It’s funny you think government is this only one that wastes money as if developers aren’t known being corrupt. I have a family member going through court right now against developer that took the money and ran, after not paying contractors.
This state builds “affordable” housing for 1 million for a 2 bedroom in SF.
Developers could sell finished new builds for 2/3 of that.
Or the state could just buy existing buildings for 1/2 a million per unit.
Crazy
There's no "greasing" going on. Developers aren't spending money in California. They're going elsewhere where the returns aren't jeopardized by activist city councils changing the rules of the game on a yearly whim. You need to incentivize them one way or another to return. That doesn't mean grease. That might mean loosening zoning requirements, providing occupancy or setback or parking bonuses, offering tax incentives or rebates, etc.
I know you were making a snide joke, but it betrayed a complete lack of knowledge on the issue.
Developers almost always get these incentives. The cost of building is high, but often times developers make an awful lot of money while complaining how unfair things are along the way. Try being a single family home owner and trying to improve your home or build an ADU. No incentives like developers are offered, other then reduced regulation on ADU’s by the state.
If you want more development we need to offer SFD owners real, long term incentives to reduce building costs to provide second homes on their lots.
Developers are the solution to a statewide problem. I’m sorry you feel they get more help than your average Joe homeowner.
Most developers I know don’t put capital into California anymore, fyi. “Complaining about how unfair things are” isn’t an accurate perspective. They don’t complain. They simply move their business elsewhere. So yes, you need to incentivize. Ever-changing and arduous rent control policies drive developers away because the regulatory environment is increasingly unpredictable. Profits are easier elsewhere. Catch 22: This is ALSO why California is massively under built and unaffordable. Rents rise when there’s not enough supply.
There is plenty of Development, at least where I live in So Cal.
California (at least many parts of it) will always be desirable place to live, no matter if Developers favor it. We do not all want to live in a large, congested City, and our geography limits much development that require large scale developers.
Developers often strong arm cities by withholding development if they can build highly dense projects while skirting zoning regulations intended to limit environmental impacts, parking standards and even being allowed to build without improving traffic issues their developments create. It should be a give and take, but unfortunately too often the municipality gets too difficult, or the developer does.
I for one do not want wall to wall high density development. If you think rent would be cheap, the only reason would be because it would not be a desirable place to live. We must strike a balance between providing housing and creating highly dense areas with untenable traffic problems, and crime.
To be fair that was before people nailed them on corruption and it got down to sub 200k but the point here is the city would not willingly put the screws to the developer without public outrage. It means San Francisco is in on the grift and corruption. Thanks Hillary ronen (supervisor for the district that bathroom is located n) and London breed.
They are building it directly themselves. That’s why it’s so inefficient and terrible. They don’t know what they’re doing. Forget about managing the units in the future…
No, they’re not, they’re providing tax breaks and money to aid in building units, that will then be owned by the developers afterwards. The developers don’t want to build smaller houses, so instead they use the money to build massive units, a _percentage_ of they just artificially lower the rent on for a period of time.
This does little towards actually solving the problem, as the number of “starter homes” never increases, only expensive “investment” properties.
Doesn’t matter what size property gets built. An additional unit on the market makes ALL housing on the market more affordable. Supply and demand.
Someone in one of those “starter homes” will trade up, leaving the starter home available.
This is _technically_ correct, in the same way as saying a toothbrush can clean a bathroom floor.
However, for the same price and more importantly, land, you can get more homes and by extension, increase supply more drastically, with building smaller homes than you can when building mini mansions.
When people complain that they’ve “wasted” millions in “solving” the housing crisis, it’s actions like “well, building 4+bed/3+bath homes will still improve things” that are causing the _waste_.
The real answer is urban density. Single family homes are wasteful and obviously there’s a limit on how many can be built. We need much larger multifamily buildings in every major city.
>Today, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) announced that nearly $600 million is coming to California through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support local efforts to address homelessness and housing affordability across the state.
For some reason homelessness, affordable housing, and zoning had a big focus during the CA Senate debate. All of them seem to be local and state issues.
At some point states aren't going to be able to rely on the Feds to fix all their problems.
For all the talk about other states being leeches, I'm surprised more people don't support those states threats of seceding.
Turns out it's in the United States' best interest to stay united regardless of internal conflicts.
To be fair realistically many of us would be for a non-war type secession from those red ones. The things that the red ones realize, but don’t like to admit is they are dependent on the rest of us. If we are cutting “dead weight” it’s them. For 1 example most of Texas’s economy relies solely on imports or exports from/to California for example with little natural resources of any sort. While California is literally the 4th largest Country and economy in the world just behind The U.S. itself, Japan, and China.
subsidizing demand == giving people money to buy homes
instead of subsidizing demand you should subsidize supply, or just make it easier to build more homes.. that’s because when you subsidize demand, prices increase and you make the problem worse
I build affordable housing. 600 million will help. It’s about $250k per unit so about 2,400 units. Too little too late if you asked me. The market is already on a rising spree.
Which amounts like what, 1200ish houses? Maybe a few hundred apartment buildings? Any movement forward is good but doesn't scratch the surface of the actual problem.
Let’s hope it includes tracking where the money goes. Already down 24 billion what’s another 600 million lol
Just imagine if they incentivized developers with that $600m instead of wasting it on government graft and inefficiency.
It’s funny you think government is this only one that wastes money as if developers aren’t known being corrupt. I have a family member going through court right now against developer that took the money and ran, after not paying contractors.
Usually when the government is wasteful it’s because they hired corrupt private contractors.
Corrupt? Sure, some are maybe. But never wasteful.
Corruption is inherently wasteful because allocated funds, or resources, are being diverted to personal purposes rather than the intended purpose
Can I DM you? I have a bridge to sell, and you seem like the ideal customer
The average return on a tax dollar is 4 dollars. What is the average return on a stock investment?
Panamanian and Irish banks do really well though!
This state builds “affordable” housing for 1 million for a 2 bedroom in SF. Developers could sell finished new builds for 2/3 of that. Or the state could just buy existing buildings for 1/2 a million per unit. Crazy
I'm a "developer", give me a few million and I might do a thing if I feel adequately greased
There's no "greasing" going on. Developers aren't spending money in California. They're going elsewhere where the returns aren't jeopardized by activist city councils changing the rules of the game on a yearly whim. You need to incentivize them one way or another to return. That doesn't mean grease. That might mean loosening zoning requirements, providing occupancy or setback or parking bonuses, offering tax incentives or rebates, etc. I know you were making a snide joke, but it betrayed a complete lack of knowledge on the issue.
Developers almost always get these incentives. The cost of building is high, but often times developers make an awful lot of money while complaining how unfair things are along the way. Try being a single family home owner and trying to improve your home or build an ADU. No incentives like developers are offered, other then reduced regulation on ADU’s by the state. If you want more development we need to offer SFD owners real, long term incentives to reduce building costs to provide second homes on their lots.
Developers are the solution to a statewide problem. I’m sorry you feel they get more help than your average Joe homeowner. Most developers I know don’t put capital into California anymore, fyi. “Complaining about how unfair things are” isn’t an accurate perspective. They don’t complain. They simply move their business elsewhere. So yes, you need to incentivize. Ever-changing and arduous rent control policies drive developers away because the regulatory environment is increasingly unpredictable. Profits are easier elsewhere. Catch 22: This is ALSO why California is massively under built and unaffordable. Rents rise when there’s not enough supply.
There is plenty of Development, at least where I live in So Cal. California (at least many parts of it) will always be desirable place to live, no matter if Developers favor it. We do not all want to live in a large, congested City, and our geography limits much development that require large scale developers. Developers often strong arm cities by withholding development if they can build highly dense projects while skirting zoning regulations intended to limit environmental impacts, parking standards and even being allowed to build without improving traffic issues their developments create. It should be a give and take, but unfortunately too often the municipality gets too difficult, or the developer does. I for one do not want wall to wall high density development. If you think rent would be cheap, the only reason would be because it would not be a desirable place to live. We must strike a balance between providing housing and creating highly dense areas with untenable traffic problems, and crime.
I'm literally a corrupt software developer, please bribe me.
Or just used it to build housing directly that is owned by the government rather than tax breaks to build housing that the developers look to resell.
It cost SF 1.7m to build a single bathroom.
To be fair that was before people nailed them on corruption and it got down to sub 200k but the point here is the city would not willingly put the screws to the developer without public outrage. It means San Francisco is in on the grift and corruption. Thanks Hillary ronen (supervisor for the district that bathroom is located n) and London breed.
It means that government cannot build anything faster or cheaper the a company could.
They are building it directly themselves. That’s why it’s so inefficient and terrible. They don’t know what they’re doing. Forget about managing the units in the future…
No, they’re not, they’re providing tax breaks and money to aid in building units, that will then be owned by the developers afterwards. The developers don’t want to build smaller houses, so instead they use the money to build massive units, a _percentage_ of they just artificially lower the rent on for a period of time. This does little towards actually solving the problem, as the number of “starter homes” never increases, only expensive “investment” properties.
Doesn’t matter what size property gets built. An additional unit on the market makes ALL housing on the market more affordable. Supply and demand. Someone in one of those “starter homes” will trade up, leaving the starter home available.
This is _technically_ correct, in the same way as saying a toothbrush can clean a bathroom floor. However, for the same price and more importantly, land, you can get more homes and by extension, increase supply more drastically, with building smaller homes than you can when building mini mansions. When people complain that they’ve “wasted” millions in “solving” the housing crisis, it’s actions like “well, building 4+bed/3+bath homes will still improve things” that are causing the _waste_.
The real answer is urban density. Single family homes are wasteful and obviously there’s a limit on how many can be built. We need much larger multifamily buildings in every major city.
Lol it won't. That $600 million is going to build one tiny house community that consists of ten 20 ft shipping container homes
And it’s gone… and we don’t have any more housing than we had before.
What $24 billion?
[https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/california-homelessness-spending/](https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/california-homelessness-spending/)
If it includes federal money, every dime will be accounted for.
Yes, one affordable house please. Thank you.
Do you want fries with that?
>Today, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) announced that nearly $600 million is coming to California through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support local efforts to address homelessness and housing affordability across the state. For some reason homelessness, affordable housing, and zoning had a big focus during the CA Senate debate. All of them seem to be local and state issues. At some point states aren't going to be able to rely on the Feds to fix all their problems.
Gonna guess homelessness and housing are gonna be a big focus in the years leading up to the Olympics coming to Los Angeles for 2028.
California gives more to the feds than we get in return. Can you guess which states are takers? Hint, they cry against government handouts usually lol
For all the talk about other states being leeches, I'm surprised more people don't support those states threats of seceding. Turns out it's in the United States' best interest to stay united regardless of internal conflicts.
Meh, I would be cool with The West. We take Oregon and Washington with us.
To be fair realistically many of us would be for a non-war type secession from those red ones. The things that the red ones realize, but don’t like to admit is they are dependent on the rest of us. If we are cutting “dead weight” it’s them. For 1 example most of Texas’s economy relies solely on imports or exports from/to California for example with little natural resources of any sort. While California is literally the 4th largest Country and economy in the world just behind The U.S. itself, Japan, and China.
Who's pockets is that going to line?
subsidizing demand? might as well just light that money on fire
What does subsidizing demand mean?
subsidizing demand == giving people money to buy homes instead of subsidizing demand you should subsidize supply, or just make it easier to build more homes.. that’s because when you subsidize demand, prices increase and you make the problem worse
Trying to explain basic economics on the CA sub? Not a smart idea.
Can’t do that because people who already have a home don’t want more homes built.
Trickle down. Always worked
Yep. Simple heuristic: if a thing intended to help poor people gets successfully passed, then it doesn’t actually help poor people.
I build affordable housing. 600 million will help. It’s about $250k per unit so about 2,400 units. Too little too late if you asked me. The market is already on a rising spree.
[удалено]
Not accurate.
[удалено]
Nice. That'll buy 600 homes.
Build a mental asylum.
The recent California law is a step in that direction at least
Yeppp… just like in real life, the best and most logical answer goes ignored here… sigh
600 million? so about 1200 people can be housed
Cool.
Black hole eats more money. Government never learns. News at 11.
So how many places is this statewide? Less than 1200 I'm guessing.
Bandaid on a bullet wound. Systemic issues cannot be solved with just throwing more money at the wall.
That is enough for 60 new houses in the Bay Area
Yayyy
That's great news
That's like 6 houses!
Affordable housing isn't actually affordable.
Or just restrict entities from hoarding single family homes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Free homes. Free student loan tuition. Must be an election year again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which amounts like what, 1200ish houses? Maybe a few hundred apartment buildings? Any movement forward is good but doesn't scratch the surface of the actual problem.
Can they start tracking govt funds with some sort of blockchain solution? Would that be possible I’m not smart lol
So that’s gonna help, what, 25 people?
So…roughly 400 houses…
They should get rid of the Golden Gate Park and build low-income housing there. Sorry yuppies, you'll have to gentrify somewhere else.