|
Centrist Committee posted:good advice imo Yeah I got no qualms with that advice
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
So I have a friend who says that the reason why California's housing prices keep rising is due to the state's lack of unused land. I told him that doesn't make sense as there seems to be plenty of unused land in the state and that the issue is with NIMBY homeowners and the state refusing to build lower income housing. Am I correct or is he on to something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I have a friend who says that the reason why California's housing prices keep rising is due to the state's lack of unused land.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
California has loads of unused land even in major metro areas. The issue is primarily that as soon as you own a home in California you have every financial incentive to oppose any new housing being placed on the market because it directly impacts the value of your home. And once most people obtain property in California they never let go of it because Prop 13 artificially ensures its value will always go up and your property tax will remain mostly stagnant. It's a FYGM spiral that creates huge barriers to entry for property ownership, and if you some how manage to climb that barrier and obtain property you are immediately incentivized to turn around and advocate for making that barrier even bigger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Sydin posted:California has loads of unused land even in major metro areas. The issue is primarily that as soon as you own a home in California you have every financial incentive to oppose any new housing being placed on the market because it directly impacts the value of your home. And once most people obtain property in California they never let go of it because Prop 13 artificially ensures its value will always go up and your property tax will remain mostly stagnant. It's a FYGM spiral that creates huge barriers to entry for property ownership, and if you some how manage to climb that barrier and obtain property you are immediately incentivized to turn around and advocate for making that barrier even bigger. Well, shucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Sydin posted:California has loads of unused land even in major metro areas. The issue is primarily that as soon as you own a home in California you have every financial incentive to oppose any new housing being placed on the market because it directly impacts the value of your home. And once most people obtain property in California they never let go of it because Prop 13 artificially ensures its value will always go up and your property tax will remain mostly stagnant. It's a FYGM spiral that creates huge barriers to entry for property ownership, and if you some how manage to climb that barrier and obtain property you are immediately incentivized to turn around and advocate for making that barrier even bigger. People never say that out loud though. It’s all about quality of life. People want a single family home with a big backyard and room for three cars like some Dallas exurb, but they still want to live in a real city. That was somewhat obtainable last century and people refuse to give it up. There was a big Reddit thread a while ago about how “native” San Franciscans own cars and how only tourists and transplants bother with MUNI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
My wife and I have a mutual friend who lives in a little rent controlled apartment literally walking distance from a BART station and she owns three vehicles which she has to constantly move around on the street parking to avoid getting tickets 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:31
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:People never say that out loud though. It’s all about quality of life. People want a single family home with a big backyard and room for three cars like some Dallas exurb, but they still want to live in a real city.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:There's also the possibility that some idiots just buried the stuff on the range rather than lug it back to their armory, which is a thing that happens. two sides of the same goal: skate
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
I’m not sure where you are all posting from but there is very little unused land in central San Diego. There is a lot that you might consider underutilized, but unused? Most of the undeveloped sites left here have substantial constraints - topographic, geotechnical, etc - that have prevented them from being developed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
there is plenty of empty land in central valley that isn't used for agriculture and empty land in the bay area, worthless land enviromentally too which you won't be doing any damage by building a tall apartment building on it, however if you try that you will quickly find out that the only thing you will be building will be a massive pile of legal fees to fight lawsuits before you set first stone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
Not too much room in south Orange County. Funny enough, there's a car dealership in Laguna Hills being torn down for low income elderly housing, and the Laguna Hills Mall (laguna hills has a mall?) is being torn down slash updated to be mixed-use including open air retail and ... of course ... housing. So, if you think "plenty of room" means "plenty of commercial space to be converted to housing" then yeah, there's plenty. You just have to convince the city to change the zoning appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
I mean, just remember that most of California is still zoned for single-family housing. Here's what that looks like in the bay area Touching undeveloped areas has huge ecological implications and tradeoffs and should be minimized - especially when the largest and most extreme waste of space is the vertical space sitting above almost every already developed piece of property in the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
At this point America should just pull a China and declare many areas as eminent domain and forcibly build affordable housing. And if people don't like it they can go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
Plenty of space up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 08:49
|
|
|
I think the galling part is that the problem isn't even that there's not enough housing - it's that there is plenty of housing but a huge proportion are investment properties that no one lives in. There are something like 1.2 million vacant homes in California, of which over half are not even on the market, just being held by people/companies as an investment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
It only makes sense to do that sort of property holding when there's property scarcity though. In a hypothetical world where we're drowning in abundant housing, there'd be no point. But yes California doesn't want you to build out, and also doesn't want you to build up. Somehow many people are still surprised when this leads to high housing prices. It's an area where the Dems actually poo poo on the poor and middle class even more than the GOP, sadly. Not that the GOP solution -- build out forever -- is actually good, because it's awful for the environment, but it does lead to more affordability than "gently caress you, it's musical chairs time!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
8% vacancy is not good, and California is a huge state. Vacancy in foreclosed single-family houses in Merced doesn't do any good for a housing shortage in LA. taxing people to increase the cost of holding a vacant unit seems like a great to motivate them to offer lower rents or move-in incentives. it would motivate the property manager who keeps a unit empty at a high rent to preserve the fiction on the pro-forma that the building is full of $2,000 units instead of $1,000 units. that would rule. (the loans are based on projected cash flow, and it's often better to pretend that the cashflow can still potentially meet the projection and delay payments instead of accepting the lower rents that won't be able to pay back the loan.) but I remember a world of getting a place to live by looking for "for rent" signs in the neighborhood instead of waiting lists and rent "auctions" and roommate try-out mixers with internet strangers. I want that back. Landlords having to beg people to move in is good, and lots of vacancy does that. "We have units ready for you TODAY, sir!" is a great thing to hear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It only makes sense to do that sort of property holding when there's property scarcity though. In a hypothetical world where we're drowning in abundant housing, there'd be no point. Build Out doesn't even work anymore. Only some jobs can follow the workers out to the edge; there are low-wage jobs that cannot leave the core. There are a few deranged outliers who will drive from Modesto to San Jose every day, but low-wage essential workers are dealing with it through crowding into the existing homes. And that sucks. It gets me heated. All the nimby shitheels in the regional core say, "the city is full! it can't handle anymore people! apartments will make it too crowded!" are too homebound and stupid to realize that the core is growing whether or not we build the homes to accommodate that growth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Landlords having to beg people to move in is good
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Nationalize Housing Now
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
I'm fine with incentives that push property holders to actually rent out units, but that's just nibbling at the edges. Getting more housing is the real solution. Whether it's private developers, non-profit/community trusts, or the government, basically all of that is good as long as the housing stock is going up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
The stock is there. The capitalists are hoarding it because it is in their interests to do so. How do we take it? Will SCOTUS stop us?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
How about converting office space into homes? We already have huge vertical buildings of many floors in a good location, they're just slowly not being needed. https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1360525972601270278 quote:In 2016, the San Francisco morning rush was so busy that Bay Area Rapid Transit did something unprecedented: It paid some riders cash to take the train at a different time. The six-month pilot was the transit authority’s answer to a common problem for big-city subway systems. BART could not physically run any more trains through the four-and-a-half-mile tunnel beneath the San Francisco Bay every morning; the tunnel hit capacity around 8 a.m. Maybe commuters could be induced to head downtown at 7 a.m., or 9?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
droll posted:The stock is there. The capitalists are hoarding it because it is in their interests to do so. How do we take it? Will SCOTUS stop us? The stock isn't "there" because the population is still increasing and there are plenty of invisible underhoused people. Most of the vacant property isn't usable by the people who actually need housing, either because it's not in the right place or because it isn't actually habitable. We absolutely need more housing, particularly public housing and cheap apartments, and particularly in cities. I'm 100% in favor of condemning, seizing, and reappropriating vacant investment homes but it's not a long-term, holistic solution on its own (also the courts probably wouldn't allow it, but that's its own can of worms).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
edit: the guy above said what I said, but way better
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
we're fifty years into this intentional housing shortage. we can't solve it overnight. "there are more vacancies than there are homeless people!" is meaningless there are millions and millions (and millions!) more people crowded into homes intended for a single family that instead house several working adults (or worse, families). seize all wealth and fund land trusts or whatever, but my god, we need to build millions of homes AND force employers to move jobs to cities where there are excess homes
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:How about converting office space into homes? We already have huge vertical buildings of many floors in a good location, they're just slowly not being needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Plumbing largely doesn't work without major (expensive) remodels. Offices are generally built with a few plumbing stacks running the entire height, sized for lunchtime bathroom usage only. For housing, people like having sinks/showers/toilets/washing machines in their home and plumbing/sq foot is much higher than office use electrical, too just cause you've got a box you can stuff people in doesn't mean it's fit for human habitation, not without shitloads of work
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:How about converting office space into homes? We already have huge vertical buildings of many floors in a good location, they're just slowly not being needed. Anyone who isn’t a developer is going to be ordered to come right the gently caress back into the office five days a week the second enough people are vaccinated. At least that’s what my workplace has signaled. We’ll be mostly right back where we started because that system was working just fine for people at the top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Don't forget that Oracle and HPE moved their corporate functions to Texas. If this continues, and large companies pull similar moves, there will certainly be more housing stock. Maybe prices will go down. Maybe. Still, I'm sure the BART will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:People never say that out loud though. It’s all about quality of life. People want a single family home with a big backyard and room for three cars like some Dallas exurb, but they still want to live in a real city. Lol "big back yard" in California. I've seen row homes with more space between the houses than in these OC suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Anyone who isn’t a developer is going to be ordered to come right the gently caress back into the office five days a week the second enough people are vaccinated. At least that’s what my workplace has signaled. We’ll be mostly right back where we started because that system was working just fine for people at the top. I honestly doubt that will be the universal move. Consider, WFH means that the firms in question have shifted the burden of daytime electrical and HVAC costs to their employees, have been able to eliminate various office perks like food etc., and have the opportunity to downsize rent costs. Some people will definitely have to go back to work, but it's pretty good for the bottom line to just de facto force workers to build out a home office rather than maintaining one for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Plumbing largely doesn't work without major (expensive) remodels. Offices are generally built with a few plumbing stacks running the entire height, sized for lunchtime bathroom usage only. For housing, people like having sinks/showers/toilets/washing machines in their home and plumbing/sq foot is much higher than office use Huh. It was a thought I had because I’ve seen those projects were shopping malls are being converted into a housing community. I figure offices are along the same lines, code-wise. Oneiros posted:electrical, too
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 07:51
|
|
|
Kenning posted:I honestly doubt that will be the universal move. Consider, WFH means that the firms in question have shifted the burden of daytime electrical and HVAC costs to their employees, have been able to eliminate various office perks like food etc., and have the opportunity to downsize rent costs. Some people will definitely have to go back to work, but it's pretty good for the bottom line to just de facto force workers to build out a home office rather than maintaining one for them. my small business owner tyrant is absolutely forcing us back into the office as soon as it's technically legal, he is quite concerned that we're "slacking off" despite absolutely zero changes in our productivity and no missed deadlines or drop in quality or anything like that hell, when santa clara dropped the health order closing offices everywhere he had just spent that morning in a company-wide meeting reinforcing that although other offices in the area are voluntarily shifting to remote work, we would not be doing so lol fortunately the hr lady seems to be keeping him in check and reminding him about liability and whatnot
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
Yeah, the opposition to WFH has never been a matter of not realizing the efficiency and money-saving potential or whatever, it was always about control. Lots of businesses both big and small are going to try to end it the moment they think they can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 08:37
|
|
|
I also fully expect that if this ever blows over and there are still major firms with big downtown offices allowing 100% remote work like Twitter, we will see SF and other major cities to start offering tax incentives to companies that make some percentage of their employees come in. Because you don't pay for rail tickets or bridge tolls if you don't have to commute into the city, and you're probably making yourself lunch at home instead of going out to eat at restaurants for your breaks. The system is built around forcing people to commute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I also fully expect that if this ever blows over and there are still major firms with big downtown offices allowing 100% remote work like Twitter, we will see SF and other major cities to start offering tax incentives to companies that make some percentage of their employees come in. Because you don't pay for rail tickets or bridge tolls if you don't have to commute into the city, and you're probably making yourself lunch at home instead of going out to eat at restaurants for your breaks. The system is built around forcing people to commute. there's an insane amount of money spent widening highways, and maintaining said highways, far far more than is seen operating what meager mass transit we have being able to hold at current roadway capacity while seeing any amount of long-term decrease in traffic would be an enormous boon to this and any other state's budget long term of course we're coming up on like 6 decades of state DOTDs attempting to widen their way outta crushing highway traffic in the first place, so yeah i'm not confident that those funds would just go elsewhere, like to building out transit or its operations or any other green options. but the results we're seeing with the quarantines are ultimately good for our traffic/emissions problems, and the issues our transit agencies are seeing are almost entirely due to the hosed up ideas about how they need to self-fund their operations via fares in the first place and would be easily manageable if there was the political will to do so
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 10:32
|
|
|
The city is generally not responsible for bridges. CalTrans and the Golden Gate Bridge agency would probably prefer less demand on the 880 and 101. BART sees lower revenue but a lower maintenance budget. Obviously there's a point of diminishing returns, but the infrastructure was pressed to it's breaking point and engineers are probably not excited to go back to trying to stretch things past the limit again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Sydin posted:we will see SF and other major cities to start offering tax incentives to companies that make some percentage of their employees come in. Because you don't pay for rail tickets or bridge tolls if you don't have to commute into the city, and you're probably making yourself lunch at home instead of going out to eat at restaurants for your breaks. The system is built around forcing people to commute. My thoughts as well. The places built around a large office worker population will suffer economically, the places where people can live in a place they consider nice will succeed more. How one gets their internet is going to be the huge thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:10
|
|
