71–80 of 105 posts
I have to wonder if some of the more affluent neighborhoods/cities won't just find a way to stop this in their area. Does anyone have a sense of how effective this law will really be, particularly in cities with NIMBY attitudes?
Lots of older neighborhoods in cities, however, don't have any such covenants.
I have to wonder if some of the more affluent neighborhoods/cities won't just find a way to stop this in their area. Does anyone have a sense of how effective this law will really be, particularly in cities with NIMBY attitudes?
I don't really see it affecting say Atherton or Los Altos Hills much - the people who live there are rich enough that splitting a lot and putting up duplexes isn't going to make a measurable economic difference to them, at least not one worth giving up their prime estate. The hillside communities (mid-peninsula, Oakland/Berkeley hills, Saratoga/Portola/Woodside) likely also won't see much adoption, just because the g…
That might happen in the really rich neighborhoods too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This confuses correlation and causation. Increased demand causes new units with a price premium to be built and causes older units to rise in price. You see them concurrently because of the lease cycle, and sometimes secondarily because of weird municipal rent laws.
When you have a conversation with a landlord about why they raised rent, it’s not confusing corrolation for causation.
I remember reading article about San Francisco being the "mercenary city": Young professionals come here, live in tiny apartments, get big tech wages for a couple of years, then move somewhere more affordable. With the remote situation, people are getting out of SF faster than ever. Won't this bill drive up the price of a single family home while driving down the price of multifamily homes? But the dream for most Ame…
I wonder how many people will go from "I can afford a single family house in SF" to "I cannot afford a single family house in SF" as a result of this bill.
SFHs in Manhattan easily go for over $2k per square foot, or even a lot more (just found one listed on Zillow for $5k/sqft). No one seriously complains about that, because "wasting" space in an urban area should cost you.
Sure, most of Manhattan is a lot more dense than most of SF, but given demand here, expecting affordable SFHs is unrealistic already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rush to comment while relevant is getting out of hand frankly. Some things require actual research. EDIT: However, I have some personal experience in single family zoned housing in the Bay Area, but I would really need to read up on the proposed changes first... That said, I can say I felt very out of place and wish I had found a better, smaller place to live, for less. Meanwhile, my first apt in SF was clearly b…
I'm just assuming you meant $3k/month
I have to wonder if some of the more affluent neighborhoods/cities won't just find a way to stop this in their area. Does anyone have a sense of how effective this law will really be, particularly in cities with NIMBY attitudes?
I don't really see it affecting say Atherton or Los Altos Hills much - the people who live there are rich enough that splitting a lot and putting up duplexes isn't going to make a measurable economic difference to them, at least not one worth giving up their prime estate. The hillside communities (mid-peninsula, Oakland/Berkeley hills, Saratoga/Portola/Woodside) likely also won't see much adoption, just because the g…
Sounds like a good reason to WFH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it also allow developers to build apartments in places that previously they couldn't have because the ritzy neighborhood down the street can't bear the site of 'em?
There are still lot-size restrictions as to how many units you can build. But if a lot is large enough, and the owner of a SFH wants to sell to a developer that wants to build a 4- or 8- or whatever-is-allowed-unit building, IMO they should be allowed to do so. And maybe that will reduce property values in some places like that ritzy neighborhood down the street. It may also increase property values in others. That's…
It can also be a very costly venture to re-zone properties. Even though in a lot of cases, the barrier to re-zone does not make much sense. SFH and MFH, it is not like these are based on some premise of the land has to be a certain quality. The same applies to business zoning. Why does it even make sense to say, you can build a restaurant here, but not a house?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seem to be 2 provisions. If one's lot is smaller, one can have a duplex on it. If one's lot is larger, one can split the lot and have a duplex on each sub-lot (i.e. 2 duplexes total). However, I can't find the guidelines for when one is allowed to split the lot into 2 sub-lots. I'm curious because I have a large-ish empty lot (8,000 sqft in a coastal town) and yes, would make out like a bandit if I'm allowed to…
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... Many, many rules. That ones that stood out to me are: * Do not demolish more than 25% of existing house's exterior walls. * Each sub-lot must be at least 2,400 square feet. * Each sub-lot must be at least 40% of the original lot. * Each housing unit must be at least 800 square feet. I didn't read it closely enough to see how you can turn an existing sing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're part of the problem. They're not banning single family homes. Just zoning for them. THere's a housing shortage, especially in urban areas right around what little public transit there is. Insisting that only a few people live on lots in this area is insane.
Respectfully, I think you are. I asked a question about the potential impact of this change on prices, and speculated about what might happen if single family homes become a rare (or rarer) commodity. I’m sorry that places like SF are managed so terribly, but it might have something to do with how hostile people there get when this issue comes up.