Live data from Hacker News

How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

builderonline.com

41–50 of 172 posts

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#41
How did the article turn $47,000 (average for CA) and $72,600 (SF) and $62,000 (Sacramento) or $51,650 (six California cities highlighted in the report) into "$75,000 in added costs from fees and building code requirements"? They say the average fees nationwide are $21,000.

If the average new home price in CA is $621,135, 73% higher than the national average of $358,200, then it seems like the $26,000 difference in average fees represents only ~10% of the $262,935 difference.

It's not insignificant, and it makes a difference at the margin, but it feels like numbers are being thrown around a bit dishonestly.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#42
post #5

The problem is when Californians start to move elsewhere, they raise prices in those cities too. e.g. Portland, Bend, Seattle.

They also tend to keep trying to push for the exact same policies that created the mess to begin with. That's what I dislike the most.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 creates an incentive for homeowners to oppose development, since their housing values will rise with no drawback on property taxes. It also means that the government is forced to raise sales and income taxes in order to raise revenue. It is harmful for society to have high housing prices which falls especially on younger workers and workers moving into an area, in order to benefit a small number of incumbents…

The bigger issue, IMO, is the mis-allocation of resources that happens when people aren't able to transmit information through prices and market mechanisms. Like, the empty-nester who works in downtown SF and happens to own a 4BR townhouse in Mountain View should really trade places with the family of four commuting from a 1BR condo in SF and commuting down to Mountain View. If they both bought their place at a tenth…

IIRC most counties let you transfer your prop 13 status to a smaller dwelling. But I think it has to be within the same county.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, it was just something my mom mentioned in passing a while back. She lives in a 4 bedroom in San Jose she bought in the early 70's and has been considering downsizing. However, her property taxes are so low it wouldn't make sense to make the switch to a condo or apartment, as she pays so little in property taxes.

HN likes to blame prop 13 for California's housing problem. But keep in mind that prop 13 was passed because of rapidly increasing property values. Given that, it seems likely that a large portion of California's housing prices have no relation to prop 13.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#44
post #32
post #5

The problem is when Californians start to move elsewhere, they raise prices in those cities too. e.g. Portland, Bend, Seattle.

Yup, and they tend to have the politics whose practical effects ended up driving them from California in the first place. I'd like to see an amendment to the Constitution which provided for internal immigration, such that there's a multi-year waiting period to become a state citizen after moving to a new state. The idea would be to give folks a period of time to acclimate & acculturate to their new state's politics.…

[citation needed]

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#45

On the flip side, does this state have enough water for the other 10-odd million people who'd be living in those 3.6 million homes?

I keep waiting for California to go the way of Israel and have more fresh water than they need. It would really help out the West if the coast could make use of the water that is right next to them. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...

Right, you just have to import more fossil fuel. Problem solved.

A desalination plant is a direct trade of energy for fresh water, and isn't our bottomless appetite for energy already making a mess of things?

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#46
A recent conversation with a co-worker really drove this home: what's crazy to me is how comically short-sighted folks are. We've priced our children out of the towns we raised them in but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

And we've slapped a huge amount of college debt on their backs, just to be sure.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> but the quote about Chico did not say "per home." And yet the next sentences are: "Typical fees in San Francisco are $72,600 per home; in Sacramento, they’re $62,000. And for the six California markets highlighted in the Zelman & Associates report, the average is $51,650."

But then it takes them a few more paragraphs to point out that is for a $600k+ house. Which doesn't make it sound all that bad after all. Particularly when they point out the land itself is about 1/2 the cost. Not that any of it is good for anyone under 40...

The sale price of the house doesn't matter; it could sell for $100k or $900k, the builder is still out the $50k or more they paid out in fees. Which was most likely passed on to the buyer and I bet the mortgage companies have no complaint.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, is it possible for a local government to ever reach a limit on fees necessary for building in their area before it creates a problem? >> "our profits are lower, can government do something about it?" Seems the complaint is that government is directly responsible for the problem as they see it. Isn't it reasonable for the companies to complain to the government concerning that topic? What if the local government s…

I'm addressing performance standards specifically so I can't speak for other fees. But regards performance targets these exist such that suitable quality housing is built - there are numerous market problems here, so leaving it to the market will not end with a high quality building stock. Performance regulations are too lax by a long way, not too strict.

>> Environmental Impact Review

Does that fit under performance standards of the quality of the build?

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#49
post #10

Central Valley was sort of ground zero for housing meltdown, since we are talking here about the entire state, places like Modesto which are about 2-3 hours from SFO are also out of reach for population? That is surprising, Central Valley is predominantly Agri, but when people of thinking of flying all the way to Colorado, why not move 3 hours East or South ?

Jobs/quality of life/commute. E.g. Denver is better at all of these than Modesto or Stockton.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#50
post #9

Started out with an every-man appealing headline and quickly showed its stripes of being a developer funded prop 13 hit article - totally separate from the horror show environmental impact has turned into. The examples given are completely out of whack and strawmen. prop 13 allows for effective tax increase through reassessment of value, but that reassessment is capped so when the market goes crazy people aren't driv…

Yeah. I'd bet developers would happily pay 2-3x in fees if they didn't have to do environmental impact reviews (EIRs).

It's not that EIRs themselves are especially troublesome. But the reviews are the hook for litigation by NIMBYs, especially in California where the state-based environmental review law makes it incredibly easy for challengers to tie up a project in court for an eternity; even tiny developments. Exceedingly rare is the case where a legitimate environmental issue is at stake; and on the whole EIRs have had the effect of encouraging urban sprawl--there are fewer challenges to EIRs in less populated areas.

It's really difficult to keep investments lined-up for an indeterminate amount of time. Time and indeterminism is perhaps the most costly aspect.

And it's compounded by the fact that California doesn't provide development-as-of-right, which means zoning reviews and permitting can drag out for years as committees hem and haw, or allow NIMBYs to control the process. Many if not most cases in the state are likely unconstitutional as a violation of Due Process. But the Supreme Court hates taking those cases because it's a tricky area of the law. Part of the problem is that developers are repeat players in the game, which means they tend to not want to, literally, make a federal case out of any particular project because they know they'll be black-balled on their next project. So the really good cases that would make for good law never materialize.

It was maddening--nay, sickening--to see Governor Jerry Brown's development-as-of-right legislation fail in the legislature. Localities could still have had all the ridiculous zoning restrictions they wanted; it just would have required them to strictly apply their own rules, rather than making them up on-the-fly according to their and challengers' whims. Which is what Due Process technically requires, anyhow! And that legislation would have required 25% affordable units in a project, which means it wouldn't have applied to single-family units, nor effectively to most other projects except large inner city residential projects. Basically it would have had very limited effect. But localities across the state--rural and urban--went apoplectic at the mere hint of being subject to their very own rules.

Post reply on HN