The fact is that American laws and policies are being set-up to serve only constituent - older baby boomers. This is especially true at the local level. I went to a city council meeting for my city, and it was 90% older white folks. Although the city is young and 60% Asian. There was constant stream of anti-development voices, with hardly anyone to counter them. This is almost non representative of the majority view, but younger people with work, commutes, and kids simply cannot attend these meetings. I have heard recently that SF is moving towards a representative focus group model to get community input instead of this random council meetings. That is the path forward. Abandon these open forums that only serves retirees. Increase outreach, create focus groups, and be more representative of the city's makeup
California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
331–340 of 645 posts
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.
Since when is homeownership a requirement for retirement savings? What about IRA's, 401ks? That they chose to stake so much on a more volatile asset is not the fault of the people around them. Should cities sacrifice their urban well-being, pushing people out on the streets and guaranteeing lower-income people can never live there, for the sake of some elderly residents who put their eggs in one basket?
Investment in the market is incredibly volatile compared to real estate. That's why it's called "real" estate.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put. Not that I have anything against them, but I'd love to have a more diverse, younger neighborhood. More neighbors also means more customers for local businesses, which means more shops and restaurants in walking distance. More neighbors would…
You want to displace retired people on fixed income because you like to have young and diverse neighbours? It is more than selfish. This is bigotry against the elderly.
If this is a good-faith reply I suggest you reread the parent.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#334The fact is that American laws and policies are being set-up to serve only constituent - older baby boomers. This is especially true at the local level. I went to a city council meeting for my city, and it was 90% older white folks. Although the city is young and 60% Asian. There was constant stream of anti-development voices, with hardly anyone to counter them. This is almost non representative of the majority view,…
depends on who owns the houses. I live in a suburb in bay area where population is almost all house owners are indian and chinese. They have the same preferences as "older baby boomers".
Are you implying that if in your case if they were reversed we would see some sort of different outcomes? Asians are more open to getting their house values going down by new development?
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty simple. If I own property, I should be allowed to build a home for myself on it, subject to relevant zoning. You, and adjacent property owner, should not be able to deny my private property use. Yet this is not the case in California.
That is the case in California. If you own property zoned residential and apply for a fully compliant building permit then it will almost always be approved (although fees may be high). Developers and property owners generally only run into long delays and battles with neighbors when they request variances or zoning changes.
This particular story is about a development which did comply with existing zoning but the neighbors try to stop it anyway, forcing local govt into a negotiation.
If you look at the photo of the lot you can see why: Beautiful rolling green hills. They didn't own the lot so they didn't have any right to stop the development. Nevertheless that's human nature.
That's why I chose the school bus example. You're supposed to get the part of the seat that your butt sits on, not the whole seat. But from childhood to adulthood, people just never change.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#336Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…
Any tips on how to find such a group? Google is turning up nothing for my city.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to assume this. Even if you treat land & housing as a private good, you're entitled to decide what you do with your own land . You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. This makes housing…
You are oversimplifying. Are you OK with someone opening hog farms all around your house? Setting up fracking rigs? Building a factory and running heavy industry?
And you're misrepresenting what the OP is saying. Someone opposed to HOA and zoning isn't saying that it should be okay to locate a chemical plant next door to a preschool. It's more that we as a society shouldn't let people with entrenched interests in the status quo dictate that we stay with the status quo even when it's clear how awful the status quo is.
To wit if I want to raise chickens or garden in my suburban backyard that should be my right as long as the chickens don't get out or cause a ruckus. And if the chickens do cause a problem my neighbors' should be limited to seeking legal remedies and not preventing everyone from raising chickens in the future, as most chicken owners are generally responsible. That's very different from running a fracking rig and is much more like the things an HOA prevents you from doing.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#338Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…
Agreed 100% I'm very involved with YIMBY Action here in SF: I'm on the board of both YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, and I'm also running for local office in the current election: https://buss2020.org If you have any questions about YIMBY, send them my way!
Are there any unfair obstacles you face as a newcomer trying to unseat an incumbent?
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#339I have been asking someone..anyone..to give me an example of how building more housing leads to affordable housing. Like in real life..
Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining infrastructure that the government can’t seem to replace or upgrade.
We have pestilence, rodent infestations, higher crime, big government and more taxes.
I also don’t understand the fairness of a non house owning young majority with little or no financial intelligence or experience due to being educated by free public education and state nannyship getting to vote on imposing punitive high taxes aimed to displace the very people whose taxes and employment history and financial savvy that actually funded said free public education.
Clearly this means that we have done a bad job of public education using property taxes. In fact, most of the wealth is accrued due to immigrant net worth and who didn’t even avail the free public school education.
Wasting more public money on public education and using property taxes to fund said education is the real problem that needs fixing. There is no end to taxation. Especially because those who are not home owners can force more property taxes on the minority who own it.
Put another way..why should someone who can’t handle their personal finances be allowed to make decisions at govt level. This would never happen with employment. How can the unsavvy have-nots have a say about punitive taxation upon the haves who get to gain nothing from the punitive taxes. This is especially crucial to ask considering that the government in Sacramento has a piss poor track record on managing money and shown a lack of transparency.
Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build
#340What happens when more people move into the area from the rest of the country and start driving to work from their newly built housing units? Silicon Valley has, at best, poor coverage of Caltrain and no coverage for BART in South Bay. If let’s say 10,000 more families move to San Jose into new housing units and they all need to commute to Palo Alto for work, how exactly would they do that without choking up the alre…
You might have it backwards. Traffic is increasing because we're adding offices but no housing nearby. Therefore people need to pour in from further out. With higher density, alternate transportation options become viable and attractive.
Your argument does not account for people currently outside the Bay Area moving into the Bay Area because of cheaper housing. While people currently residing in far flung places would move closer to their work, the people living in other parts of the country aspiring to live in Silicon Valley would now move to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Eventually, we will end up with the same housing crunch, except with twice the number of cars on the road.