|
Important to note that unlike most YIMBY stuff, it is densification without displacement.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Expanding the renter-landlord dynamic and integrating it part and parcel into being a homeowner/american dream person is certainly an option that we're apparently pursuing and hailing as a step forward for urban living. We're definitely short on our landlord supplies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Important to note that unlike most YIMBY stuff, it is densification without displacement. yeah, it's not fantastic but it's also not SB50, so sure, bring back servants' quarters
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Or alternatively, with the student loan crisis and a new generation of elderly with no retirement savings, we're reducing the costs involved with a new cultural phenomenon of extended-family housing more like what a ton of other countries do as a matter of course. We've contemplated building something in our backyard for my wife's single mother to live in, and were kinda serious about it until we and she discovered that she actually has plenty of money that she didn't know about because she was so afraid to look into her meager retirement savings that she literally had no idea how much money she had. Like, I'm sure building a rental unit in your back yard is also a big motivator for some folks, but it's silly to look at that as being some kind of big win for the landlord class. Until/unless we effectively ban private ownership and rental of property, there is going to be a large and significant landlord class, period. This is an opportunity to add desperately-needed units, expand the ability of families to house their underemployed adult children and impoverished elderly, and do so without huge giveaways to developers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
There are too many landlords, which is a system inefficiency. We need to consolidate into just a handful of mega landlords. Maybe give them a title or something. Baron maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:There are too many landlords, which is a system inefficiency. We need to consolidate into just a handful of mega landlords. Maybe give them a title or something. Baron maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Or alternatively, with the student loan crisis and a new generation of elderly with no retirement savings, we're reducing the costs involved with a new cultural phenomenon of extended-family housing more like what a ton of other countries do as a matter of course. You're extrapolating your goodwill to a world where the tiny house industry isn't salivating at growth curves, where AirBnb hasn't turned a generation of property owners into shitheads, and where politicians aren't actively discussing sending the homeless to concentration camps. Without serious systemic change, your idealistic vision of the future is going to turn dark in a hurry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Telling people they can live in a glorified shed in someone's back yard for greater rent than what like 90% of the entire goddamned country pays for a real apartment is absolutely not a substitute for reasonable housing policy whatsoever. What the hell are you people smoking? Not sure if you have enough knowledge about habitability and the plan approval process. but these arent sheds. This is california, we have rigerous building standards statewide. A majority of the adus I have seen being constructed are reasonably built mini homes with kitchens bathrooms and insulation,heating etc. An ADU gives a closer relationship from tenant to owner than an apartment megacorp would. Im not going to xompare the rest of the country with you because it doesnt matter,ca rent is high, more housing will lower that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:more housing will lower that Nah, that's a myth. Landlords and developers are happy to let poo poo sit empty for years, because they are already loving rich and it doesn't matter to them. Source: Any large city in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
It's certainly a take that the very wealthiest (who can afford a house on a big enough lot to build a second house in the first place, and can afford to build that second house) are the ones who need more housing resources in California. I guess trickle-down economics might get a second life after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Jesus christ people, ADUs are good. Anything that increases the supply of housing and decreases the ability of lovely NIMBYs to constrain it is good. Like was mentioned upthread, these aren't shacks, they're basically apartments, just in someone's backyard rather than a high/midrise building. I mean if I had my loving druthers, we'd all live in judge dredd megablocks with ample public transit. But we aren't there yet and won't be for a while. Intermediate steps are good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Okay, lets get a strong vacancy tax to go with it. Plenty of property owners are happy to sit on vacant commercial and residential property while the speculative value climbs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:You're extrapolating your goodwill to a world where the tiny house industry isn't salivating at growth curves, where AirBnb hasn't turned a generation of property owners into shitheads, and where politicians aren't actively discussing sending the homeless to concentration camps. Without serious systemic change, your idealistic vision of the future is going to turn dark in a hurry. I'm not extrapolating anything or describing any kind of future, I'm commenting on a new law that, today, makes a direct and impactful change in the housing situation by stopping the stonewalling cities from using regulations to prevent adding grandma units to single-home lots. "This is good for landlords and is therefore terrible" is a really reductive and narrow view. We are going to have to deal with the housing crisis that we have today, using the tools that are politically conceivable today, and banning all private ownership/renting is not that. Even better, this option doesn't involve bulldozing property inhabited by poor people in order to build market-value condos for rich people. It's habitual and self-defeating to reject victories on the grounds that they're imperfect, especially in a climate where perfect victories are unavailable. Infinite Karma posted:It's certainly a take that the very wealthiest (who can afford a house on a big enough lot to build a second house in the first place, and can afford to build that second house) are the ones who need more housing resources in California. I guess trickle-down economics might get a second life after all. Basically every single-family detached house with a back yard has room for a separate structure of the type we're talking about; and, as detailed in the linked article, this also covers attached conversions such as garages. You're trying to reposition this as "a second house" but we're talking about like 350 square foot cottages and converted garages with mini-kitchens and stuff. And "the very wealthiest" in this case I guess is 55% of California households.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:Intermediate steps are good. This isn't necessarily always true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Not sure if you have enough knowledge about habitability and the plan approval process. but these arent sheds. This is california, we have rigerous building standards statewide. A majority of the adus I have seen being constructed are reasonably built mini homes with kitchens bathrooms and insulation,heating etc. An ADU gives a closer relationship from tenant to owner than an apartment megacorp would. I'm looking at the ones for rent in my county on apartment sites right now. They're literal Lowes-style garden sheds and, in one case, literally has a disclaimer that it's not up to code and it's the renter's responsibility. A single-burner hot plate is not a kitchen. There is no bathroom in one, but the landlord lets the tenant use the back door to get to their spare bathroom if they want. If the ones wherever you live in CA are better, lovely. I'm glad. The ones here in San Mateo county are not livable. Also, that last line is not only horseshit but not desirable. gently caress giving a closer relationship to the owner. That's not the tenant's job and it's absolutely not something we should be calling a positive. The landlord should have as little involvement in the renter's day to day life as is feasibly possible, and baby steps like letting people abuse backyard housing to create their own little rental fiefdoms is not going to even make a dent in your housing problem. quote:Intermediate steps are good. Hard disagree when it comes to this, because it lets people delay solving the actual problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
unpermitted sheds should become less common when cities are forced to open a permitting process for actual to-code structures, and absent that law, unpermitted bullshit not to code sheds are what we're getting instead as an aside, renters cannot just "waive" the requirement that rental units be up to code, lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Not sure if you have enough knowledge about habitability and the plan approval process. but these arent sheds. This is california, we have rigerous building standards statewide. A majority of the adus I have seen being constructed are reasonably built mini homes with kitchens bathrooms and insulation,heating etc. An ADU gives a closer relationship from tenant to owner than an apartment megacorp would. My "shed" was absolutely the nicest place I've lived until 10 years later. Sit down shower and probably 700 sq ft. Definitely the best deal in town.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:Nah, that's a myth. Landlords and developers are happy to let poo poo sit empty for years, because they are already loving rich and it doesn't matter to them. Source: Any large city in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
quote:as an aside, renters cannot just "waive" the requirement that rental units be up to code, lol Yep, CA doesn't allow that. I pointed that one out specifically because it's sitting there right in the middle of the listing in broad daylight, like it's the most normal thing on earth instead of something that should get the landlord drawn and quartered for even suggesting it. That's the perspective I'm taking with ADUs based on their current implementation around me. If someone legit wants to build a nice guest apartment in their back yard, great. Go hog wild. The ones around here are not even close to habitable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Lol, people have been living in slumshacks located in converted garages since time immemorial, but that's not what was being communicated upthread jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
You’re right, we should never improve anything in any way that doesn’t solve all problems immediately because that would be petty incrementalism. This produces more housing and makes it harder for landowners to block the construction of new rental housing. It will allow more people to live closer to where they work and lead to increased density. Making it much easier to construct granny units is one of the ways that Japan got their housing costs down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:This isn't necessarily always true. You're right; it's only sometimes true, which is an important first step.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Lol, people have been living in slumshacks located in converted garages since time immemorial, but that's not what was being communicated upthread jesus. As a young teacher (late 1970's) my wife lived in a converted garage in San Anselmo, next to George Lucas' mansion. The back of the garage was basically a dirt hill and the fridge was outside. What's crazier is a grad student rented some sort of crawl space in the same place. And yes, at some breakfast place she was seated with Lucas and his daughter. The daughter was nice, George ... not do much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Hard disagree when it comes to this, because it lets people delay solving the actual problem. Ah, yes, let's make things even more volatile! That means that it's much more likely that society will solve the problem the way I want them to rather than in some reactionary hell-way that shits on the powerless! P.S. I got hit on the head ten minutes ago and have temporarily forgotten all of American history
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
LOL here come the California progressives. Sundae is right, this is stupid and solves nothing. Probably makes SFH prices go up. “Now a renter will cover half the mortgage!”
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
i repeat my uninformed centrist opinion that it won't do much either way
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ah, yes, let's make things even more volatile! That means that it's much more likely that society will solve the problem the way I want them to rather than in some reactionary hell-way that shits on the powerless! P.S. I got hit on the head ten minutes ago and have temporarily forgotten all of American history Accelerationism.txt
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Yeah the adu's I've seen while looking at places have been quite nice That being said, adu's are absolutely a direct response to housing prices rising to a level where the math breaks. The only way a mortgage can pencil out anymore is with a very expensive rental tenant offsetting your jumbo loan. This means that homebuyers are getting enlisted en-mass into jacking up rents. More supply won't budge that dynamic either (unless it's enough to cause a crash) because people are locked into their mortgages for 30 years and absolutely won't reduce their adu rents because doing so will cause insta-default when the mortgage payment is 6-8,000 monthly. Basically we need a ton of supply AND a ton of landowners to go bankrupt as soon a possible. El Mero Mero fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners  ), funnel that explosion in tax revenue into blocks upon blocks upon blocks upon blocks of public low income housing in major metro areas and along major routes of public transportation, eminent domaining land as needed. Oh wait I forgot cowards are in charge of our state government. Can't risk political suicide, so let's just ask cities really nicely to upzone for more high density housing in high demand areas, affordable to people besides the rich. I'm sure they'll play ball any day now....
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners Thank you. This is where the state needs to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners First part is up on the ballot next year at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Grandma’s gonna lose the hobby shop she has open four hours a day three days a week that hasn’t turned a real profit in decades? Over my dead body! My family literally had a situation similar to the above and would vote against this measure as hard as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Yep, CA doesn't allow that. I pointed that one out specifically because it's sitting there right in the middle of the listing in broad daylight, like it's the most normal thing on earth instead of something that should get the landlord drawn and quartered for even suggesting it. You reported it, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners This is exactly right. Also, start turning every downtown into a car-free zone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties (Grandma may lose her business but not her home, checkmate landowners This is already going to be on the ballot in 2020: California Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020) (I wish it was also removing Prop 13 sheltering of second/vacation homes) quote:funnel that explosion in tax revenue into blocks upon blocks upon blocks upon blocks of public low income housing in major metro areas and along major routes of public transportation, eminent domaining land as needed. Um, not as much of an explosion as you're implying; the fiscal impact projection is for $6.5 to $10.5 billion in additional revenue. The campaign makes no claims regarding an impact on cowardice. e: fixed the URL Family Values fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
How about we just eat the rich and replace 95% of the justice system with well funded case workers
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Grandma can't be simultaneously poor and on a fixed income, needing Prop 13 to avoid being homeless and eating cat food to live, and also be a wealthy land baron using corrupt government practices to ensure she never loses her economic fiefdom. What if we fixed housing and zoning and real estate so olds/big businesses weren't a permanent landed class, and also improved the social safety net and tax code and rent control (a completely separate action because the system is currently broken and a loophole offsets that for some people) so people had affordable housing regardless of their age? I'm infinite karma, thank you for listening to my TED talk
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Sydin posted:eminent domaining land as needed. No, it needs to specifically target land for eminent domaining that isn't already occupied by housing for poor people. Because if there is the slightest bit of wiggle room, history shows us that evicting the marginalized, poor, undesirable, or (especially) non-whites in order to "revitalize" is the way things wind up going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
I just wish rent increases hadn't torpedoed both my favorite sandwich shop and the last remaining video store in the county! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:38
|
|