A benevolent dictator could bulldoze easily upwards of 50% of housing in areas like the sunset, entire peninsula, and Oakland, and replace it with high quality, high density condos that would increase quality of living by at least 10x, while reducing costs by 50%. But, alas, we got kleptocrats.
Housing in the Bay Area
181–190 of 407 posts
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#182There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…
Usually you don't have a lot of career opportunity in these kind of places. Opportunities are in the cities.
Yup, thus part of the angst about relocating or not!
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#183Can we scale the schools, transportation, etc. to support this legislature? If so, I'm all for it. But the way things stand currently, it's already pushed to the limits.
turns out its easier/cheaper to do all these things, if people actually live in a dense city rather than spread out suburbs
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Xenophobia is defined (by one source) as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." Maybe comparing this commenter to "a lot of people who don't want brown people" is ham fisted and inaccurate. The commenter seems more interested in the culture, the freakiness or weirdness, of the people who come in, and not so much which country they came from. I do not see where the commenter mentioned…
> The commenter seems more interested in the culture, the freakiness or weirdness, of the people who come in, and not so much which country they came from Go to a Trump rally and ask if they actually hate minorities for the color of the skin. They'll say no. Xenophobes and racists always insist it's about "culture" and an invading army which is somehow destroying that "culture" and ruining their way of life with an o…
There are plenty of xenophobes and racists who actually do insist that they're concerned about race itself.
Anyway, it seems that what you want to establish is not that xenophobes and racists "insist it's about culture", but that anyone who "insists it's about culture" is a xenophobe or racist.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#185Some landlords (such as our firm) are liquidating our rental assets due to the increasing risk of 1979-1995 properties being pulled into rent control regimes. Cities like San Jose, Richmond, San Mateo, just this year either debated increasing or actually increased control over rental properties. The population is rising; the supply of rental units is too low; cities want to stop landlords from raising prices; so they are just this year increasing rent control (San Jose just did this).
Anything built before 1995 (that's a California State statute) can be (will be) rent controlled (unless population drops dramatically in cities near the coast).
The State passed a law (the "Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act") that prevents California cities from pulling in any property built after 1995 into a rent control regime. But Costa-Hawkins does not protect rental properties built between 1979-1995.
Right now, properties built before 1979 are rent-controlled in California cities (San Francisco, San Jose, etc.)
But at the drop of a gavel, a municipality can pull in all properties built between 1979 and 1995 into rent control -- the Costa-Hawkins is the only thing stopping municipalities at the year 1995 (they'd like to be able to rent control every property necessary to accommodate their increasing population over time).
The citizens of a municipality in Southern California -- Santa Monica I believe -- narrowly defeated a rent control change designed to extend rent control to apartments built up to 1995.
That does not help supply. Jerry Brown trying to 'fast track' development does not remove the risk that newer properties will be rent controlled in the future.
A new developer sees partial-confiscation of their asset being a possibility, because the California legislature could modify Costa-Hawkins and remove 1995 as the limit year for rent control.
Once a city/state has demonstrated a commitment to seizure of:
- a restaurant's right to increase prices - a dentist's right to increase prices - a doctor's right to increase prices - a private school's right to increase prices - a rental property's right to increase prices
Those restrictions lead to: - fewer restaurants - fewer dentists - fewer doctors - fewer private schools - fewer apartments
Businesses must have freedom to operate or no one will start businesses (supply of businesses will drop).
Once a city/state has demonstrated a commitment to partial seizure of personal assets (restaurant, dental practice, apartment property, etc.) of a person, or a business, there is a very strong likelihood that 'seizure/state control' tendency will never stop.
So the governor of California can wave his hands all he wants with this kind of "fast track" proposal to building real estate assets in California.
Until the state makes it clear that they will stop the partial or "legislative seizure" of rental properties, very few developers are stupid enough to risk a change/nullification of Costa-Hawkins.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's cool and all, but sort of counter to the point being made. Subsidizing housing for those already on top doesn't really help with wealth inequality.
Couldn't be further from my intent. I'm not looking to give housing to people who are "already on top" - those people would not want to live in an old house in the Sunset ;)
Designers and hackers are pretty much on top, relative to the majority of the bay area inhabitants.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#187A benevolent dictator could bulldoze easily upwards of 50% of housing in areas like the sunset, entire peninsula, and Oakland, and replace it with high quality, high density condos that would increase quality of living by at least 10x, while reducing costs by 50%. But, alas, we got kleptocrats.
Why only 50%? Why not 100%?
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The commenter seems more interested in the culture, the freakiness or weirdness, of the people who come in, and not so much which country they came from Go to a Trump rally and ask if they actually hate minorities for the color of the skin. They'll say no. Xenophobes and racists always insist it's about "culture" and an invading army which is somehow destroying that "culture" and ruining their way of life with an o…
There are plenty of xenophobes and racists who actually do insist that they're concerned about race itself. Anyway, it seems that what you want to establish is not that xenophobes and racists "insist it's about culture", but that anyone who "insists it's about culture" is a xenophobe or racist.
> Anyway, it seems that what you want to establish is not that xenophobes and racists "insist it's about culture", but that anyone who "insists it's about culture" is a xenophobe or racist.
Yes, I do think that everyone who insists that culture is a valid reason for opposing the ability of people to migrate into their area is an xenophobe.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#189Companies that extract advertising and other revenue from around the world, like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc, should create job centers outside of the Bay Area. This is the only way that house prices will moderate, is if these globally significant companies spread their distribution of money around the country/world. There's too much concentration of money flowing into the Bay Area in terms of revenues, and that…
If it made economic sense for them to create job centers outside of the Bay Area, they would. This gives one an idea of just how great the economic advantage of locating in the Bay Area is.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. This is such a bizarre idea. How exactly do renters get displaced by adding more housing?
Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building. Or because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building.
If someone is living in the mission there are only 3 options;
1) They own their house
2) They are renting but their unit is rent controlled
3) They are rich or have high paying jobs (and building more actually helps them)
"Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building"
This happens very rarely, people will literally revolt before a rent controlled unit gets demolished in the mission
So someone opposing more building in the mission falls into the first two categories and they are extremely selfish