Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

Post by compiler-guy » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #287

jlmorton wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just ran a massive experiment, called Covid-19, which caused about 10% of San Francisco residents to leave the city. This is not quite the same thing as an immediate increase in supply, but instead a large drop in demand. The net result is the exact same thing: a large increase in the vacancy rate, which resulted in a rapid and dramatic decrease in median rents.

It’s a terrible example though as the people with the most liquid financial situation are the ones that left. The ones that remained can’t even afford to rent they U-Haul to get out of Dodge. They’re stuck treading water and at best will get Newsom to buy their vote^W^W^Wpay their back rent.

Post by compiler-guy » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #281

jlmorton wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just ran a massive experiment, called Covid-19, which caused about 10% of San Francisco residents to leave the city. This is not quite the same thing as an immediate increase in supply, but instead a large drop in demand. The net result is the exact same thing: a large increase in the vacancy rate, which resulted in a rapid and dramatic decrease in median rents.

How much of a decrease on average?

Post by parineum » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #75

Most of the land in my (Massachusetts) town is zoned for single-family homes. There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. That's no way to live. I'd love to change it, with greater zoning diversity and particularly that which allows higher density, but there valid obj…

Post by cheriot » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

> Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects. Strong disagreement. The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style. As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.

Post by ericmay » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

DevKoala wrote: post #292

ericmay wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s both. There’s a lot of “we’ve always done it this way” and “what would I ever do without taking my car everywhere???” And then there are construction companies, automobile companies, and oil and gas companies that employ a lot of people. Kind of hard to employ those people if we built more sidewalks and bike lanes, and built medium-density mixed use neighborhoods. Where’s the lobby against the automobile industr…

I do not find myself disagreeing or agreeing. I understand I am not knowledgeable in this space and I am just trying to find answers to my questions. I will definitely look into what you mentioned.