating on the city centers (San Francisco, LA, San Diego, etc) themselves.
What happens to people's commutes when the population densities of all these little suburbs and exurbs doubles due to new housing projects? I seriously doubt any of California's politicians have the foresight to ensure new infrastructure keeps up with the new houses. It will only work if California improves public transit within the suburbs and extends light rail much further than it currently goes.
What happens to people's commutes when the population densities of all these little suburbs and exurbs doubles due to new housing projects? I seriously doubt any of California's politicians have the foresight to ensure new infrastructure keeps up with the new houses. It will only work if California improves public transit within the suburbs and extends light rail much further than it currently goes.
438
Totally agree. It's one thing for the state to tell cities, "you have to make it easier to build". It's a totally different matter for the state to do the hard work of upgrading our transportation infrastructure so that millions of people don't spend four or more hours a day in traffic.
Classic California liberal politicians who think the "crisis" is the problem affecting 10% of the populations instead of the one affecting 100% of it. And yet everyone keeps electing them because the other option is worse.
Classic California liberal politicians who think the "crisis" is the problem affecting 10% of the populations instead of the one affecting 100% of it. And yet everyone keeps electing them because the other option is worse.
3
You can't just say that we don't have the infrastructure to support new housing so we shouldn't build it. People have to live SOMEWHERE right now, and forcing them farther and farther out is not going to solve the problem, and in fact will make it worse. Build the density now, figure out the transportation as we go along.
Los Gatos doesn't have quality jobs? Its residents approved a Netflix expansion by a 72% vote while banding together to oppose 320 homes; and it's a short commute to the Apple campus in Cupertino.
1
Where oh where is the mention of high speed rail in this article? Living far from the job isn't the problem, it's no quick, pollution free way to make the trip. I live in LA and even local surface streets are beyond capacity. Just building a high rise isn't the solution if I have a home but can never get anywhere.
306
Agreed, totally, on the high speed rail but NO ONE should have a long commute to work, and the high speed rail will not completely solve the problem.
High-speed rail -- DOA. No money. Never getting built. Never ever.
1
Last year this time, Kate Downing, a member of the Palo Alto planning commision resigned. She, a tech company lawyer, her software engineer husband and their two kids were leaving for Santa Cruz. Her public letter of resignation caused quite a stir.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/10/palo-alto-planning-commissioner-qu...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/10/palo-alto-planning-commissioner-qu...
6
Leaving for Santa Cruz! How awful. Moving from a place where the median home is over $1 million to a place where the median home is almost $800k.
9
I bought a condo in Sonoma through foreclosure at auction five years ago which has tripled in value. A lot of new buyers in Sonoma are very wealthy second home buyers and not permanent residents. That situation is happening in San Francisco also. Lots of empty properties are owned by foreign and out of state buyers for investment. This makes it harder for natives who live and work in California to find affordable housing. There was little construction activity in Sonoma when I bought in 2012. Now there is construction everywhere. Soon the vacant lots in town will all be built on. The new housing includes rentals and owner housing. There is a requirement that some housing be affordable. A least progress is being made but not sure if it will solve the affordability problem.
22
HIgher taxes on second homes is a good idea.
141
Cities and counties have been rubber stamping projects for decades with NO water supplies to support them. Hay NY could you spare a few trillion acre ft of water? Oh that's right to hell with moderation in any thing. Just build and let the next generation figure out how to sensibly plan and organize for the future. This is the age of Trump, we'll just have this huge water project it will be the biggest most beautiful most expensive project and the corporate persons who don't pay taxes can continue to grow and move their tax homes to Ireland ( isn't that ironic).
18
Plow under a few almond trees, and we will have the water for thousands of homes.
This California issue reflects a very existential one- much of California is desert, and there are always water shortages, yet our economic system demands we keep growing and creating more housing and adding population for this growth. More housing means more water demand, more infrastructure, When the water runs out will the rest of the country pay to supply California water? Last years heavy rain in California was an anomaly that can't be depended on. When will we decide we've grown enough? This issue does not just apply to California.
139
Yes, the rest of the US probably will help pay for California water, via higher food prices. Agriculture uses the majority of water in California, 70-80%.
1
Adding immigrants, (legal & illegal), doesn't help this problem at all.
3
Domestic freshwater usage tends to be negligible compared to industrial/agricultural usage, especially if you don't have a lawn (a native garden is a good alternative if you do have a yard).
Most water usage comes from agriculture and certain industrial processes, and the most drastic agricultural loads come from the food needed to raise livestock (since they need several times as much nutrition to grow as we can get by eating them).
The water issue is huge. But it's more of a technological problem and a problem with America's love for meat and lawns. Urban development is fine.
Most water usage comes from agriculture and certain industrial processes, and the most drastic agricultural loads come from the food needed to raise livestock (since they need several times as much nutrition to grow as we can get by eating them).
The water issue is huge. But it's more of a technological problem and a problem with America's love for meat and lawns. Urban development is fine.
3
Prop. 13 creates the dynamic where we homeowners get to have low taxes if we don't move and those of us most established are most likely to have the time/inclination to sway our local politicians to block development. We see growth as bad and lack empathy for people wanting to move here (or out of their childhood homes) but finding it difficult to afford a place to live
I was debating growth with friend who lives in a suburban city. He didn't think affordability was a problem -- people don't *have* to move to California, after all -- and his main objection to developing housing is the effect on local and freeway road congestion. In my more urban city it seems to be parking.
Since local politics are against growth (for housing anyway), I think state policy needs to fix this. Removing the ability of advocacy groups to legally challenge environmental reviews for housing in developed areas is a start but I think it's time to have real teeth in the state's housing mandates. Perhaps it could be that cities that don't meet their production quotas don't get to keep all of their local taxes or lose most of their land-use regulatory authority. But given my friend's objections, there should also be transportation and other beautification grants available to sweeten the effects of growth and offset people's annoyance at having new buildings in their midst.
I was debating growth with friend who lives in a suburban city. He didn't think affordability was a problem -- people don't *have* to move to California, after all -- and his main objection to developing housing is the effect on local and freeway road congestion. In my more urban city it seems to be parking.
Since local politics are against growth (for housing anyway), I think state policy needs to fix this. Removing the ability of advocacy groups to legally challenge environmental reviews for housing in developed areas is a start but I think it's time to have real teeth in the state's housing mandates. Perhaps it could be that cities that don't meet their production quotas don't get to keep all of their local taxes or lose most of their land-use regulatory authority. But given my friend's objections, there should also be transportation and other beautification grants available to sweeten the effects of growth and offset people's annoyance at having new buildings in their midst.
12
Interesting that both the NYT and WSJ published articles today about the high cost of housing in California. And they both correctly identified the cause of the problem; the ability of local interest groups to artificially restrict the supply. Basic economics would predict this, but apparently government officials do not understand economics or they personally benefit from the restricted housing stock.
30
Re: Gov't officials, I'd argue bother are correct. Plenty of examples to back up both scenarios.
"the ability of local interest groups to artificially restrict the supply."
This is universal, Worldwide.
It is how the early "adopters" protect their investment and exploit the newcomers.
Don't look for a change, ever.
This is universal, Worldwide.
It is how the early "adopters" protect their investment and exploit the newcomers.
Don't look for a change, ever.
2
This is why we (had) rent control laws. Trickle-down economics doesn't work for housing, either.
19
The smartest thing they could do in California is ban construction of new single family homes and start building higher-density (mid- and high-rise) developments. And creating mixed use communities. The segregation of land use is a huge problem. When you have to get into your car and spent half an hour in traffic to go buy a carton of milk, something is wrong.
19
You nailed it, which many cities are doing. San Diego is currently building seven high rise apartment buildings. Not everyone needs their own single family home, if someone has a low-paying non-skilled job an apartment may be fine economically for people.
2
Something is wrong with your logic. You want higher-density developments, yet your complaint is about spending too much time in traffic (too many people?).
5
The problem with this and similar suggestions is an infrastructure problem. I live in Los Angeles, and the water system is aging and failing due to years with too little attention. The same for the electric grid (a large area near where I live lost power during a recent heat wave because of the failure of a transformer that should have been replaced). The roads are jam-packed at all hours, and while we are building public transit, it will take years to build a system that truly works for most people. It makes no sense to increase housing density and add people when the infrastructure can't support the population already here. Unless we are willing to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure at the same time we build more housing (and I don't see that happening at the level that we need, a problem that will only grow as public employee pensions eat up ever larger shares of local and state budgets), adding housing and population only reduces the quality of life for everyone else. Not to mention the elephant in the room - water.
8
My niece and her husband just moved from Oakland to Rhode Island because as two teachers they were never going to be able to afford to buy a home in California. They are both very talented at what they do - welcome to the brain drain caused by your housing prices, California.
60
If there was a drain then there would be no crises.
7
You mean reverse brain-drain, low educated or no education people leave, only highly skilled and highly educated people who make 6 figures can live here. I think the ship will right itself, but I also feel that regulation needs to be in play so our cities do not end up looking like Dallas or Houston where there is no regulation and they are a dump.
9
Not all highly skilled and highly educated people make 6 figures. Signed, a journalist
4
No it isn't the Cost of a ''Hot Economy''.
it is mainly the Cost of ''Hot Speculation'' - as you mentioned yourselves that there is a severe lack of AFFORDABLE homes -
There is absolutely NO lack of unnaffordable and luxury homes - as my e-maill account proves - by geting flushed everyday with offers of houses and apartments everywhere in California - for two, three - or more millions - after
I toured a lot of these places a few month ago - from San Diego to SF.
And looking at these outrageous numbers from Europe you could come up with the idea of a conspiracy to turn the whole State of California into a very exclusive State for every 'rich' American -(not unlike 'Manhattan')
And with this conspiracy in mind - it says it all - if journalists blame a lack of building for the high housing prices.
Don't they know -(from the housing bubble of 2008) - that if you turn Real Estate into a main object of specualation - you get the current California housing prices - the ''boom'' and then ''the Bust''?
And the excuse - that this time the 'finacial bubble' -(with suprime loans) isn't as much in housing but more in cars Californians desperately need to 'commute' is no relief for the 'average' families which will (again) suffer the most from the speculative Bust.
it is mainly the Cost of ''Hot Speculation'' - as you mentioned yourselves that there is a severe lack of AFFORDABLE homes -
There is absolutely NO lack of unnaffordable and luxury homes - as my e-maill account proves - by geting flushed everyday with offers of houses and apartments everywhere in California - for two, three - or more millions - after
I toured a lot of these places a few month ago - from San Diego to SF.
And looking at these outrageous numbers from Europe you could come up with the idea of a conspiracy to turn the whole State of California into a very exclusive State for every 'rich' American -(not unlike 'Manhattan')
And with this conspiracy in mind - it says it all - if journalists blame a lack of building for the high housing prices.
Don't they know -(from the housing bubble of 2008) - that if you turn Real Estate into a main object of specualation - you get the current California housing prices - the ''boom'' and then ''the Bust''?
And the excuse - that this time the 'finacial bubble' -(with suprime loans) isn't as much in housing but more in cars Californians desperately need to 'commute' is no relief for the 'average' families which will (again) suffer the most from the speculative Bust.
31
But, looking at existing inventory, I agree with other readers who site that the growing purchase of residences by investors -- including from offshore entities -- further makes housing unaffordable. The increased concentration of wealth has a direct impact on how much money investors have to put into rental properties, driving up home values and pricing middle class and lower income residents out of the market. Forget about purchasing a home, just affording rent is impossible for most.
I also agree with readers that Prop 13 is an albatross around the necks of people who would like to upsize or downsize. Other than those who can get the once in a lifetime exemption for being over 55 years old or disabled when they replace their residence with a less expensive property, potential sellers are stuck living where they are to keep their property taxes affordable.