511–520 of 645 posts
When it was Ms. Trauss’s turn to speak, she argued that the entire notion of public comment on new construction was inherently flawed, because the beneficiaries — the people who would eventually live in the buildings — couldn’t argue their side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of the city/situation discussed in the article -- Lafayette, CA -- would you believe it is unfair to step on the property rights of the landowner who wants to put 300 condos or 44 single family homes on the vacant land? It doesn't matter how the current owner of that land acquired it: for any of us to stop them, would be a gross violation of their property rights. Nobody is saying, just because the land y…
I disagree. There is such a thing as law of the commons and welfare of the commons. Air quality, watershed and conservation of habitat are all part of the commons and its welfare. The erasure is CEQA is a step towards zoning changes and in the destruction of the commons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's absolutely zero evidence of "induced demand" for housing. And all available evidence suggests that 1: SF & CA have huge shortages of homes and 2: Building more is a good solution. Please see this non-exhaustive list of things which all show building more housing leads to housing affordability. * http://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-nei... * https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/201…
While I vigorously support more construction in the SF metro area, I think expectations need to be set correctly as to the amount of construction required to actually bring prices down, instead of just slowing their rate of increase. It's a lot . I don't recall all the numbers, but I believe I saw something suggesting that we need to increase the rate of housing starts by a factor of 4 just to stabilize prices. To ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification" Only if you are leaving the Bay Area. Often, these older houses have a lot of deferred maintenance and the retired seller wants to downsize into something in the Bay Area that is newer build/renovated.
And you can't leave the Bay Area as the transfer has to be in the same county in most cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prop 13 also has the perverse incentive that once you are in you should vote for tax increases and high spend policies - you won't have to pay for them. I'm surprised Republicans have not latch onto this as a reason to repeal it - they already like to point out it is easy to spend other people's money as an argument against socialism.
There are no republicans in california. Like, the CA republican party is completely defunct at this point, and I am a (former) California republican; now a republican in another liberal state.
Getting 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…
Anyone in San Diego looking for a group we actually have YimbySD which supports YIMBY candidates in the primaries https://www.yimbydemssd.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.
If that’s the case - which I don’t doubt - why are we encouraging home ownership at all? One of the key metrics the article presents is the drop in home ownership. Wouldn’t encouraging renters be a potential solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"
I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. There is such a thing as law of the commons and welfare of the commons. Air quality, watershed and conservation of habitat are all part of the commons and its welfare. The erasure is CEQA is a step towards zoning changes and in the destruction of the commons.
So if it's fair for you to say "my neighbor should not develop his land" --by virtue of living near your neighbor-- am I not equally valid in saying "my neighbor should be able to develop his land?"
It doesn’t make sense for non property tax payers to vote on how tax payers and property owners should be taxed. That’s a form of tyranny. Property rights are important to this country and is foundational to why it was formed.
Erasing CEQA and changing zoning without consent is against the rights of property owners.
Vote on it. Majority decision wins. As long as the referendum is open only to vested interests. Anyone else imposing coercive and punitive taxes and zoning changes is dissolution of property rights.
Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real estate is one of the most efficient markets. Landlords all over make approximately the same returns as one another, outside of a handful of places where where people are making (or losing) money from speculation. What happens when you increase property taxes is that property values go down to compensate; it's less valuable to own when you have to pay more to do it. So in the short term the property tax increase…
> Landlords all over make approximately the same returns as one another In California long time landlords get Prop 13 tax cuts. New ones don't. They compete for the same tenants and charge the same rent. Long time landlords have much bigger profit margins because of that law. Other states have property tax restrictions but I don't know as much about them.
"Long time landlords" and "new landlords" are not inherently different people, they're the same people at different points in time. It's like saying a landlord which has paid off the mortgage on their building makes more money because they don't have to make mortgage payments. The value of the future reduction in property taxes gets priced into the purchase -- but then so does the cost of higher property taxes at the beginning, since the government still needs a given amount of revenue.
The thing Prop 13 really does is to discourage long-time landlords from selling the property at all, because the buyer will have to pay higher property tax than the seller which makes the property "worth more" to the seller, even if it's otherwise worth more to the buyer. For example, this can discourage development because the existing owner doesn't have the inclination or the capital for expansion but would demand enough for the property that it would make it unprofitable to a third party who would have to pay higher taxes.