Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

thebaycitybeacon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#91

Post by ChuckMcM »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67
ghaff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You look at, say, Fresno and there are properties for sale under $200K (although that's below the median of $300K+). I assume those are not the most attractive places but they certainly exist. That's the 5th most populous city in California so it's not exactly the middle of nowhere.

I lived in Fresno. A lot of the stuff under $200k is a trailer, possibly a trailer in a seniors only retirement community. I don't consider trailers fit for habitation and my two adult sons still live with me. This is part of why I want details. I need a house under $100k. After looking at what that kind of money buys in Cali -- anywhere in Cali -- and looking at what it buys outside of Cali, I eventually concluded i…

I can see that you're facing challenges that put you in an untenable situation. And no, I haven't seen any place in California that has any sort of public services and employment prospects and housing where you own the house and land for under $100K.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#92

Post by Joe-Z »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #66
masonic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He referred specifically to the California interior . Most counties not on the coast or bay have very affordable areas; I've driven the northern 2/3rds of I-5, most of US50, and all of I-80 in CA and seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Things look different once outside of a Bay Area (or San Diego) bubble.

I was in Fresno for more than 2 years. I spent a lot of time doing research on the internet. I was willing to move anywhere within California where I could afford to buy a house and where I could make my life work without a car. This means, no, it can't be some cabin in the middle of nowhere where you have to drive for an hour to get to a grocery store. I would still be interested in the OPs answer. I wasn't just liv…

May I ask where you ended up? If you're uncomfortable sharing the city, state would be fine. But: Where are the walkable cities in the US?

I (coming from Europe) travelled on the East and West coast and both times was astounded by how much US living relies on having a car. I'm myself pretty anti-car-ownership by now, but I think this is much easier to do in European cities.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#93

Post by 0xB31B1B »

ISL wrote: post #70
ebikelaw wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered ineffective.

Wow -- from afar, that's a great way to inspire local residents in bedroom communities to fight public transit.

I volunteer in the SFBA for housing and transit advocacy.

A loud minority of people already fight transit and successfully prevent it or water it down. The type of people who fight transit also fight housing. There isn’t really much headway for their coalitions to grow because they’re selfish old boomers who want to pull up the ladder, it’s not an message that inspires solidarity.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#94

Post by CodeWriter23 »

api wrote: post #78
wickawic wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be a homeowner and also not be a misanthrope at the same time. The min/max attitude of tech workers has always disgusted me in his regard. Edit: I don’t retract my statement, but at the time of posting this my parent comment only contained the first paragraph. I agree with most points brought up

Averages matter a lot. You can be magnanimous but it doesn't take that many greedy bastards to have an effect. I also think closet classism/racism plays into it. California has a liberal facade but there's a lot of "we don't want those kinds of people" in our neighborhood sentiment below the surface. Making sure housing is unaffordable for minorities and the poor is a great passive-aggressive way to implement segrega…

The poor would never be able to afford food at the Gelson’s in those areas.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#95

Post by eweise »

briffle wrote: post #80
api wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

I don't really get this mentality. Yes, its good to have your home go up in value, but when you sell, are you moving to South Dakota? If not, then the houses your hoping to move into have ALSO gone up in value. The difference being that nobody can afford 'starter homes' at the low end, so people have a harder time selling them, and moving up to a nicer house.

A lot of people view their home as part of their retirement plan. Buy house, raise kids, retire and sell house. Buy new house outside of work center. House prices in places like Redding CA are in the 200K range. Same house in the bay area is around 1million.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#96

Post by rsync »

gwbas1c wrote: post #43

I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels. Artificially manipulating prices via rent control mechanisms; or only building homes for a specific income level doesn't work.

"I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels."

Of course this is correct. However, it is also correct that many, many of these are badly mischaracterized as "crises".

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford to live in Aspen.

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford an apartment in the very specific neighborhood in the very specific borough of New York City that you prefer.

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford to buy a house, with a yard, in Marin County.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#97

Post by gyrgtyn »

amyjess wrote: post #58
phkahler wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ...seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Anything under 300K? How about 200K? A fraction of the Bay area doesn't necessarily mean affordable.

Houses under $200K in Bakersfield, CA: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Bakersfield-CA/3506_ri...

The two best suggestions are Bakersfield and Fresno (edit: or the middle of unincorporated desert LOL)

You're telling OP to live in hell and it still costs more than they can afford.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#98

Post by tmh79 »

jread wrote: post #88

I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many cases stop you through attrition. I've se…

have you heard of the housing accountability act? The law was strengthened last year to protect you from having your project denied for arbitrary reasons. I'd reach out to CaRLA (california renters legal advocacy fund, http://www.carlaef.org/), and/or victoria fierce on twitter

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#99

Post by CodeWriter23 »

California doesn’t have a housing problem. It has “companies insist on paying higher taxes and refusing to deploy in the wide open spaces between the coasts” problem. Deploying between the coasts helped Amazon greatly leverage its early entry position.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#100

Post by tmh79 »

rsync wrote: post #96
gwbas1c wrote: post #43

I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels. Artificially manipulating prices via rent control mechanisms; or only building homes for a specific income level doesn't work.

"I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels." Of course this is correct. However, it is also correct that many, many of these are badly mischaracterized as "crises". It is not a crisis that you cannot afford to live in Aspen. It is not a crisis that you cannot afford an apartment in the very specific neighborhood in the very specific borough o…

it is a crisis that cities like Cupertino are building office space for 12k workers, but not building housing for them.

It is a crisis that the bay area has created office space for 8 new jobs for every 1 new unit of housing built.

Post reply on HN