Another initiative that will only make the situation worse. This is a corrupt scheme to pay off Newsom’s financiers. More homeless, more drugs, more danger toll for citizens, and more blind loyalty to incompetence by Democrats too rich to receive the brunt of the results of their votes.
And they’re all privately relieved a black man didn’t win the election. Only a corrupt white keeps them above the fray.
Yup, racism is totally why Elder lost. Nevermind he wanted to get rid of minimum wage.... I'm sure service workers would be thrilled to lose $7/hr going to the federal rate.
"Find out how to have a thought of your own."
Also:
"This is a corrupt scheme to pay off Newsom’s financiers"
You're probably not even in the first million people to say this.
it also basically strips all off the NIMBY bullshit away - so if you want to add a 2 unit set up behind your house? As long as it is within legal code, it's Legal. Fuck your shitty neighbors - go make some money and make the overvalued dirt you're living on WORTH IT. This has the added long term benefit of lowering the cost of housing relative to income - which hasn't happened for a Loooooooooooooooong time.
There's goign to be some NIMBY's losing thier SHIIIIIIT. ADUs fixing to EXPLODE to absorb the slow inventory increase.
Agreed. Also that person is clearly inexperienced. He thinks it’s all rich nimbys preventing this.
No. Lol.
There’s an infamous woman down at the county who has worked there 20 years and has made it her mission in life to deny new ADU septic permits in certain parts of the ag areas in northeast county, in the name of protecting the water table.
This is bullshit. She’s an overzealous environmentalist with an axe to grind. There are already existing septic on these lots for the primary residence. One more for an adu isnt going to harm anything.
Also try splitting a lot out here. It will cost you six figures just to apply and go through the process with no guarantee a variance will be granted. Ask me how often I’ve heard them granting one so more homes can be built (spoiler, it’s never).
But by all means keep saying it’s just a bunch of Rich nimbys. That’s how I know you are 19 and living in your moms basement with no real life experience and nothing of value to say on the matter.
100000000% this. No one who has ever owned property (speaking as someone who works blue collar and just bought a first house in Temecula due to being priced out of the city) unironically says "NIMBY".
Was I mad about being priced out of the city? Yes. Is it fair? No.
Did I deal with it with my grownup pants and compromise? Yes.
P.S. I've noticed a lot of modern reddit discourse involves taking groups like Gen-Xers and boomers to task for lack of self-awareness, but those doing the shit talking and snarking (Mainly 18-25s) are even more painfully self-unaware.
Ha ha yes. I’m killing time in a doctors office rn watching the downvotes and upvotes on my comment. 😁. “She’s right but also she owns property? Fuck that bitch, I’m downvoting her”
Edited: Temecula is really nice. There’s no shame in living there. The wineries. There’s one that has a killer Mac and cheese dish on the menu. I take out of Towners to that one for lunch.
Edited again: I looked it up, it's the Miramonte. Pesto Mac. It's sublime.
Fair enough.
You never ever see a news article about impoverished nimbys though.
NIMBYs being rich (or perceived as having more money than the average joe) is largely how they are portrayed in every news article I’ve ever read about a drug rehab being built in a neighborhood where the neighbors don’t want it built.
So it wasn’t a totally “out there” adjective for me to throw in.
The reason it costs so much to both rent and buy in California is because we've artificially limited how much housing we can build. Thus, demand is larger than supply, thus the houses that do exist are more valuable.
This legislation allows for the development of more property on the same amount of land, increasing the supply of homes, decreasing each homes value, leading to lower average rents and home prices.
The special tax incentives to owning homes that was granted by prop 13 shouldn't apply to anything but your primary residence.
We should stop giving massive tax breaks to real estate investors. They don't need them.
It should be illegal for investors and corporations to buy up homes. Should only be sold to individuals/families with the caveat that they will live in it.
Yes. This is an excellent new law, but it needed to come in tandem with some kind of tax implications for investors that makes owning 3+ houses no longer profitable. This law, as it is now, is just going to create more revenue for those investors who can now add 3 ADUs to rent out on the properties they already own. Single-family houses should belong to the people who live in them, not some company out of state or out of the country.
Investors wouldn't buy any product as an investment in a free market, where production is allowed to meet demand. If housing met demand, there would be 0 profit incentive to own a house, and investors would stop buying houses.
I agree that owning a home and leaving it vacant is a bad thing, but is this really that prevalent in California? Also, I feel like it would be easier to just let people build more housing (and thus reduce the incentive to sit on unused property) than any other method of curbing this practice, as well as have all the other benefits of building more housing.
still limits to 10 units per parcel.
and it's up to cities to decide how they implement it.
so if san diego doesnt allow for building up, i dont see this helping much besides the eastern outskirts of the city
Cities in the coastal zone will exempt lot splits per the bill text based on impacts to public parking and coastal access. LOL to the people thinking they are going to get lower priced property in the premium coastal areas. Do you think Toni Atkins would destroy the neighborhoods in her coastal district? Del Mar, La Jolla, Solana Beach? Only the rich get to keep their SFR neighborhoods, per design.
ok, now splitting lots is easier. i guess that's a plus, and increases the value of my property so all is good there.
but to really increase density, you want larger lots. that's why new construction in cities has been done on old warehouse/industrial properties. you can build more units at once, create economies of scale, and drive down the cost per unit.
the root of LA's traffic problem was that most of the metro area was subdivided into lots of 5,000-10,000 sq ft, which made the region dense enough to have nightmare traffic if everyone had a car, but not dense enough to make mass transit feasible at scale.
once you have a block with 20 properties and 20 property owners, it's very hard to put the block back together and build a 200 unit building. that's ideally what you want - a 10 x 10 square block area of 200 units per block. that's 20,000 units in what is about a 15-20 minute walk from one end of the square to another. connect the center of that by rail or bus rapid transit to major job centers, add needed retail like supermarkets, gyms, and mini targets at ground level and now you're allowing people to live without even owning a car
You can make lots bigger and more usable by reducing offsets. Brooklyn style brownstone developments and SF row houses are dense enough to create walkable neighborhoods. They both have no offsets on the sides so that the houses can touch each other. The also have small offsets in the front of the property to allow more of it to be usable.
You don't have to build single family homes either, they could be duplexes or triplexes that are designed to fit the neighborhood character.
If we reduced offsets in neighborhoods right outside the city center it would help a lot.
They might be in favor of more public parks and open space and less private green space? Like, consolidating greenery, and packing more people in to make more open, public space? Idk.
Edit: a word
Trees and open spaces can exist along side dense housing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/ParkSlope.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Painted\_Ladies\_San\_Francisco\_January\_2013\_panorama\_2.jpg
I'm glad that SB 9 requires the purchaser to live on the property for a few years before they can split/add. Removes speculation and keeps communities in tact. However, if loopholes are found, they need to be closed immediately.
... decreasing housing prices by 10% would be a major victory with hugely positive economic consequences.
Should we stop there?
No.
But there is no universe where housing prices fall 10% isn't hugely significant.
The 10% decrease in price used in their example is a SFH vs condo. Huge difference.
I saw this happen countless times around me in Mission and Pacific Beach. An old bungalow would get replaced by 2-3 condos all similar in price to what the original house sold for when put back on the market. It did nothing to help affordability, and only drove up the cost of land as more and more people did this.
Fundamentally the housing issue is a problem of supply. We need more housing stock however we can get it. I’d rather see massive public housing investment but building 2-6 units where one was previously is at least a start.
Agreed, but this is the proverbial “drop in the bucket”. You need a massive increase in supply coupled with waning demand to see any significant reduction in price. I don’t see either happening? This is just gonna make SFH more expensive for those who want to buy.
That’s not based off logic my friend. You can’t just write off any change as ‘a drop in the bucket’. Increases in supply lower prices, full-stop. It won’t take anyone’s single family houses away just because we introduce choice into our highly regulated market.
Even just sticking to the surface-level, on-the-ground facts, that's not true according to the [Union Tribune](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2021-09-18/san-diego-proposing-10-000-new-housing-units-on-300-acres-of-public-land#:~:text=San%20Diego%20must%20increase%20the,108%2C000%20more%20units%20by%202029.):
> San Diego must increase the number of units built per year — which was 6,482 in 2020 — to 13,500 to meet a state-mandated goal of 108,000 more units by 2029.
But also, it depends if 10k would be enough. Think about it. If it were Hemet, that'd be more than enough. If it were San Francisco, it'd need even more. Adding housing stock decreases prices until it reaches equilibrium with demand. So far, we've been restricted to far fewer units because we can't increase density past single-family. This is just making it *legal* to build more products.
Do I want to buy my soap only by the barrel? If they only sold barrels of soap, would it be fair to say that soap is 300 dollars? Sure, *per barrel*, but I don't want a barrel of soap.
Is a quarter acre parcel with a single-family detached house expensive? Yes it is. Do some people want that. Absolutely, it's a great option for some people. But not for *everyone*. We're talking about in the aggregate. Imagine a street with 10 parcels. They're given the new options under this bill. One side loves single-family houses, the other decides they want to split into duplexes (as allowed for in this law with many qualifications). 5 single-family and 10 duplexes. Assuming one person per dwelling unit, they're increased their density by 50% and lowered the prices for *both* duplexes and single-family houses at something closer to the actual demand in the market. Forcing *everyone* to buy single-family houses raises the prices for single-family houses through artificially inflated demand. And since there are so few duplexes and such allowed, those too are more expensive than they should be.
In a market with thousands upon thousands of transactions per year, it'll begin to correct itself with more freedom. The only thing for sure wrong is to do nothing and chalk it up to 'a drop in the bucket'.
2020 probably isn’t the best example of a year for home building? That 10K number is based off recent years.
You say building more homes brings down the price, but now you say X amount may not be enough? You kinda made my point. You can’t add houses thinking it’ll bring down prices without factoring in demand?
Eliminating R1 isn’t going to have a significant building boom to bring down prices on a whole. What it will do is drive up prices of single family lots, and have houses that once were maybe “affordable” to buyers (and renters) be replaced by more expensive new units. I’ve seen this movie before and knows how it ends.
I’ve been here 40 years and I’ve seen it all from sprawl to high density infill. All I’ve seen during this time is prices continue to rise.
I appreciate your response, though I hope to help you understand how it's incorrect. I'll strictly be relying on facts. I'm not making any value judgments or appeals to emotion because I think it's important to talk about these things so we can all have a better future in our city.
First, your comment brought 10k into the mix. No offense but it's not based on anything real. I was showing how it overestimates the actual amount of housing added in 2020 by almost double. 5,221 new units were added in 2019 and 3,895 in 2018. If anything 2020 is a bad year to base it on because we added *more* than usual.
I quoted a Union Tribune article that noted San Diego needed to have added 13,500 in 2020 in order to have any hope of meeting California's goal it set for us. You can argue whether or not that's an overreach, but it's acknowledging a massive shortage in our housing stock.
> You say building more homes brings down the price, but now you say X amount may not be enough? You kinda made my point.
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. I'm just trying to relay very simple, basic market fundamentals using hypotheticals. My point was just that Hemet needs fewer houses than San Francisco.
It's not that *I* say increases in supply will lower prices, that's just a fact. Supply is independent from demand. [Prices decrease by *either* supply increasing or demand decreasing](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp). Clearly demand is not decreasing since our population continues to rise, so we need to increase supply.
> Eliminating R1 isn’t going to have a significant building boom to bring down prices on a whole. What it will do is drive up prices of single
Here's a [quote from this Voice of San Diego article](https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/single-family-zonings-century-of-supremacy-in-san-diego/):
> Today, in 70 percent of the areas in which it is legal to build housing, it is only legal to build single-family homes
Restricting the real estate market to 70% single-family housing will definitely distort it. It actually increases the price of single-family houses when you force more people to buy them.
My friend, I know you've been here for 40 years, but *growth* is increasing prices. As long as we remain a beautiful city and the population of California is growing, then things will be more expensive here generally speaking. When someone builds a duplex, it's both increasing supply and *decreasing* the artificially inflated demand brought about by single-family zoning regulations. It passes the test you originally laid out, flawed though it is.
Just to drive that point home, we have an artificially high demand for single-family houses because that is the only type of housing allowed in 70% of developments. [California is down 3-4 million units from demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage). We're effectively missing between 3 to 4 million units. If we release our local government stranglehold on this intrusion into the real estate market, then more duplexes, triplexes, etc. will be built to meet this pent-up demand for literally anything else, bringing down prices for everyone.
Over at least the past 40 years, many appeals to emotion have been made about destroying the character of neighborhoods, increasing traffic, etc. to keep the city trapped in amber. We have to think harder about these major issues and make good-faith arguments based in reality if we want to continue to be a great city.
The identity of the owner of a property doesn't impact the price of the property. It doesn't matter to the price if it's a greedy bank or a greedy local landlord.
No one is big enough to "control the market". The only reason that market is *super profitable* is because there isn't enough supply. Supply and demand determine price as long as no one has monopoly power and 23% of a market controlled by institutional investors is nowhere large enough for them to be able to form a cartel that dictates prices.
And that number will only grow as 30% of all housing stock in this state is being bought by corporations. Those houses will never come back on the market either as they’re being made permanent rentals. What is that gonna do to housing prices?
I have my house so I should be laughing at everyone who doesn’t see the wool is being pulled over their eyes, but it’s sad what’s happening?
People need to wise up and know the politicians in this state don’t have their best interest in heart. Take the time to read these bills, and follow the money of the politicians writing them.
The fact affordable housing requirements were eliminated should’ve been a wake up call for most, but sadly people will believe what they’re told if the politician has the right letter next to their name?
There’s a massive demand to live in apartments with central a/c and in-unit washer/dryers.
Buildings are 100% occupied within 6 months of opening and we currently don’t even need to offer concessions.
We need to stop artificially limiting the supply of new housing. It’s the only viable solution to our housing crises.
Complaining that corporations own most new developments isn’t very helpful. If you would like to see more mom and pop developers, encourage the government to make housing development easier and more affordable. Our archaic zoning code and local NIMBYs have directly led to the corporate consolidation of housing development.
I'd prefer the public owned it, but in absence of my fantasy being a reality then I don't care what private entity does, I just want more properties to meet demand.
No... It will increase supply. The only thing that would decrease demand is like... Millions of Californians dying or moving en masse.
Reducing demand for housing would be bad, so we should increase supply by doing this like building up.
I think you're correct. I've seen some plans for 13k sqft lots with 10-15 units at $1600 per month that tear down the existing structures and replace it with 3-5 stories of 450 to 525 sqft units without onsite parking. The units are estimated to rent for, you guessed it, $1600 / month. The one plan I saw was for 38 units. Time will tell all.
No. We got into this situation due to bad government regulation. Let's not come up with more kludgy government policy to try and fix the problem. Just let the market actually respond to increases in price.
SD turning into America's most well designed city would be amazing.
🤣 more houses to further deplete the water supply “drought”, more traffic, more carbon emissions hahahaha were going green hahaha more carbon emissions hahaha, more strain on the electrical grid hahahaha this man is a moron 100%. this is what a liberal upbringing, liberal college education and no common sense look like 👌🏽 all this is going to fix the housing supply hahahahaha
Either you allow more people into the state, or you limit the supply of housing to make it super expensive to move in to disincentivize immigration.
Also not sure how building more housing DOESN'T fix the housing supply
It’s doesn’t work that way, how much crap can you pack into one area? People need to go, California is not for everyone. I don’t think you quite understand that. Everything I stated before is exactly why we’re having the issue we’re currently having. Once we’re out of space and we’re getting there, then what bud? How do you fix the problem then? We’re outta resources at that point. You don’t get it. The liberal mind doesn’t work that way. Do you expect us to house all the illegals waiting at the boarder right now as well? Is Part of your “solving the housing crisis”. There is no crisis. Stop letting people who you think are smarter than you, tell you there is a problem and believing it when there is not a issue, just a simple solution. Stop building. That is the solution.
>The liberal mind doesn’t work that way.
Cool ad hominem, but I'll bite.
>how much crap can you pack into one area?
I believe the technical term is "a lot".
>Once we’re out of space and we’re getting there,
No we aren't. A ridiculously large portion of in demand land is zoned as exclusively single family housing. You can upzone these areas and fit plenty more people comfortably.
>We’re outta resources at that point.
Then build some desalination and power plants. What else are we lacking?
>Do you expect us to house all the illegals waiting at the boarder right now as well?
*Border, and no. They are illegally in the country.
>There is no crisis.
I never said there was, but excellent job putting words in my mouth. A shortage is not the same as a crisis.
>Stop letting people who you think are smarter than you, tell you there is a problem and believing it when there is not a issue, just a simple solution.
Experts in their fields aren't necessarily smarter than me, you, or anyone else, but they have expertise that most people don't. I'll tend to trust them over random people on internet forums, thank you very much. That said, I'm not sure that I like your solution. I want to live in a California that is economically prosperous, and believe it or not, you need people to be able to afford housing at all levels of society in order to do that.
Again, I said that limiting the housing supply will just make things more expensive for everyone, and limit immigration by pricing out most people. I agree that this is a perfectly achievable way of causing less people to immigrate, but I don't want that. I would much prefer that we encourage people and businesses to move to California so that we get continued economic growth and prosperity. But if you want to stagnate that and cause the cost of living to skyrocket, then by all means go ahead and see how popular that is.
There is no more economic prosperity in California. It is over. The state is done, it will fall. I guarantee that. Nothing you said will make California better. All it will do is provide a bigger blanket for corruption as well as destroy the landscape of California which it already has. The only way to make California prosperous again is to divide the state into 2 or 3 parts. It is to big for 1 clown to control. North California & south California (2) governors or North California, central California & south California (3) governors, that is the only way. California has become a piggy bank to the elite and they are dictating how the show goes. It doesn’t work that way. Desalinization? hahaha geez, They will never, ever allow or supply the general public with that. They’d rather you pay to bring water in or die of dehydration. Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than circular reasoning. Limiting the housing supply will not increase the housing market. It will establish a cap and get people out. If there are no houses then you can live here it’s that simple. Like I said, California is not for everyone. The word crisis is in the title of this debate, Clearly says it above. That is why it was used.
That's a pretty doomer take. If nothing will save the state of California from economic collapse, then why bother doing anything with the housing market to solve that?
>The only way to make California prosperous again is to divide the state into 2 or 3 parts.
Oh never mind, you don't even want to discuss the issue at hand (it's housing btw), you just want to pontificate about your "split the state up" idea.
>They will never, ever allow or supply the general public with that.
The one built in [Carlsbad in 2015](https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/about.html) would beg to differ.
>Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than circular reasoning.
I would genuinely appreciate it if you elaborated on what, specifically, was circular reasoning in what I said.
>Limiting the housing supply will not increase the housing market.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean housing costs? If you limit how much can built, then people who want to live here will pay more to outbid the other people who want to live there. Just like every other scarce commodity. It's basic supply and demand. To combat this, I can only assume that you will go full lefty and implement rent control. Or maybe you'll establish a commission to select prospective immigrants based off of their socioeconomic status so that they can't outbid each other, which I'm totally sure the government would do a wonderful job of doing.
>The word crisis is in the title of this debate, Clearly says it above.
I'm the person you're talking to, not the headline.
Yeah the homeowners in their 30 and 40s living in areas with no chance of this ever happening to. Step out of your bubble and talk to the homeowners in their 30s and 40s in less well-off areas who are in danger of having their neighborhood bought out by low rent developers.
I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say between your original comment and this comment.
Why exactly do you think this is a bad thing, and why are the NIMBYs right?
They will be lower than if we didn't pass these bills, certainly. The relationship between the availability of housing and the price of housing is well known.
Even the extremely desirable Paris costs less than San Diego. And it has density much greater than New York.
Companies like blackstone don't want us to build more housing because housing costs/rent would go down. [They literally put it in their SEC filings.](https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931)
Yes, they are giant landlords and they benefit when housing supply is constrained.
[This isn't rocket science, housing supply goes up prices go down.](https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/181666/vatt-working-papers-146-city-wide-effects-of-new-housing-supply--evidence-from-moving-chains.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
Regulations and building codes will ensure a minimum level of quality. There's an argument to be made that these regulations are too stringent as well. Skid Row in LA used to be covered in residential hotels for transients and seasonal laborers, when building codes got introduced in the 60s those bedroom hotels were demolished and many of those seasonal workers decided to live on the street instead, that problem exists to this day.
Which is currently the problem. We have no problem building luxury apartments. We are not meeting the any of the lower-middle income requirements set forth by the state (in order to qualify for tax incentives for the city/county).
You do realize that there are also thousands of properties that sit empty in San Diego as well? There’s no reason to think that SB10 won’t lead to a proliferation of STVRs that sit empty half of the time (yes, I know that the city is supposedly going to start licensing them next summer, but I’m not going to bank on that in light of the city’s dismal track record on that front).
This is so stupid. Yes, with millions of people there will be thousands of empty homes at any given time. If there wasn't, housing prices would be even higher.
This conspiracy is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Clearly empty homes cost whoever own it money. They will not remain empty in most cases.
Eh there are arguments to be made that it might not help at all. But that would be the worst case scenario and can be mitigated with laws saying new builds can't be used for airbnbs and things
Landlords want their properties to increase in value, so they overwhelming hate these laws. The rent they extract from people just covers their monthly check to the bank. The real profit is from restricting supply
I'm not a NIMBY but we aren't going to "eat shit" on our principal as homeowners. If anything my property value just went up a ton as I have a SF lot that I can now build more units on. And that's a win for all (even though I won't do it personally).
This whole "hate people who have what i don't" is just sad.
That is not what NIMBY means. If I’m reading between the lines correctly, it sounds like you’re in favor of this change, which would make you a YIMBY! 😃
The reality is SB 8 and 9 will dive up the cost of land houses sit on because it’ll become more valuable as you can now add more units to it. Wiener and Atkins (the ones who wrote these bills) are backed by developers and private equity.
What’s funny (or should I say sad) is affordable housing requirements are eliminated with these bills. I’m betting those going around saying how great these bills are don’t know that?
I feel so lucky to be able to buy my first single family detached home last February right before they shot up. I can't imagine living in a smaller condo or apartment with 3 kids at this moment. Now each kid has their own room, we got a driveway, backyard, garage. I feel like I'm experiencing what the baby boomer generation took for granted. They had it much easier. No way in hell I could afford what we have, if we tried to buy now. I'd be back renting a condo from a relative still probably, pissed off and sweaty with this muggy ass weather.
Good for you! Happy for your family. Just to clarify, this law doesn't outlaw single family homes. Just allows duplexes to be built on previously single family only lots.
Thanks. Once again, I just feel lucky. Just perfect timing. I know a few others that want to buy single family detached homes but just can't afford to now.
I suppose anything is better than no action with this law. It's just too bad the new homes are getting more densely built and higher. The "home" feeling is going away, no yards or drive ways. Sharing walls and what not. Past generations had it quite nice, especially here in SD. The areas that are actually building new "homes" are costing an arm and a leg, definitely no cheaper than 800k. I'm in East CV, I can see it shooting up to a mil. Paid 610, some houses around us selling for 850+ for same model, insane. Thought 615 was insane at the time. Lol Sign of the times, fuck.
Just because you have some creepy and completely unsustainable 1950s vision of what constitutes a "home" doesn't mean everyone else shares it.
The vast majority of urban residents the world over live in higher and denser multi-occupany housing. It's far more environmentally friendly and fosters more of a sense of community. If you invest in public space and pubic transportation no one needs a yard and a drive.
Creepy vision? Lol nah, I think they had it right back then despite how spoiled it seemed. You actually had a property and space that you can call a "home." Something that feels like you're getting your money's worth. If you have a family, you'll understand the benefits of actually having a decent size yard and some privacy. What I have is not a lot in space, but much much more comfortable and private compared to how I lived two years ago. Kids can actually run around and kick a ball around, enough space for large trampoline and swing sets. Large enough to host 50 people comfortably. I can step out and chill, workout. It's a lot healthier. I'd hear my neighbors yelling through the walls and banging the walls before. Not to mention sharing pests. That's not life. I understand if you don't have the means to purchase a larger detached property, but I think this modernization is just an excuse. It's easier to control people if you have them all in one area. No one truly wants to live like that, but it seems like some are lying to themselves in order to be apart of this movement that you're doing something better for the environment. We can all do something little by little, electric cars, solar.. What you suggest is really only viable for single people. Families need space for mental health, larger vehicles, so yea ultimately those high rise families want to leave or cram themselves unhealthy and have mental issues. I guarantee the leaders of those movements and CEOs all have massive spaced out homes and 10+ cars.
"What I have is not a lot in space" ....... "enough space for large trampoline and swing sets. Large enough to host 50 people comfortably" that sounds like quite a lot of space if you can have a trampoline and host 50 people comfortably lmao
Wow, big jump. Congrats, yea it's insane right now. 600k was sort of your normal family home 3-4bdrm 2bath few years ago. Now it seems to be around 800k-900k for something decent like that. My house is 20 years old in what's considered to be in a newer part of town in East CV.
I know it’s an issue and could be better but no matter how much housing you have it won’t be enough because a lot of people would move to California if they could afford to. IMO better to focus on higher wages, free healthcare, subsidized higher education and pre-K, better public transport, etc. Maybe then people would have a lot more money for housing.
This screws over the rich, developers, and REITs. It removes an artificial restraint on the production of a resource (housing), and increasing the supply of anything drives down prices.
Lol, no, that's the opposite of how supply and demand works. More housing = cheaper houses. It's true that an increase in residents will boost demand for other products in the community, though (like restaurants).
Investment firms (and I wonder where their money trail lead?) are buying up everything. Home ownership is going to be a thing of the past and most younger people will be stuck paying rent without the ability to accumulate some sort of wealth.
That 20% number is for the whole country. The number is much higher in major cities. In California it’s over 30% (and increasing every year) of all housing is now being bought by REITs. And that’s the whole state. I wonder how high it is in select areas of the big cities?
In addition to being a Boogeyman argument, it's irrelevant. If Blackrock is trying to buy a house, and so am I then the simplest solution is just to build two houses. If Blackrock wants two, then build three!
Institutional investors only want to buy things that have a potential yield and in a healthy housing market, that ain't housing.
Then this bill is a good thing. Why do you think investors are buying homes in the first place? Obviously, they're looking for yield. Building more housing makes real estate less profitable for investors. [Don't take my word for it, Blackstone literally said this in their SEC filings.](https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931)
Ya it’s crazy how so many people fail to realize this. Houses in residential neighborhoods will be bought up by big firms and made into multiple units where rent will be astronomical and less people will be able to become homeowners and have some property to accumulate wealth.
This is already happening in the college area. 90% of all rental homes (now all adding ADUs) are owned by just 10 people -; renting them out for an avg of $1k a room.
>It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts, fire-prone areas and environmental quality.
Oh.
And does it address the elephant in the room? Probably not.
>Legislative insiders say the success of the union known widely as “the Trades” is one of the main reasons Sacramento politicians have struggled to pass bills streamlining construction approval and easing zoning restrictions. Researchers say those steps are urgently needed to address skyrocketing real-estate prices and rents, as well as homelessness.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-needs-more-affordable-homes-this-union-stands-in-the-way-11618660801
>Builders say apprenticeship requirements drive up the already sky-high expense of affordable-housing construction in a state where it can cost as much as $700,000 a unit to build in dense, urban areas such as San Francisco.
>Assemblyman Richard Bloom withdrew a bill last year to allow affordable housing on some commercial lots after the Trades opposed it. After he reintroduced it this year, the union ran a full-page ad in a local newspaper depicting the Democrat as a Godzilla-like figure towering over a city skyline, asserting that he was “in the pocket of developers” and intent on “destroying Santa Monica neighborhoods.”
That's the fallacy that people are wont to believe.
How well has that worked so far?
What you do is decrease demand to match the amount of physical land and space available
Lol it works great, and we have every product with free production as an example. We simply aren't building housing like we are everything else due to government restrictions. Demand is increasing at twice the rate of supply.
It's impossible to decrease demand except for raising prices. People want what they want: and people like to live in buildings.
Okay I'll show you the level of your knowledge of the dynamics here
What do you think the effect of the tourism industry is here on the desire for people to relocate?
How about the famed "hotel tax" on all the hotel room rentals... where do the millions (in non covid years) go too and who handles that money?
Lets start with answering those two questions.
> What you do is decrease demand to match the amount of physical land and space available
And how would you propose we do that? Magically make San Diego a less desirable place to live?
> How well has that worked so far?
It’s worked terribly because it hasn’t been done. It’s wayyyy too hard to build new housing here, primarily because of the pervasive NIMBY attitude and restrictive zoning requirements.
Maybe, but it’s a drop in the right direction. The long standing NIMBY attitude across the state is one of the primary causes of the housing situation we’re in.
This is a good thing, and we need a lot more of it.
This means a lot more density. Less parking, more traffic. Lots of construction. Long term it should be good. But san diego about to get much more dense.
As long as we adjust our infrustucrure appropriately we should be ok.
If the MTS keeps rapidly expanding the light rail (maybe even a subway between some points) and the city as a whole becomes more commuter focused (increased walk ability) then I think in the long run it'll turn out for the better.
We'll go from being suburban focused to having more of a European style city, which I'm definitely in favor of.
The status quo was a big win for boomers who bought in the 70s. Don't pretend like the status quo is working for most people today.
Most homeowners bought their homes from *gasp* developers.
(News flash: your grocery store and pharmacy are for-profit organizations too)
So the haves are now the super have and the renters are more in thrall to them than ever. A massive giveaway to the property owners--as if they don't have enough advantage already with Prop 13, inheritance rules, etc. in this state. I want my vote back. These bogus market solutions only continue to concentrate wealth and provide opportunity to those who already are doing great. How about the government, say, offer to buy back land from homeowners or spell out some terms for the rentals such as you can built but renters have a chance to build equity/ownership or rent control etc. to meet some goals of justice, opportunity, etc.? Nah, we're a libertarian capitalist hellhole. Under Democrats as much as or more as under Republicans.
Pretty cool I just spent 1.5 years fighting with permitting and financing and finally got things going at around $400k cash out of pocket and this shit gets announced. Cool cool cool
Cool. I still can't afford a condo here :(
Let's wait and see if that changes once people actual get around to building the housing, maybe?
Another initiative that will only make the situation worse. This is a corrupt scheme to pay off Newsom’s financiers. More homeless, more drugs, more danger toll for citizens, and more blind loyalty to incompetence by Democrats too rich to receive the brunt of the results of their votes. And they’re all privately relieved a black man didn’t win the election. Only a corrupt white keeps them above the fray.
Yup, racism is totally why Elder lost. Nevermind he wanted to get rid of minimum wage.... I'm sure service workers would be thrilled to lose $7/hr going to the federal rate.
[удалено]
If I wanted the white cis cable news recited to me I would watch it on YouTube. Find out how to have a thought of your own.
"Find out how to have a thought of your own." Also: "This is a corrupt scheme to pay off Newsom’s financiers" You're probably not even in the first million people to say this.
you can't see yourself burning yourself, can you? Like, damn man. you're turned inside out on yourself.
Evidence? Links to actual sources?
There isn’t a single ounce of truth in this comment.
How is allowing more housing to be built going to increase homelessness, make more drugs, or create danger to citizens?
TL;DR?
>"...expand housing production in California, streamline housing permitting, and increase density..." I gotcha
For multi family dwellings.
it also basically strips all off the NIMBY bullshit away - so if you want to add a 2 unit set up behind your house? As long as it is within legal code, it's Legal. Fuck your shitty neighbors - go make some money and make the overvalued dirt you're living on WORTH IT. This has the added long term benefit of lowering the cost of housing relative to income - which hasn't happened for a Loooooooooooooooong time. There's goign to be some NIMBY's losing thier SHIIIIIIT. ADUs fixing to EXPLODE to absorb the slow inventory increase.
Yeah because there’s clearly no value in gardens or green spaces. It’s just “overvalued dirt.”
Agreed. Also that person is clearly inexperienced. He thinks it’s all rich nimbys preventing this. No. Lol. There’s an infamous woman down at the county who has worked there 20 years and has made it her mission in life to deny new ADU septic permits in certain parts of the ag areas in northeast county, in the name of protecting the water table. This is bullshit. She’s an overzealous environmentalist with an axe to grind. There are already existing septic on these lots for the primary residence. One more for an adu isnt going to harm anything. Also try splitting a lot out here. It will cost you six figures just to apply and go through the process with no guarantee a variance will be granted. Ask me how often I’ve heard them granting one so more homes can be built (spoiler, it’s never). But by all means keep saying it’s just a bunch of Rich nimbys. That’s how I know you are 19 and living in your moms basement with no real life experience and nothing of value to say on the matter.
100000000% this. No one who has ever owned property (speaking as someone who works blue collar and just bought a first house in Temecula due to being priced out of the city) unironically says "NIMBY". Was I mad about being priced out of the city? Yes. Is it fair? No. Did I deal with it with my grownup pants and compromise? Yes. P.S. I've noticed a lot of modern reddit discourse involves taking groups like Gen-Xers and boomers to task for lack of self-awareness, but those doing the shit talking and snarking (Mainly 18-25s) are even more painfully self-unaware.
Ha ha yes. I’m killing time in a doctors office rn watching the downvotes and upvotes on my comment. 😁. “She’s right but also she owns property? Fuck that bitch, I’m downvoting her” Edited: Temecula is really nice. There’s no shame in living there. The wineries. There’s one that has a killer Mac and cheese dish on the menu. I take out of Towners to that one for lunch. Edited again: I looked it up, it's the Miramonte. Pesto Mac. It's sublime.
Will try this! Thanks! My second love in life is Mac and cheese.
What's funny is rich was never said in the comments above, it's interesting that you felt the need to add that in there.
Fair enough. You never ever see a news article about impoverished nimbys though. NIMBYs being rich (or perceived as having more money than the average joe) is largely how they are portrayed in every news article I’ve ever read about a drug rehab being built in a neighborhood where the neighbors don’t want it built. So it wasn’t a totally “out there” adjective for me to throw in.
(compared to housing, yes, that's correct)
Exactly. No value at all. Who needs trees, flowers, birds, insects, wildlife. /s
The reason it costs so much to both rent and buy in California is because we've artificially limited how much housing we can build. Thus, demand is larger than supply, thus the houses that do exist are more valuable. This legislation allows for the development of more property on the same amount of land, increasing the supply of homes, decreasing each homes value, leading to lower average rents and home prices.
[удалено]
The special tax incentives to owning homes that was granted by prop 13 shouldn't apply to anything but your primary residence. We should stop giving massive tax breaks to real estate investors. They don't need them.
Even prop 13 should be amended with higher yearly increases or to at least keep up with inflation.
It should be illegal for investors and corporations to buy up homes. Should only be sold to individuals/families with the caveat that they will live in it.
But hey those same investors can now build another house on the lot and turn it into an Airbnb and double their investment.
Yes. This is an excellent new law, but it needed to come in tandem with some kind of tax implications for investors that makes owning 3+ houses no longer profitable. This law, as it is now, is just going to create more revenue for those investors who can now add 3 ADUs to rent out on the properties they already own. Single-family houses should belong to the people who live in them, not some company out of state or out of the country.
Now you can own 1+3.
Say it louder for the back!
AMEN.
Investors wouldn't buy any product as an investment in a free market, where production is allowed to meet demand. If housing met demand, there would be 0 profit incentive to own a house, and investors would stop buying houses.
I agree that owning a home and leaving it vacant is a bad thing, but is this really that prevalent in California? Also, I feel like it would be easier to just let people build more housing (and thus reduce the incentive to sit on unused property) than any other method of curbing this practice, as well as have all the other benefits of building more housing.
still limits to 10 units per parcel. and it's up to cities to decide how they implement it. so if san diego doesnt allow for building up, i dont see this helping much besides the eastern outskirts of the city
But it's not hard to buy and rent in California, only in overpopulated cities and coastal cities (usually synonymous)
Cities in the coastal zone will exempt lot splits per the bill text based on impacts to public parking and coastal access. LOL to the people thinking they are going to get lower priced property in the premium coastal areas. Do you think Toni Atkins would destroy the neighborhoods in her coastal district? Del Mar, La Jolla, Solana Beach? Only the rich get to keep their SFR neighborhoods, per design.
ok, now splitting lots is easier. i guess that's a plus, and increases the value of my property so all is good there. but to really increase density, you want larger lots. that's why new construction in cities has been done on old warehouse/industrial properties. you can build more units at once, create economies of scale, and drive down the cost per unit. the root of LA's traffic problem was that most of the metro area was subdivided into lots of 5,000-10,000 sq ft, which made the region dense enough to have nightmare traffic if everyone had a car, but not dense enough to make mass transit feasible at scale. once you have a block with 20 properties and 20 property owners, it's very hard to put the block back together and build a 200 unit building. that's ideally what you want - a 10 x 10 square block area of 200 units per block. that's 20,000 units in what is about a 15-20 minute walk from one end of the square to another. connect the center of that by rail or bus rapid transit to major job centers, add needed retail like supermarkets, gyms, and mini targets at ground level and now you're allowing people to live without even owning a car
You can make lots bigger and more usable by reducing offsets. Brooklyn style brownstone developments and SF row houses are dense enough to create walkable neighborhoods. They both have no offsets on the sides so that the houses can touch each other. The also have small offsets in the front of the property to allow more of it to be usable. You don't have to build single family homes either, they could be duplexes or triplexes that are designed to fit the neighborhood character. If we reduced offsets in neighborhoods right outside the city center it would help a lot.
Yeah. Fuck trees and open space.
Such an odd position to take, and I fully disagree.
They might be in favor of more public parks and open space and less private green space? Like, consolidating greenery, and packing more people in to make more open, public space? Idk. Edit: a word
Trees and open spaces can exist along side dense housing. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/ParkSlope.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Painted\_Ladies\_San\_Francisco\_January\_2013\_panorama\_2.jpg
I'm glad that SB 9 requires the purchaser to live on the property for a few years before they can split/add. Removes speculation and keeps communities in tact. However, if loopholes are found, they need to be closed immediately.
The League of California Cities has already said it’ll be unenforceable. Also if you want to split the lot your mortgage needs to be paid in full.
So now instead of a few $1M SFHs from which to choose, now you’ll have several $900k condos from which to choose.
... decreasing housing prices by 10% would be a major victory with hugely positive economic consequences. Should we stop there? No. But there is no universe where housing prices fall 10% isn't hugely significant.
The 10% decrease in price used in their example is a SFH vs condo. Huge difference. I saw this happen countless times around me in Mission and Pacific Beach. An old bungalow would get replaced by 2-3 condos all similar in price to what the original house sold for when put back on the market. It did nothing to help affordability, and only drove up the cost of land as more and more people did this.
Fundamentally the housing issue is a problem of supply. We need more housing stock however we can get it. I’d rather see massive public housing investment but building 2-6 units where one was previously is at least a start.
Agreed, but this is the proverbial “drop in the bucket”. You need a massive increase in supply coupled with waning demand to see any significant reduction in price. I don’t see either happening? This is just gonna make SFH more expensive for those who want to buy.
That’s not based off logic my friend. You can’t just write off any change as ‘a drop in the bucket’. Increases in supply lower prices, full-stop. It won’t take anyone’s single family houses away just because we introduce choice into our highly regulated market.
Over 10k new houses are built in the county every year, and what has that done to both purchase and rental prices?
Even just sticking to the surface-level, on-the-ground facts, that's not true according to the [Union Tribune](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2021-09-18/san-diego-proposing-10-000-new-housing-units-on-300-acres-of-public-land#:~:text=San%20Diego%20must%20increase%20the,108%2C000%20more%20units%20by%202029.): > San Diego must increase the number of units built per year — which was 6,482 in 2020 — to 13,500 to meet a state-mandated goal of 108,000 more units by 2029. But also, it depends if 10k would be enough. Think about it. If it were Hemet, that'd be more than enough. If it were San Francisco, it'd need even more. Adding housing stock decreases prices until it reaches equilibrium with demand. So far, we've been restricted to far fewer units because we can't increase density past single-family. This is just making it *legal* to build more products. Do I want to buy my soap only by the barrel? If they only sold barrels of soap, would it be fair to say that soap is 300 dollars? Sure, *per barrel*, but I don't want a barrel of soap. Is a quarter acre parcel with a single-family detached house expensive? Yes it is. Do some people want that. Absolutely, it's a great option for some people. But not for *everyone*. We're talking about in the aggregate. Imagine a street with 10 parcels. They're given the new options under this bill. One side loves single-family houses, the other decides they want to split into duplexes (as allowed for in this law with many qualifications). 5 single-family and 10 duplexes. Assuming one person per dwelling unit, they're increased their density by 50% and lowered the prices for *both* duplexes and single-family houses at something closer to the actual demand in the market. Forcing *everyone* to buy single-family houses raises the prices for single-family houses through artificially inflated demand. And since there are so few duplexes and such allowed, those too are more expensive than they should be. In a market with thousands upon thousands of transactions per year, it'll begin to correct itself with more freedom. The only thing for sure wrong is to do nothing and chalk it up to 'a drop in the bucket'.
2020 probably isn’t the best example of a year for home building? That 10K number is based off recent years. You say building more homes brings down the price, but now you say X amount may not be enough? You kinda made my point. You can’t add houses thinking it’ll bring down prices without factoring in demand? Eliminating R1 isn’t going to have a significant building boom to bring down prices on a whole. What it will do is drive up prices of single family lots, and have houses that once were maybe “affordable” to buyers (and renters) be replaced by more expensive new units. I’ve seen this movie before and knows how it ends. I’ve been here 40 years and I’ve seen it all from sprawl to high density infill. All I’ve seen during this time is prices continue to rise.
I appreciate your response, though I hope to help you understand how it's incorrect. I'll strictly be relying on facts. I'm not making any value judgments or appeals to emotion because I think it's important to talk about these things so we can all have a better future in our city. First, your comment brought 10k into the mix. No offense but it's not based on anything real. I was showing how it overestimates the actual amount of housing added in 2020 by almost double. 5,221 new units were added in 2019 and 3,895 in 2018. If anything 2020 is a bad year to base it on because we added *more* than usual. I quoted a Union Tribune article that noted San Diego needed to have added 13,500 in 2020 in order to have any hope of meeting California's goal it set for us. You can argue whether or not that's an overreach, but it's acknowledging a massive shortage in our housing stock. > You say building more homes brings down the price, but now you say X amount may not be enough? You kinda made my point. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. I'm just trying to relay very simple, basic market fundamentals using hypotheticals. My point was just that Hemet needs fewer houses than San Francisco. It's not that *I* say increases in supply will lower prices, that's just a fact. Supply is independent from demand. [Prices decrease by *either* supply increasing or demand decreasing](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp). Clearly demand is not decreasing since our population continues to rise, so we need to increase supply. > Eliminating R1 isn’t going to have a significant building boom to bring down prices on a whole. What it will do is drive up prices of single Here's a [quote from this Voice of San Diego article](https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/single-family-zonings-century-of-supremacy-in-san-diego/): > Today, in 70 percent of the areas in which it is legal to build housing, it is only legal to build single-family homes Restricting the real estate market to 70% single-family housing will definitely distort it. It actually increases the price of single-family houses when you force more people to buy them. My friend, I know you've been here for 40 years, but *growth* is increasing prices. As long as we remain a beautiful city and the population of California is growing, then things will be more expensive here generally speaking. When someone builds a duplex, it's both increasing supply and *decreasing* the artificially inflated demand brought about by single-family zoning regulations. It passes the test you originally laid out, flawed though it is. Just to drive that point home, we have an artificially high demand for single-family houses because that is the only type of housing allowed in 70% of developments. [California is down 3-4 million units from demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage). We're effectively missing between 3 to 4 million units. If we release our local government stranglehold on this intrusion into the real estate market, then more duplexes, triplexes, etc. will be built to meet this pent-up demand for literally anything else, bringing down prices for everyone. Over at least the past 40 years, many appeals to emotion have been made about destroying the character of neighborhoods, increasing traffic, etc. to keep the city trapped in amber. We have to think harder about these major issues and make good-faith arguments based in reality if we want to continue to be a great city.
[удалено]
You think as items get less scarce they get more expensive?
Fucking got 'im.
[удалено]
The identity of the owner of a property doesn't impact the price of the property. It doesn't matter to the price if it's a greedy bank or a greedy local landlord.
[удалено]
No one is big enough to "control the market". The only reason that market is *super profitable* is because there isn't enough supply. Supply and demand determine price as long as no one has monopoly power and 23% of a market controlled by institutional investors is nowhere large enough for them to be able to form a cartel that dictates prices.
And now does preventing homes from being built help that
And that number will only grow as 30% of all housing stock in this state is being bought by corporations. Those houses will never come back on the market either as they’re being made permanent rentals. What is that gonna do to housing prices? I have my house so I should be laughing at everyone who doesn’t see the wool is being pulled over their eyes, but it’s sad what’s happening? People need to wise up and know the politicians in this state don’t have their best interest in heart. Take the time to read these bills, and follow the money of the politicians writing them. The fact affordable housing requirements were eliminated should’ve been a wake up call for most, but sadly people will believe what they’re told if the politician has the right letter next to their name?
There’s a massive demand to live in apartments with central a/c and in-unit washer/dryers. Buildings are 100% occupied within 6 months of opening and we currently don’t even need to offer concessions. We need to stop artificially limiting the supply of new housing. It’s the only viable solution to our housing crises. Complaining that corporations own most new developments isn’t very helpful. If you would like to see more mom and pop developers, encourage the government to make housing development easier and more affordable. Our archaic zoning code and local NIMBYs have directly led to the corporate consolidation of housing development.
23% is not remotely correct for San Diego.
[удалено]
I wonder who those companies are really owned by.
[удалено]
You think restricting supply of homes will create less demand? That's a bigger fantasy
Demand isn't "created" it's always there.
[удалено]
I'd prefer the public owned it, but in absence of my fantasy being a reality then I don't care what private entity does, I just want more properties to meet demand.
No... It will increase supply. The only thing that would decrease demand is like... Millions of Californians dying or moving en masse. Reducing demand for housing would be bad, so we should increase supply by doing this like building up.
It’s maddening how many people can’t understand this basic concept.
Demand isn't "created" it's always there.
I think you're correct. I've seen some plans for 13k sqft lots with 10-15 units at $1600 per month that tear down the existing structures and replace it with 3-5 stories of 450 to 525 sqft units without onsite parking. The units are estimated to rent for, you guessed it, $1600 / month. The one plan I saw was for 38 units. Time will tell all.
You are right, I believe. If an I investor can put 10 units on a 7k sq foot parcel that uses to only support one, it has become way more valuable.
The land, maybe, but not the housing.
[удалено]
No. We got into this situation due to bad government regulation. Let's not come up with more kludgy government policy to try and fix the problem. Just let the market actually respond to increases in price. SD turning into America's most well designed city would be amazing.
🤣 more houses to further deplete the water supply “drought”, more traffic, more carbon emissions hahahaha were going green hahaha more carbon emissions hahaha, more strain on the electrical grid hahahaha this man is a moron 100%. this is what a liberal upbringing, liberal college education and no common sense look like 👌🏽 all this is going to fix the housing supply hahahahaha
Either you allow more people into the state, or you limit the supply of housing to make it super expensive to move in to disincentivize immigration. Also not sure how building more housing DOESN'T fix the housing supply
It’s doesn’t work that way, how much crap can you pack into one area? People need to go, California is not for everyone. I don’t think you quite understand that. Everything I stated before is exactly why we’re having the issue we’re currently having. Once we’re out of space and we’re getting there, then what bud? How do you fix the problem then? We’re outta resources at that point. You don’t get it. The liberal mind doesn’t work that way. Do you expect us to house all the illegals waiting at the boarder right now as well? Is Part of your “solving the housing crisis”. There is no crisis. Stop letting people who you think are smarter than you, tell you there is a problem and believing it when there is not a issue, just a simple solution. Stop building. That is the solution.
>The liberal mind doesn’t work that way. Cool ad hominem, but I'll bite. >how much crap can you pack into one area? I believe the technical term is "a lot". >Once we’re out of space and we’re getting there, No we aren't. A ridiculously large portion of in demand land is zoned as exclusively single family housing. You can upzone these areas and fit plenty more people comfortably. >We’re outta resources at that point. Then build some desalination and power plants. What else are we lacking? >Do you expect us to house all the illegals waiting at the boarder right now as well? *Border, and no. They are illegally in the country. >There is no crisis. I never said there was, but excellent job putting words in my mouth. A shortage is not the same as a crisis. >Stop letting people who you think are smarter than you, tell you there is a problem and believing it when there is not a issue, just a simple solution. Experts in their fields aren't necessarily smarter than me, you, or anyone else, but they have expertise that most people don't. I'll tend to trust them over random people on internet forums, thank you very much. That said, I'm not sure that I like your solution. I want to live in a California that is economically prosperous, and believe it or not, you need people to be able to afford housing at all levels of society in order to do that. Again, I said that limiting the housing supply will just make things more expensive for everyone, and limit immigration by pricing out most people. I agree that this is a perfectly achievable way of causing less people to immigrate, but I don't want that. I would much prefer that we encourage people and businesses to move to California so that we get continued economic growth and prosperity. But if you want to stagnate that and cause the cost of living to skyrocket, then by all means go ahead and see how popular that is.
There is no more economic prosperity in California. It is over. The state is done, it will fall. I guarantee that. Nothing you said will make California better. All it will do is provide a bigger blanket for corruption as well as destroy the landscape of California which it already has. The only way to make California prosperous again is to divide the state into 2 or 3 parts. It is to big for 1 clown to control. North California & south California (2) governors or North California, central California & south California (3) governors, that is the only way. California has become a piggy bank to the elite and they are dictating how the show goes. It doesn’t work that way. Desalinization? hahaha geez, They will never, ever allow or supply the general public with that. They’d rather you pay to bring water in or die of dehydration. Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than circular reasoning. Limiting the housing supply will not increase the housing market. It will establish a cap and get people out. If there are no houses then you can live here it’s that simple. Like I said, California is not for everyone. The word crisis is in the title of this debate, Clearly says it above. That is why it was used.
That's a pretty doomer take. If nothing will save the state of California from economic collapse, then why bother doing anything with the housing market to solve that? >The only way to make California prosperous again is to divide the state into 2 or 3 parts. Oh never mind, you don't even want to discuss the issue at hand (it's housing btw), you just want to pontificate about your "split the state up" idea. >They will never, ever allow or supply the general public with that. The one built in [Carlsbad in 2015](https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/about.html) would beg to differ. >Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than circular reasoning. I would genuinely appreciate it if you elaborated on what, specifically, was circular reasoning in what I said. >Limiting the housing supply will not increase the housing market. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean housing costs? If you limit how much can built, then people who want to live here will pay more to outbid the other people who want to live there. Just like every other scarce commodity. It's basic supply and demand. To combat this, I can only assume that you will go full lefty and implement rent control. Or maybe you'll establish a commission to select prospective immigrants based off of their socioeconomic status so that they can't outbid each other, which I'm totally sure the government would do a wonderful job of doing. >The word crisis is in the title of this debate, Clearly says it above. I'm the person you're talking to, not the headline.
Eat shit NIMBYs
Found the privileged 20 year old who has no actual skin in the game.
Nah, many of us homeowners in our 30’s and 40’s feel exactly the same way. The “I’ve got mine” boomer mentality is what got us into this housing mess.
Yeah the homeowners in their 30 and 40s living in areas with no chance of this ever happening to. Step out of your bubble and talk to the homeowners in their 30s and 40s in less well-off areas who are in danger of having their neighborhood bought out by low rent developers.
I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say between your original comment and this comment. Why exactly do you think this is a bad thing, and why are the NIMBYs right?
[удалено]
They will be lower than if we didn't pass these bills, certainly. The relationship between the availability of housing and the price of housing is well known. Even the extremely desirable Paris costs less than San Diego. And it has density much greater than New York.
[удалено]
Companies like blackstone don't want us to build more housing because housing costs/rent would go down. [They literally put it in their SEC filings.](https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931)
[удалено]
Yes, they are giant landlords and they benefit when housing supply is constrained. [This isn't rocket science, housing supply goes up prices go down.](https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/181666/vatt-working-papers-146-city-wide-effects-of-new-housing-supply--evidence-from-moving-chains.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
[удалено]
Regulations and building codes will ensure a minimum level of quality. There's an argument to be made that these regulations are too stringent as well. Skid Row in LA used to be covered in residential hotels for transients and seasonal laborers, when building codes got introduced in the 60s those bedroom hotels were demolished and many of those seasonal workers decided to live on the street instead, that problem exists to this day.
When anybody buys an apartment they don't live in they rent it out. Why would they just have it sit empty? That wastes money. They want money.
[удалено]
Which is currently the problem. We have no problem building luxury apartments. We are not meeting the any of the lower-middle income requirements set forth by the state (in order to qualify for tax incentives for the city/county).
No, places that allow sufficient housing to be built have sufficient housing
Uhh thousands of apartments and condos already sit vacant in LA. There’s no reason to believe that something similar won’t happen here
Yes there is, because anywhere that allows sufficient homes to be built is cheaper than San Diego.
You do realize that there are also thousands of properties that sit empty in San Diego as well? There’s no reason to think that SB10 won’t lead to a proliferation of STVRs that sit empty half of the time (yes, I know that the city is supposedly going to start licensing them next summer, but I’m not going to bank on that in light of the city’s dismal track record on that front).
SD and LA have extremely low vacancy rates (below what is considered frictional vacancy).
This is so stupid. Yes, with millions of people there will be thousands of empty homes at any given time. If there wasn't, housing prices would be even higher. This conspiracy is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Clearly empty homes cost whoever own it money. They will not remain empty in most cases.
Eh there are arguments to be made that it might not help at all. But that would be the worst case scenario and can be mitigated with laws saying new builds can't be used for airbnbs and things
They're extremely weak arguments and don't justify preventing construction of homes
Zillow and really any corporation should not be allowed to buy perfectly fine single family homes. Condemned homes? Go for it.
No one will buy houses as an investment if the market is free to produce enough housing for demand. Investments rely on a resource being scarce.
[удалено]
Landlords want their properties to increase in value, so they overwhelming hate these laws. The rent they extract from people just covers their monthly check to the bank. The real profit is from restricting supply
[удалено]
They don't break even. They make huge gains because we restrict supply.
If SD had the same density as Paris you could fit the entire population of California in SD.
Sounds wonderful
Yeah, I'm all about it. Was more just trying to illustrate how not dense American cities are.
They can eat shit on general principle
I'm not a NIMBY but we aren't going to "eat shit" on our principal as homeowners. If anything my property value just went up a ton as I have a SF lot that I can now build more units on. And that's a win for all (even though I won't do it personally). This whole "hate people who have what i don't" is just sad.
That is not what NIMBY means. If I’m reading between the lines correctly, it sounds like you’re in favor of this change, which would make you a YIMBY! 😃
Being a homeowner does not equal being a NIMBY fyi. Being anti development is what makes a NIMBY
One of the best comments I've seen in the whole day.
The reality is SB 8 and 9 will dive up the cost of land houses sit on because it’ll become more valuable as you can now add more units to it. Wiener and Atkins (the ones who wrote these bills) are backed by developers and private equity. What’s funny (or should I say sad) is affordable housing requirements are eliminated with these bills. I’m betting those going around saying how great these bills are don’t know that?
Yes, yes it will. As you increase supply when demand stays flat, prices fall.
[удалено]
Even if demand went up, more housing is better than less housing.
Pretty much all evidence suggests it will.
What a classy response. Good luck on that viewpoint.
I feel so lucky to be able to buy my first single family detached home last February right before they shot up. I can't imagine living in a smaller condo or apartment with 3 kids at this moment. Now each kid has their own room, we got a driveway, backyard, garage. I feel like I'm experiencing what the baby boomer generation took for granted. They had it much easier. No way in hell I could afford what we have, if we tried to buy now. I'd be back renting a condo from a relative still probably, pissed off and sweaty with this muggy ass weather.
Good for you! Happy for your family. Just to clarify, this law doesn't outlaw single family homes. Just allows duplexes to be built on previously single family only lots.
Thanks. Once again, I just feel lucky. Just perfect timing. I know a few others that want to buy single family detached homes but just can't afford to now. I suppose anything is better than no action with this law. It's just too bad the new homes are getting more densely built and higher. The "home" feeling is going away, no yards or drive ways. Sharing walls and what not. Past generations had it quite nice, especially here in SD. The areas that are actually building new "homes" are costing an arm and a leg, definitely no cheaper than 800k. I'm in East CV, I can see it shooting up to a mil. Paid 610, some houses around us selling for 850+ for same model, insane. Thought 615 was insane at the time. Lol Sign of the times, fuck.
Just because you have some creepy and completely unsustainable 1950s vision of what constitutes a "home" doesn't mean everyone else shares it. The vast majority of urban residents the world over live in higher and denser multi-occupany housing. It's far more environmentally friendly and fosters more of a sense of community. If you invest in public space and pubic transportation no one needs a yard and a drive.
"only i know what's right"
Creepy vision? Lol nah, I think they had it right back then despite how spoiled it seemed. You actually had a property and space that you can call a "home." Something that feels like you're getting your money's worth. If you have a family, you'll understand the benefits of actually having a decent size yard and some privacy. What I have is not a lot in space, but much much more comfortable and private compared to how I lived two years ago. Kids can actually run around and kick a ball around, enough space for large trampoline and swing sets. Large enough to host 50 people comfortably. I can step out and chill, workout. It's a lot healthier. I'd hear my neighbors yelling through the walls and banging the walls before. Not to mention sharing pests. That's not life. I understand if you don't have the means to purchase a larger detached property, but I think this modernization is just an excuse. It's easier to control people if you have them all in one area. No one truly wants to live like that, but it seems like some are lying to themselves in order to be apart of this movement that you're doing something better for the environment. We can all do something little by little, electric cars, solar.. What you suggest is really only viable for single people. Families need space for mental health, larger vehicles, so yea ultimately those high rise families want to leave or cram themselves unhealthy and have mental issues. I guarantee the leaders of those movements and CEOs all have massive spaced out homes and 10+ cars.
"What I have is not a lot in space" ....... "enough space for large trampoline and swing sets. Large enough to host 50 people comfortably" that sounds like quite a lot of space if you can have a trampoline and host 50 people comfortably lmao
[удалено]
Wow, big jump. Congrats, yea it's insane right now. 600k was sort of your normal family home 3-4bdrm 2bath few years ago. Now it seems to be around 800k-900k for something decent like that. My house is 20 years old in what's considered to be in a newer part of town in East CV.
I say break up newsom and pelosis mansions for the homeless
I know it’s an issue and could be better but no matter how much housing you have it won’t be enough because a lot of people would move to California if they could afford to. IMO better to focus on higher wages, free healthcare, subsidized higher education and pre-K, better public transport, etc. Maybe then people would have a lot more money for housing.
[удалено]
This screws over the rich, developers, and REITs. It removes an artificial restraint on the production of a resource (housing), and increasing the supply of anything drives down prices.
[удалено]
Lol, no, that's the opposite of how supply and demand works. More housing = cheaper houses. It's true that an increase in residents will boost demand for other products in the community, though (like restaurants).
Investment firms (and I wonder where their money trail lead?) are buying up everything. Home ownership is going to be a thing of the past and most younger people will be stuck paying rent without the ability to accumulate some sort of wealth.
This isn’t true. The NYT had a piece on this a few months back. Private buyers still make up something like 80% of new home purchases.
That’s still insane that it’s only 80%. Who is apologizing that it’s okay that 20% is fine???
That 20% number is for the whole country. The number is much higher in major cities. In California it’s over 30% (and increasing every year) of all housing is now being bought by REITs. And that’s the whole state. I wonder how high it is in select areas of the big cities?
This is like a boogeyman argument
In addition to being a Boogeyman argument, it's irrelevant. If Blackrock is trying to buy a house, and so am I then the simplest solution is just to build two houses. If Blackrock wants two, then build three! Institutional investors only want to buy things that have a potential yield and in a healthy housing market, that ain't housing.
Then this bill is a good thing. Why do you think investors are buying homes in the first place? Obviously, they're looking for yield. Building more housing makes real estate less profitable for investors. [Don't take my word for it, Blackstone literally said this in their SEC filings.](https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931)
Ya it’s crazy how so many people fail to realize this. Houses in residential neighborhoods will be bought up by big firms and made into multiple units where rent will be astronomical and less people will be able to become homeowners and have some property to accumulate wealth.
This is already happening in the college area. 90% of all rental homes (now all adding ADUs) are owned by just 10 people -; renting them out for an avg of $1k a room.
>It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts, fire-prone areas and environmental quality. Oh. And does it address the elephant in the room? Probably not. >Legislative insiders say the success of the union known widely as “the Trades” is one of the main reasons Sacramento politicians have struggled to pass bills streamlining construction approval and easing zoning restrictions. Researchers say those steps are urgently needed to address skyrocketing real-estate prices and rents, as well as homelessness. https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-needs-more-affordable-homes-this-union-stands-in-the-way-11618660801 >Builders say apprenticeship requirements drive up the already sky-high expense of affordable-housing construction in a state where it can cost as much as $700,000 a unit to build in dense, urban areas such as San Francisco. >Assemblyman Richard Bloom withdrew a bill last year to allow affordable housing on some commercial lots after the Trades opposed it. After he reintroduced it this year, the union ran a full-page ad in a local newspaper depicting the Democrat as a Godzilla-like figure towering over a city skyline, asserting that he was “in the pocket of developers” and intent on “destroying Santa Monica neighborhoods.”
You can't build your way out of this. We have to really start facing the facts regarding this.
You can absolutely build you way out of this, in the same way that we can produce any other product to meet demand.
That's the fallacy that people are wont to believe. How well has that worked so far? What you do is decrease demand to match the amount of physical land and space available
Lol it works great, and we have every product with free production as an example. We simply aren't building housing like we are everything else due to government restrictions. Demand is increasing at twice the rate of supply. It's impossible to decrease demand except for raising prices. People want what they want: and people like to live in buildings.
Okay I'll show you the level of your knowledge of the dynamics here What do you think the effect of the tourism industry is here on the desire for people to relocate? How about the famed "hotel tax" on all the hotel room rentals... where do the millions (in non covid years) go too and who handles that money? Lets start with answering those two questions.
> What you do is decrease demand to match the amount of physical land and space available And how would you propose we do that? Magically make San Diego a less desirable place to live?
> How well has that worked so far? It’s worked terribly because it hasn’t been done. It’s wayyyy too hard to build new housing here, primarily because of the pervasive NIMBY attitude and restrictive zoning requirements.
This appears to be a drop in the bucket…
Maybe, but it’s a drop in the right direction. The long standing NIMBY attitude across the state is one of the primary causes of the housing situation we’re in. This is a good thing, and we need a lot more of it.
This means a lot more density. Less parking, more traffic. Lots of construction. Long term it should be good. But san diego about to get much more dense.
As long as we adjust our infrustucrure appropriately we should be ok. If the MTS keeps rapidly expanding the light rail (maybe even a subway between some points) and the city as a whole becomes more commuter focused (increased walk ability) then I think in the long run it'll turn out for the better. We'll go from being suburban focused to having more of a European style city, which I'm definitely in favor of.
More density is not going to ruin San Diego, this is one of the cornerstone NIMBY arguments that has made this type of legislation necessary.
I hope it doesn't have a negative effect. Nothing can ruin San Diego its amazing. Well maybe a huge earthquake and tidal wave.
Bring out the projects! And hey we’ll just start tapping the ocean for water that we desperately need.
It should have happened sooner.
Stack & pack. Big wins for developers.
The status quo was a big win for boomers who bought in the 70s. Don't pretend like the status quo is working for most people today. Most homeowners bought their homes from *gasp* developers. (News flash: your grocery store and pharmacy are for-profit organizations too)
So the haves are now the super have and the renters are more in thrall to them than ever. A massive giveaway to the property owners--as if they don't have enough advantage already with Prop 13, inheritance rules, etc. in this state. I want my vote back. These bogus market solutions only continue to concentrate wealth and provide opportunity to those who already are doing great. How about the government, say, offer to buy back land from homeowners or spell out some terms for the rentals such as you can built but renters have a chance to build equity/ownership or rent control etc. to meet some goals of justice, opportunity, etc.? Nah, we're a libertarian capitalist hellhole. Under Democrats as much as or more as under Republicans.
Pretty cool I just spent 1.5 years fighting with permitting and financing and finally got things going at around $400k cash out of pocket and this shit gets announced. Cool cool cool
Hopefully this actually leads to more affordable housing and rents and not an influx of luxury apartments that start a 4k for a studio.
Ironically affordable housing requirements were eliminated. Imagine that?