Live data from Hacker News

97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

thebaycitybeacon.com

121–130 of 187 posts

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

#121

This little bit of political sparring was my favorite part of the article: >SB 827, Wiener’s bill to mandate increased density near public transit, was recently the subject of a spat on Twitter between the Senator and former Beverly Hills mayor John Mirisch. Mirisch began his tirade by calling the bill “a bizarre combination of Soviet-style master planning with raging crony capitalism…the urban planning lovechild of…

> The idea that a place like Beverly Hills is going to have to throw up a bunch of new housing to please CA congress

They don't have to do anything except allow private landowners to build higher if they wish.

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

#122
Aesthetic objections to new construction are 99.9% bullshit. Otherwise things like vomit- and baby-poop-green vinyl siding, uniformly white windows with fake grills and little to no trim, McMansion-style hip-roof horrorshows and gables on top of gables wouldn't exist.

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

#123
post #96
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 not a crisis that you cannot afford to live in Aspen

It is a crisis if you work in Aspen and can not 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 a crisis to work in NYC and are not be able to afford to live in NYC, which is real situation that actually exists for many people today.

I understand there are a tiny few percent of people who's issues are 'badly mischaracterized as crises'. But the vast majority of the crisis is correctly characterized. We have a major urban housing problem. We should not dismiss it with a "let them eat cake" attitude.

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

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple of questions: 1. What do you consider modest prices ? 2. What exactly do you do to check out the local real estate scene ? Because I recently left California to get off the street after moving around California a bit in search of affordable living and doing like 3 years of research, and my point of view and yours are so not on the same page, they aren't even in the same book.

Both fair questions. Modest is $150K to $200K for a home. I get there this way; At a salary of $48,000 / year (take home $38,753) and allocating a bit less than a third of the take home to paying the mortgage that is about $1K/month or, at current interest rates a $150K - $200K house. $48K/year is about 60% of the median salary in California. As far as checking out the scene I look at things like how many days on the…

Thank you.

My experience has been that people who are more comfortably well off than I am are not really looking very closely at the details of homes when they survey the lower end homes. I have had conversations with people who claim there is tons of affordable housing and they pull up some low priced listing in Detroit, a city in such a state of crisis that a woman created a non profit to pay water bills there. I have looked at listings in Detroit. The dirt cheap listings I looked at while homeless were mostly a case of "Oh, god, no! I would rather keep sleeping in a tent!" I am talking about burned out husks or houses that had been flooded and now had horrifying mold problems.

Things I was looking for in a house as someone in genuine need of affordable housing:

In walking distance of basics like a grocery store or, at minimum, able to get to such cheaply and efficiently via public transit.

I want something at $100k or less that can qualify for financing. When you look at a lot of super cheap housing, it is cash only and has defects that disqualify it from any kind of bank financing. I have seen houses listed that explicitly said "No foundation. Will not qualify for financing."

A single family detached house that is not a trailer where the price includes both house and land. When buying a trailer you are frequently buying only the trailer, not the land it sits on, and it is located in a trailer court where you have additional rental fees for being on that land on top of the purchase price of the trailer.

I want a modest home in decent shape. I don't mind a fixer, but a lot of cheap housing in the US has major defects that will cost serious money to remedy. It is a sucker's deal. You should not buy a house like that because budget matters. You buy a house like that because it has amazing views or historic significance or something and you have deep pockets. Poor people buying that kind of house are getting stiffed.

I basically want the kind of house I grew up in, something that affords one a lower middle class life with security and financial stability and a future. And it is extremely challenging to find that anywhere in the US. I concluded it does not exist in California. A lot of lower end housing is trailers and condos and stuff being sold as a tear down because it survived a fire.

So the next time you survey local real estate, maybe consider looking a little more closely at the details. Because your opinion that this is not really a problem in California flies in the face of countless articles about the affordable housing crisis in the state that routinely make the front page of HN. There is lots of homelessness there and people getting roommates to be able to afford a place at all. And I have difficulty fathoming how you can so cavalierly ignore the overwhelming evidence and pronounce this not really a problem.

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

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Not always. Being able to flip a single family to a developer who is going to build multifamily is often the best return on your investment. The more confidence the developer has that their proposed building will be approved, the higher the price you can get for your lot.

In doing this, you are no longer an owner, thus no longer have a vested interest in limiting housing. You profit from this, but at the expense of your neighbors. Imagine the opposite scenario where all over your neighbors do this, but you're the single hold out. Would your home be worth more, less, or the same with twice (or more) the number of people living on the block? Obviously, we don't really know, but the hold…

> Imagine the opposite scenario where all over your neighbors do this, but you're the single hold out. Would your home be worth more, less, or the same with twice (or more) the number of people living on the block?

As a single family house its value would be less. But since all your neighbours already flipped their home for a developer building multifamily buildings, you surely can do the same, and as land to build an apartment building, your property probably is more valuable than it ever could have been as a single family home.

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

#126
post #7
post #5

My experience in driving through California's interior doesn't jibe with that headline. When I stop for lunch or a break I like to check out the local real estate scene and its often the case in these cities that there are many houses and other living accommodations available at modest prices. Hard to imagine a city like Mojave not meeting it "goal". Of course if you limit yourself to cities of 1 millions residents o…

> And being 42nd out of 50 on K-12 education and highest poverty rate, aren't good things to lead with. Lots of opportunities to improve. How much does that have to do with its sanctuary status & high illegal immigration numbers. California is home to 2.3 mil illegal immigrants, and 12.3% of all k-12 students in California are illegal immigrants. Other states with that high of an illegal immigrant student demographic…

Please don't start ideological or political flamewars on HN. They're not what this site is for, and destroy what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#127
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

excessive glazing Wait – neighbors complain about a (potential) new home because it is designed with too many windows?

Yes citing reflection of the sun off the glass, light pollution, privacy and inefficiencies for heating/cooling the home.

Privacy?! How does that affect the neighbors? Or is it related to future "property value" and its influence on the whole neighborhood?

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

#128
post #60
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this sense, GP's references to "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigrants" are also strategic: they betray an obvious bias towards one side of this debate. (This is leaving aside the barely coded racism - and, ironically, questionable grammar - of their other statements, such as "You're only as good as who you surround yourself".) I see no problem in providing a counterbalancing perspective. After all, it can be s…

I agree with you on the term sanctuary city being strategic. I think these phrases get under my skin because we just parrot back what we hear on CNN/NPR/Daily Wire, without adding anything new to the conversation. I'm not sure I could disagree with you more on a lot of what you said, but it doesn't grind any gears to read your opinion because I doubt you copy/pasted that from a VICE article. I really think you've tho…

The common ground used to be the Dreamers. Children that came across the border without documentation, but have proven themselves contributing members of society through objective, conservative metrics and trust in our institutions. These people voluntarily gave their personal information to the government in a hope that has now proven itself false: that they would be granted some semblance of stability.

We have walked backwards as a society, by putting people in power that would consider even that level of humanity to be too great a political burden to bear.

> we just parrot

Not a parrot, by any means. These people are every bit as real as my neighbors and friends. It's far too easy to fall into a silo when you take a narrow view and consider only the past decade of migrant history. Consider that: before 2003, ICE did not exist. That the first of our immigration laws: The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, was rooted in white supremacist ethnocentrism.

Consider: in pursuit of the foreign bogeyman, we have crafted a system of authoritative overreach that extends into a region occupied by 2/3s of our nation's population:

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

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

#129
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple of questions: 1. What do you consider modest prices ? 2. What exactly do you do to check out the local real estate scene ? Because I recently left California to get off the street after moving around California a bit in search of affordable living and doing like 3 years of research, and my point of view and yours are so not on the same page, they aren't even in the same book.

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.

> Most counties not on the coast or bay have very affordable areas

Very affordable by coastal standards, but with very low incomes by coastal standards, too. Which somewhat offsets the affordability, unless you are talking about, e.g., long-distance commuters working in the Bay Area.

Nevertheless, yes, the interior is better at meeting the targets for Low and Very Low income affordable housing as specified in the report finding the 97.6% miss rate; lots of the interior jurisdictions are only missing on the Above Modest income targets. (Though there are exceptions, e.g., Fresno County also misses on the lower income targets.)

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

#130
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... does it say that? 65917.7.b.4.A and B both impose minimums on the maximum height limit that can be imposed. They do not impose a minimum on the height itself. This bill allows for building higher, it does not force it.

I said “minimum height limits” read (minimum)(height limits) i.e. the height limits may not be lower.

That wording is a bit confusing. You might think about changing it to be minimums on height limits for better readability.
Post reply on HN