California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

Post by xixixao » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 4:46 AM UTC

buss wrote: post #546

ScottBurson wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, I unironically want 4 million new homes in San Francisco. The housing shortage in the Bay Area might be the single largest drag on American prosperity.

Post by rcpt » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 4:53 AM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #193

Fun Fact: if three cities(San Jose, San Francisco, NYC) in America were to loosen up housing planning rules, America's GDP would be 4% higher, that is incredible in of itself, source: (paywall - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/16/the-wests-bigge... ) Although I think California especially needs new housing, the bay area in particular has a housing issue which is somewhat artificially created due to a number…

Post by refurb » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

deepakhj wrote: post #365

bcrosby95 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know a single long time home owner that is NIMBY because they want their house's value to rise. They're NIMBY because they want their neighborhood to stay the same. > For example, I've talked to retired folks that have considered leaving the bay due to the increased cost of living. But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd b…

Prop 13 would be easy to fix: 1) Limit to primary residence. 2) Charge market rate tax for everyone but for homeowners that want to defer assess it as a lien on the house that is collected once sold. New homeowner tax will drop once tax revenue is more equitable. Make this deferment income based. 3) Remove from commercial property.

Post by tmh79 » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:33 AM UTC

xixixao wrote: post #551

buss wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I unironically want 4 million new homes in San Francisco. The housing shortage in the Bay Area might be the single largest drag on American prosperity.

I think it makes sense. There is absolutely space. BUT you couldn’t move the people through the city and bay area with current infrastructure. Money (in big amounts) needs to be taken away from roadwork and poured into public transport.

Post by mlyle » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #506

mlyle wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of states have regimes where you can defer (often interest-free) the amount of property tax increase above a certain limit to time of sale. This may be a better way to handle it than what California does. That is, if your property tax was $10,000 last year when you bought, and would increase to $12,000 this year, the state would give you an indefinite, interest free loan for $1500 or whatever secured by the prop…

Hmm. I like the sentiment, but I'd be worried about the implementation (sounds like complex tax math) and with potential downsides (make less money when selling could lead to selling less; I can imagine a housing bubble popping and you end up under water due to owed taxes when the property was worth more). Although, if other states do it, should be data to talk to those predictions...