|
Infinite Karma posted:A different take on housing crises is that there is plenty of open space and less developed cities away from the city centers... but that's because jobs still require you to commute to the city center, so you're spending hours in the car in exchange for a cheaper house. Ok, but the real problem is capitalism
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:I'm on retainer by the estate of John Reber
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
nrook posted:The source in that article states that vacancy in San Francisco is at 5.6%. Increasing the housing stock of SF by one or two percent would be great, but it wouldn't even come close to fixing the housing crisis that had led to so much suffering in the area. It’s only 6%? Lol Cup Runneth Over posted:Maybe it's possible that everyone here is arguing in good faith and is not actually a shadowy lobbyist employed by either Big Real Estate or Big Freeway? The point is that you are misunderstanding the problem if you think that the non-zero vacancy rate of residences in the Bay Area is really what is causing the housing crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:A different take on housing crises is that there is plenty of open space and less developed cities away from the city centers... but that's because jobs still require you to commute to the city center, so you're spending hours in the car in exchange for a cheaper house. or we could spend money on transportation infrastructure that isn't highway widening like, say, more trains
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Maybe it's possible that everyone here is arguing in good faith and is not actually a shadowy lobbyist employed by either Big Real Estate or Big Freeway? The Glumslinger posted:Wait, I thought we were all getting paid by Big Subway Can you pass along my resume? Soros never pays on time Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You technically live in a 2 bedroom apartment. I bet you can get your landlord in some trouble if you want. i could easily get my landlady in trouble if i wanted to no longer have a place to live since she makes us pay her in cash which i feel safe in assuming means she evades the taxes on it Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:or we could spend money on transportation infrastructure that isn't highway widening like, say, more trains Sure, some people need supervision to stay on task, but that's a skill that can be taught and employees can be held accountable for. The bigger issue is obviously the blow to the egos of managers who want control, and have the gut reaction that it'll destroy their business (or their value to the business) if employees have even a sliver of independence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Suburban sprawl is also an environmental disaster. The country is experiencing a mass movement of workers into the cities because we are decreasingly a manufacturing-based economy, and manufacturing and resource-extraction industries have ever-decreasing labor requirements due to automation. The jobs are in the cities. I totally agree that we should encourage work-from-home (I work from home!) but I wouldn't want that to result in a resurgence of suburban-sprawl development practices, and there are reasons to live in the city that go beyond proximity to work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Just FYI, the story that bedrooms must have a closet is a myth. To the best of my knowledge the requirements are pretty basic stuff like the ceiling needs to be 7' or higher, there needs to be a second "egress" whether that's a window or a door, and it needs to be more than 70 sqft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Suburban sprawl is also an environmental disaster. The country is experiencing a mass movement of workers into the cities because we are decreasingly a manufacturing-based economy, and manufacturing and resource-extraction industries have ever-decreasing labor requirements due to automation. The jobs are in the cities. I totally agree that we should encourage work-from-home (I work from home!) but I wouldn't want that to result in a resurgence of suburban-sprawl development practices, and there are reasons to live in the city that go beyond proximity to work. yepp CARB agrees, and said in 2018 that it is imperative to reduce vehicle miles traveled across the board in order to hit our climate/emissions goals, regardless of things like electric vehicle adoption quote:“There is a persistent belief, among both state officials and the public, that clean cars and clean fuels alone can achieve California’s climate goals, but this is fundamentally untrue,” he says. “Even if we have 100 percent zero-emission vehicles and 75 percent renewable energy production by 2050—both ambitious goals—we still need a 15 percent reduction of VMT beyond what current regional plans project to achieve.” you can replace EVs with "telecommuting" or anything else that relies on not actually changing the status quo of our transportation infrastructure and housing policy https://twitter.com/justicedems/status/1110226161580281856
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
If the government could get its head out of its rear end and actually invest in proper public transportation for the SoCal area that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:If the government could get its head out of its rear end and actually invest in proper public transportation for the SoCal area that would be great. The federal government? Because LA is already spending a lot on public transit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:If the government could get its head out of its rear end and actually invest in proper public transportation for the SoCal area that would be great. America pays roughly 5x what Europe does for the same poo poo, so "more money" alone isn't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
That's not very considerate of corporate profits
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:A different take on housing crises is that there is plenty of open space and less developed cities away from the city centers... but that's because jobs still require you to commute to the city center, so you're spending hours in the car in exchange for a cheaper house. this is generally a good idea, but i think your estimate of 25% of jobs not being compatible with remote work is wildly off. silence_kit posted:It’s only 6%? Lol Living in SF since the early 2000s is actually what informed the idea that there could be worth in encouraging people to occupy all bedrooms; the only people in SF with spare bedrooms are super rich. like, the dolby family tier rich. and it's been that way since long before the current housing crisis. I think it was at least in part an artifact of the mobility that a dense living environment provided. If someone had an open room, they either moved to a smaller place or got a roommate. spare bedrooms have never really been a thing, because it was just a waste of money when it was easy to just move to a smaller place. and i guess there's some self-selection at work there too, because people who hated that enough would just move somewhere less dense. Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:the only people in SF with spare bedrooms are super rich. like, the dolby family tier rich. This is just wildly wrong. e. specifically, empty-nesters are discouraged from selling their homes to "move down" to smaller ones, by prop 13. A huge number of SFHes have bedrooms that aren't occupied by a person because that person has finally gotten a post-college job and been able to move out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is just wildly wrong. that may be indicative of a blind spot i have, because literally everyone i knew either rented or had gotten a mortgage through the city's low-income housing lottery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
nrook posted:These types of people tend to cloak themselves in populist rhetoric, but if you dig a little deeper you'll find the same complaints about changing the character of neighborhoods, parking, and traffic that characterize all NIMBYs. Theres a number of reasons you wont get your way, and things will just get worse. But keep on looking down on people that dont do what you demand. In this era you can tell who the real "nimbys" are because they use the term "nimby" all the time. DO WHAT I DEMAND FOR MY BACK YARD OR YOURE A NIMBY! Also the implicit approval of housing as investment is pretty cool. The real problem is a lack of stacked living coffins obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:that may be indicative of a blind spot i have, because literally everyone i knew either rented or had gotten a mortgage through the city's low-income housing lottery. Yeah. "Everyone I know" isn't a statistically valid sampling method. My parents are an example; they own a house in the Sunset (that they bought when it was "only" $410k) and they really should move and downsize, my mom has parkinsons and my stepdad has replaced knees... but if they make a lateral or even moderately downward move in price in order to buy a smaller property, their property taxes will go up by a huge amount. But also my stepdad wants a big garage/workspace to work on his projects, and it's hard to find a one or two bedroom house with a huge workspace area that has the comfort and amenities that their current house offers. Including neighborhood quality, etc. I think that's not too unsual in california; the boomers' kids are gen-xers who have long since moved out, and even us gen-xers, the older of us, are of an age where our kids are mostly moved out. Why sell a 3br for a 2br with less space and eat a property tax increase that more than covers whatever moderately lower mortgage cost we'd find? Just another example of how prop 13 ruins everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah. "Everyone I know" isn't a statistically valid sampling method. My parents are an example; they own a house in the Sunset (that they bought when it was "only" $410k) and they really should move and downsize, my mom has parkinsons and my stepdad has replaced knees... but if they make a lateral or even moderately downward move in price in order to buy a smaller property, their property taxes will go up by a huge amount. But also my stepdad wants a big garage/workspace to work on his projects, and it's hard to find a one or two bedroom house with a huge workspace area that has the comfort and amenities that their current house offers. Including neighborhood quality, etc. (While I hate this part of the law too,) Your parents should be able to transfer their taxable rate to their new home as long as it is meets the requirements of Prop 60-1986. Purchase within a year of selling, be in the same county, and (I think?) be equal to previous square livable square footage or smaller. Their property taxes would then stay at their original level from their old home. That being said: gently caress Prop 13 and Prop 60. Burn it all down, throw grandma to the curb, and behead the CEO of Constellation Group. Grandma can keep her house if we can compromise on forcing her to pay taxes on her 2nd-through-7th homes she's AirBNBing. I am a reasonable man after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
The thing about material interests is that you can't fault people for considering them. It is true that boomers in specific and homeowners in general in CA are greedy dicks who only care about their property values, but every single aspect of the USA and of CA funnels them down this path. And if your idea is "well gently caress 'em, this system is immoral and so we're just taking everything away from them" well no, they vote, and also most people do not truly care that someone benefits from an immoral system, just that they benefit as well. The reason that we're even talking about this is because people are finally discovering that due to the timing of the market, they have no chance to benefit from this system, ever. They will never be dealt in on this system. So now we have a chance for change, but it can easily be restructured toward negative ends. It's quite a tightrope to walk. edit: I wrote this before I saw the post above me and it's a perfect illustration of the point. "gently caress 'em" feels good to say, but it's going to produce absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Sundae posted:(While I hate this part of the law too,) Your parents should be able to transfer their taxable rate to their new home as long as it is meets the requirements of Prop 60-1986. Purchase within a year of selling, be in the same county, and (I think?) be equal to previous square livable square footage or smaller. Their property taxes would then stay at their original level from their old home. Yeah they want to move over to the east bay to be nearer to us I think, so they fail the "be in the same county" part, but that's still worth keeping in mind for folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The federal government? Because LA is already spending a lot on public transit. LA isn’t doing nearly enough. Especially to the outer areas such as Pomona/Chino Hills. There should be at least another thousand busses going back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah they want to move over to the east bay to be nearer to us I think, so they fail the "be in the same county" part, but that's still worth keeping in mind for folks. Oh yeah they're hosed then. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The thing about material interests is that you can't fault people for considering them. It is true that boomers in specific and homeowners in general in CA are greedy dicks who only care about their property values, but every single aspect of the USA and of CA funnels them down this path. And if your idea is "well gently caress 'em, this system is immoral and so we're just taking everything away from them" well no, they vote, and also most people do not truly care that someone benefits from an immoral system, just that they benefit as well. The reason that we're even talking about this is because people are finally discovering that due to the timing of the market, they have no chance to benefit from this system, ever. They will never be dealt in on this system. So now we have a chance for change, but it can easily be restructured toward negative ends. It's quite a tightrope to walk. I'm not actually serious.  But yeah, they're not going to vote against their own interests. Neither are their children, who get to inherit the favorable treatment. My honest opinion is that CA real estate has to crash a major regional economy to the point where every big employer jumps ship before anything will change, because of the nature of Prop 13. It isn't going to be defeated without a preceding catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Oh yeah they're hosed then. Sorry. Well, they're not "hosed" exactly: they'll have to do what people in all the other states do, which is pay a reasonable property tax rate instead of a discounted property tax rate. But that does mean they can't simply sell their house and then buy an identically-priced house in the east bay without allocating more of their (fixed) income to property taxes. They can afford it, but a lot of people can't, or at least it puts a squeeze on them. They actually like having the spare bedroom anyway. My mom uses it as an office and library, and the (not-legally-a-bedroom-and-not-really-finished-space) "bonus room" downstairs is where they have their treadmill, laundry, a large freezer, and many huge piles of my stepdad's crap he refuses to get rid of that won't fit in the fairly tiny garage where he stores all the motorcycles he'll never ride again.  they're boomers. They're wealthy enough to own a house in SF (worth more than double what they paid and for which they are still paying), but they're not "dolby family" rich or anything close to that. poo poo like prop 13 actually matters to them materially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Sundae posted:But yeah, they're not going to vote against their own interests. Neither are their children, who get to inherit the favorable treatment. My honest opinion is that CA real estate has to crash a major regional economy to the point where every big employer jumps ship before anything will change, because of the nature of Prop 13. It isn't going to be defeated without a preceding catastrophe. I actually think that either the political system has to crash or the economy. But unfortunately probably one goes with the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
the natural progression is for more and more homeowners to lose their homes as they are forced to sell to cover their medical bills
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The thing about material interests is that you can't fault people for considering them. It is true that boomers in specific and homeowners in general in CA are greedy dicks who only care about their property values, but every single aspect of the USA and of CA funnels them down this path. And if your idea is "well gently caress 'em, this system is immoral and so we're just taking everything away from them" well no, they vote, and also most people do not truly care that someone benefits from an immoral system, just that they benefit as well. The reason that we're even talking about this is because people are finally discovering that due to the timing of the market, they have no chance to benefit from this system, ever. They will never be dealt in on this system. So now we have a chance for change, but it can easily be restructured toward negative ends. It's quite a tightrope to walk. Using houses as collectible investment assets is straight class warfare, and should be targeted relentlessly. The same (but slightly less if they are fulltime living areas) for multi-acre mansions in the middle of otherwise crowded areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:the natural progression is for more and more homeowners to lose their homes as they are forced to sell to cover their medical bills pretty sure your primary residence is protected in a medical bankruptcy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:LA isn’t doing nearly enough. Especially to the outer areas such as Pomona/Chino Hills. Oh I agree on the buses, which we keep cutting routes on because racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:LA isn’t doing nearly enough. Especially to the outer areas such as Pomona/Chino Hills. Orange County has 3m people and Inland Empire has roughly 4m people and there's nothing connecting the two regions to LA except one or two Metrolink lines and a handful of busses. There's still MASSIVE improvements that needs to be made. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Orange County has 3m people and Inland Empire has roughly 4m people and there's nothing connecting the two regions to LA except one or two Metrolink lines and a handful of busses. I agree whole heartedly. If SoCal actually gave a poo poo about reducing congestion and improving air quality, there would be a massive addition of busses and trains. Hell, they could add 10,000 more busses in just a few months if they actually wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
I-15 is opening up their new toll roads in a few weeks which they built 4 new lanes of road to create and it just makes me depressed thinking about how much better it would have been if we just used that space for light rail instead 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Hi yes we have a 4 bedroom house... but it's two of us and one of these is actually a soft-office that my partner uses for business and finance related things and the other is rented to my cousin at a rate of $20 as she is a travelling photoblogger and only needs the space to upload her stuff to the cloud. Talk to your accountant. Most of that deduction went away for 2018 taxes etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:If the government could get its head out of its rear end and actually invest in proper public transportation for the SoCal area that would be great. LA (the city) has vastly improved mass transit now, compared to when I last lived here in the late 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:LA (the city) has vastly improved mass transit now, compared to when I last lived here in the late 1990s. It’s still 15+ years away from being functional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:It’s still 15+ years away from being functional. For me, who has a folding bicycle, it's decent. Far better than where I live in Carlsbad (I work in LA Tuesday till Thursday). The Red Line, The Expo Line ... pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:It’s still 15+ years away from being functional. 8 years away since they are planning to accelerate a bunch of things for the Olympics The Sepulveda line subway is gonna be amazing
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
With improved transit Los Angeles will finally get put on the map instead of just being an overcrowded backwater filled with layabout hippies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah they want to move over to the east bay to be nearer to us I think, so they fail the "be in the same county" part, but that's still worth keeping in mind for folks. Prop 90 allows for intercounty transfers of the rate to counties that pass ordinances to allow it. Alameda County has done so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:14
|
|
