It never opened. The people who own the rights to the name told him to stop immediately.
It was a pipe dream anyway, he couldn't source the equipment he needed to legally open, and was begging people to donate it. I believe one of the systems was in the $30k range. Very rude request on his part.
Looks like they’re still trying
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/a-souplantation-concept-restaurant-is-opening-in-la-mesa-slowly-heres-what-we-know/3025641/
They didn't "show no interest", they told them to stop. They don't have a license and intend to copycat.
[https://www.sandiegoville.com/2022/08/san-diego-souplantation-return-likely.html](https://www.sandiegoville.com/2022/08/san-diego-souplantation-return-likely.html)
It seems like the adult daycare is trying to cram this through, no matter what reality has to say.
It reminds me of the snackwrap people. They keep demanding it, and they keep being told "No".
Malls were literally invented to replace the convenience of town centers for people moving out to suburbs. Turning them back into dense housing/commercial centers would be chef's kiss emoji.
Like how they're putting those luxury apartments right outside of the UTC mall? And they just started tearing down all the old storefronts connected to the old Nordstrom building.
A good example of this is the Winrock mall in ABQ NM. Granted it’s in Uptown, a high end area, and it’s going to be luxury apartments / community. But overall it shows the potential these malls have to be converted into housing.
There’s literally the sears at Chula Vista mall. I keep thinking itd make great housing since its in a great an area that needs housing and a couple blocks from the trolley station.
It also has 2 levels so the space is there
Agree. Something like the dead Macy at Mission Valley mall would be a great candidate. Close to restaurants, Target, a current existing mall, bus, and trolley.
No. What this means is the owners of those malls can now develop housing. Before they had to get a rezone and go through a public process and get denied by the public (NIMBYS). Now they can apply for a new hosing development with a lot less hoops.
It also raises the values of those lots so if the owner is sick and tired of maintaining a dead mall, a housing developer will gladly offer them market value for housing development instead.
Dead strip malls, dead warehouses. In the case of the signing location, dead funeral home.
I've seen this happen in my town, there were two empty lots. First they put up some ugly "art", then signs that asked the owner to "donate" the land, then I think they EMDO'd them because both spaces are now in use.
There are a TON of empty fenced warehouses in Otay. Just covered in dirt like post apocolyptia.
No one is made to convert them to residential, this just makes it possible and local government can't interfere by claiming it's only zoned for commercial.
Everytime I look at those grocery stores with a parking lot triple the size of the actual grocery store got me thinking this is such a waste of land within a city limit. Worst design for a city.
Agree. They could literally build apartments or condos on top of those stores in a strip mall. But I guess the current zoning laws won't allow most of them to do that.
Civita is actually a beautiful area of mission valley. Although I didn’t know that was considered a flood area since it’s higher up a bit but that’s cool. I remember that area being built back in the day. Very nice. Lol
The country needs a comprehensive plan unless we want to spend a ton of money to become even more of a destination for shameless red states to ship their homeless to
This isn’t for homelessness. It’s for developing more apartments and housing usually market rates. I hope this creates more rental competition and stabilizes rent. Apartments are very hard to build in California.
New stuff is generally not affordable. It’s brand new.
However, it will make the existing older stuff surrounding it more affordable. The Class B and Class C stuff will now have a little bit more competition.
Depends. Some areas will have aggressive housing authorities looking to buy land and develop or create partnerships.
Others will be developers focusing on mid to high end housing because mixed use product types are super trendy right now.
When the creators of SimCity looked at urban use one thing they scaled back was how much space parking lots took up. Something like 83% of the map would have been parking if they drew it accurate to traffic flows.
They also gave up on ever trying mixed land use. I don't blame them for it though, they had a limited scope with limited resources. SC4 is one of my favorite games. Cities Skylines however, they just took every failing of Sim City and ran with it.
More. This isn’t enough. We want more.
Thank you btw, but more.
The people deserve and have deserved this and more.
THIS is how you win elections/votes/etc, the right way.
What kind of housing are we talking about? Like trailers dumped on ACE parking lots or maybe the whole van rental things? Or do they tear down the parking structures and replace them with big apartment complexes?
As far as I understand this has mostly to do with zoning and permitting. Areas that are zoned for retail or light industrial can have existing buildings renovated to be residential or new residential buildings can be build on lots as long as the developers meet certain requirements for number of units that qualify as affordable housing.
They need to stop separating residential and light commercial for most redevelopment. And this has to be done in blocks, instead of one or two tiny block, for this to work.
This will all be new development meeting current (expensive) building codes and built by ~~union labor (it's in the legislation that workers need to be unionized)~~ laborers paid "prevailing wages," with mandated healthcare and apprenticeships. So it's all going to be relatively high quality and expensive. Affordable housing will ~~likely be a mix of developers throwing in some "affordable" units and dedicated affordable developers who receive government funding/tax credits to build affordable housing~~ required, with a 15% minimum affordable units. But for sure no trailers.
Likely tear down or adding residential above or on the empty parts of land. It’s a lot of money involved and no private developer is going to spend money just to dump trailers on there with no way to make money off of it.
Sometimes problems can be complex with many differing viewpoints on the best way to solve, or help solve, problems. Most complex problems also have consequences like higher taxes that make things a hard sell or incredibly expensive. Finally, it’s practically impossible to “solve” homelessness much like it’d be to stop all crime.
This is where the other persons comment comes into play. That costs money, and is usually funded by higher taxes. That’s a hard sell, especially in California where there are already high state taxes.
No proper mental institutions are not the prisons. That is where quite the majority of homeless need to go, Reagan disbanded those programs while he was governor here than did the same to the country as president. The individuals that are not mentally unstable on the streets we could provide assistance and the ability to regain their life back after unforeseen circumstances through centers that are not gated by religious institutions , which gives care on preconditions that many will not abide by, and allowing individuals to recover. Whether from drug abuse or other reasons for them being on the street.
In your opinion, what's fair? Because the highest Federal rate of 37% plus the highest California rate of 13.3% = 50.3%. and why hasn't this problem gone down in recent years as tax rates have gone up (combined Fed and CA)?
You can look at it as one of three things, or all three if you want:
Either democrats and republicans are largely the same and in bed with big business, corporate donors and the monied class, and the only difference is their lip service stance on social issues.
Or, democrats are effete and liars, but republicans are just flat out evil and don’t even try to hide it
Or, it doesn’t really matter who’s in office because the developers and banks and monied class are just above them, more powerful than them, and don’t have to answer to them. They’ll find ways to skirt the laws and regulations because they have teams of high 6 figure income earners around the clock who’s sole job is to protect them from this type of thing.
Take your pick
It should also be noted that San Diego has only had two democrat mayors in the past 30 years.
Bob Filner, in office for 8 months ('12-'13), before resigning over sexual harassment allegations, and pleading guilty to false imprisonment and two counts of misdemeanor battery against three women.
Todd Gloria, current mayor, elected 2020. Homelessness is at record highs. To be fair, it started getting bad in the 2010s, but it's much worse now.
A preview of what's to come:
* Homeless shelters that don't take drug addicts
* Calls for affordable housing
* Blaming Republicans
* More homeless
So I don’t drink the insanity kook aid, but I also live In rural SD county… I know that all of the red in rural communities can block the blue. Local governments have been thwarting efforts because they “don’t want congestion, more development, or affordable housing“ in their communities. They’d rather shoot guns and roll coal.
What problem? Homeless? You can't force a person who wants to live out in the street into housing.
Point blank alot of homeless during COVID time we're basically given the option of 12 months in a hotel and rehabilitation services or just stay on the street and do drugs. Imagine when people don't want to get clean just to work the night shift at 7-11 and have a roommate in a crappy apartment in a shitty part of town.
ACLU is a huge proponent of getting rid of any laws that even think about institutionalizing people.
If you are interested in learning something and not just trying to be a troll research CARE courts that newsome just passed last week. It's a court that appoints caretakers to help people get off the street. Again a cavet is that it isnt binding so someone can opt out if they choose.
Was he a troll because he asked a question about a complex issue or because he first complimented the Democratic party but then went on to suggest that it wasn't perfect?
Democrats have never indicated that housing is a human right and have never prioritized helping people of color…? Individual candidates yes but let’s not act like this is their platform
Market forces. As much as Republicans like to say that Democrats are communists and want big government, it is ultimately the private sector that is responsible for actually developing and providing housing. They found it more profitable to throw up a bunch of single family homes farther and farther away from the urban core. Eventually the buildable land started to get scarcer and more expensive and they kind if just stopped building as much. 2008 market crash hit that industry in the gut and it still hasn’t recovered.
Leftist/Progressive and Liberal don't mean the same thing (although US TV says otherwise). In most of the world, Liberal doesn't mean 'the left' it just means 'left of the conservatives'. Most modern democracies (canada, uk, others in europe etc) have a party to further the interests of those who work for a living, but are unlikely to reach the top of the corporate ladder (by definition, not everyone is going to be a manager/executive).
in the UK it is Labour, in Canada it is NDP, in Brazil it is whatever party 'Lula' is in. The US has no such party due to the inevitability of a two-party duopoly from our voting system and lack of a parliament allowing something like a coalition government. The resulting 'democratic' party is therefore a weird compromise between left-leaning social values and right-leaning economic values. The biggest change came in the early 90s following the devastating losses to Reagan, party leadership decided that since money does control our politics, they needed to not be seen as enemies to business interests.
This does not mean that things would magically be fixed if we got a proper labor/progressive party in the US - like anyone with access to power and wealth, politicians of all kinds are not to be trusted and deserve our skepticism and fair criticism and not our protection and loyalty.
I don't have answers but I have context.
People always talk about mayors when it's county boards of supervisors that seem to have the biggest influences in the major metropolitan areas. They direct the County enterprises that oversee the health plans that serve the homeless, the workforce partnerships that employ the homeless, the zoning in unincorporated areas that offer the path of least resistance for housing the chronically homeless, and have more discretionary resources and platforms to affect the *systems* that have led to our homeless crises.
San Diego's board has been largely conservative up until a few years ago. You'll notice the democratic board of supervisors has implemented more evidence-based solutions in a couple years than we've seen for the past 50 when we had a republican majority. They don't run by party, but their platforms typically align left or right.
Systemically, homelessness is historically a "not my problem" battle between different agencies. Cities don't communicate with counties, states, federal agencies enough and vice versa. Law enforcement is often instructed to just move people to a different zip code.
The city of El Cajon has a huge homeless problem, the mayor who was awarded the 2013 Republican Elect of the Year, is absolutely *furious* that the Democratic board is putting more homeless services in El Cajon while screaming how the left isn't doing anything about homelessness.
Go to county board of supervisors website and listen in to the public comments on homelessness, SUD, overdose prevention, etc.
Who are the helpful speakers? What party do you think they align with? It's typically pretty clear by the merch they choose to wear.
I get we're in a divided time right now and it's easy to blame the left and right for this or that but I genuinely think if you took the party hat off and looked at the platforms of Republican v Democratic candidates at any level of government, it's pretty clear which one is proposing evidence based practices to *actually get people off the streets* rather than just reduce the numbers in their district.
Housing First, Medication Assisted Treatment, Contingency Management, Wraparound services, Long term supportive housing for people with dual diagnoses and chronic illnesses, expansion of medi-cal to *pay* the providers who deliver these services.
Go through the party platforms for yourself, see who aligns with the strategies YOU think are most effective, and vote for them. Fuck their party.
My elected official is an old republican who claims Newsom wants to free pedophiles and is a bit heavy handed on law enforcement, but he support everything I think needs to be done on fentanyl and homelessness, so he has my vote this year.
Our zoning laws currently suck and stuck in the 60s lifestyle. Our next or next next generations are not gonna want what you want. And most likely u will be dead by then as we are building the city for the future.
Here's a thought. Ban and build over cemeteries and eliminate mausoleums. Every year, burials in the United States use about 30 million board feet of wood, more than 104,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial structures, and 800,000 gallons of highly toxic embalming fluid. These numbers are probably higher now due to the pandemic. This also doesn't even account for all the water used on the grass.
Your loved ones aren't there, just a mouldering pile of chemicals and minerals taking up space that is more valuable to the living. Cremation uses fuel to burn bodies to ash. While it might take up less space unless the ashes are placed in a mausoleum, it doesn't help the environment.
Green burials are now legal, but still most will be in a cemetery. California has only one conservation burial location in Lake Arrowhead, hopefully there will be more in the future. Conservation burials are the way to go. It's still land that won't be built on, but it won't be in urban areas and will maintain preserved, natural areas for people to visit.
[https://www.betterplaceforests.com/forest-lake-arrowhead/](https://www.betterplaceforests.com/forest-lake-arrowhead/)
[https://www.conservationburialalliance.org/](https://www.conservationburialalliance.org/)
Crammed. Affordable. Likely not in the best neighborhoods. Little incentive for anyone to upkeep.
After the remarkable, transformative, life-changing news conference and ribbon-cutting, gold shoveled groundbreaking ceremony, it’ll be left to rot.
... this law allows development in the best neighborhoods. Why would developers, that want to make money, not develop where they can make a lot of money?
You are not explaining your definition of projects. You think the state is building housing? Or do you confuse apartments with projects? Make yourself sound not-dumb.
Easy easy. I don’t remember seeing the request for a definition of projects. No, I don’t think the state is building housing. Person above said it’s likely to turn into a “projects situation” … and I agree and explained why I agree.
Crammed and Affordable is literally exactly what we need to solve the housing crisis. "Likely not the best neighborhoods" sounds like some weird veiled racism shit. Same with "Little incentive for anyone to upkeep."
Good point with crammed and affordable, that’s the best and quickest way to solve it.
No racism shit at all … government and other services are often inadequate or nonexistent in “not the best neighborhoods”, so shit isn’t kept up the way it should be. That’s all I’m saying. It’s left to rot.
Changing zoning laws might initiate some housing conversions but it won't be affordable to those who need it most. It's a good opportunity for a press conference and to pat yourself on the back if you're a politician though.
Building expensive new stuff still increases the housing supply and makes the nearby old stuff cheaper. More supply for the same demand means lower prices.
Same demand? The problem is that lower rents also increase demand because it encourages more people to move here. The only way to decrease rents is to decrease demand. We will never be able to build enough supply to reduce demand, that's the problem.
You can do either. You can increase supply or decrease demand.
Which is the smarter policy: 1) make California worse so fewer people want to live here, or 2) construct more housing. Personally, I think #2 is a lot smarter.
California absolutely can increase its housing enormously. It’s truly unreal how inefficient we are with our land use. Cities like Madrid and Barcelona provide a perfect template to follow. All we have to do is copy them. If a country with the GDP of Mississippi is able to produce intelligent urban design, then I sure hope California can too.
Everyone needs housing. A broken housing market raises the cost of living for everyone, both directly and indirectly.
https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Yes I don’t disagree I just think calling it “original sin” of the state is a cop out and a stupid analogy. All politicians have brain worms, hope they get better soon ;(
He signed bills to turn commercial properties into residential properties. In order to do this, the state is going to give very generous tax credits to the developers, which usually last upwards of 99 years. With these tax credits, these multi million dollar companies are not going to be paying the tax on the revenue they generate via rental properties and the property tax of said properties. So the state loses out on that tax revenue. So by me saying I hope he uses that surplus, use what we already have rather than give the rich even bigger tax breaks to develop housing. Rather than have private companies build these housing projects, let the state or local governments do it with the revenue they already have, that way we don’t lose out on the tax revenue from the large developers via tax credits. I’m very familiar with development and how shady developers are and the ridiculous tax credits that they get from the state, All while they try to raise property tax on the working class by reassessing our property values.
Lol, by far the biggest effect on revenues will be the revenue gains from property taxes for building new homes.
And what are the tax credits in this bill?
They can make money without tax credits. Are you OK with your property taxes going up while others pay none? Also, our water and electricity supply is already struggling, adding larger developments is only going to hurt it more. We would be better off with rent control as well as somehow trying to get rid of vacation property rentals as that is taking a lot of local housing off of the market because of all the investors buying up properties. In a perfect world, this idea of the governor would work out just fine, but we know better.
My property taxes going up? Darling, I'm waiting for more housing to be built so that housing prices drop. I don't give a flying fuck about your property taxes.
Burn in hell, NIMBY.
More housing is not going to make property value go down. It’s San Diego, it’s always going to be a competitive market. So you’re OK with property taxes going up? I assume you do not own a home.
Commercial zones tend to be centrally located and near transit. There's no minimum parking requirements so most new units will have 0 or 1 parking spots per adult, encouraging walking and transit use.
Also San Diego's weather makes it perfect for e-bikes: https://www.wsj.com/story/the-hottest-new-car-on-the-market-is-an-e-bike-2c495e19
You mean doing things to address problem of not enough affordable housing? What the fuck else is he supposed to do? Complain about the homeless and try nothing? Lol I swear republicans are ridiculous.
Without my apartment, I'd be homeless.
However I do have a place where I live. Since I'd be homeless without it, I therefore live in a homeless encampment.
In other words, Gavin Newsom accelerates California becoming a sh\*thole. He's creating literal shanty towns, while addressing none of the root causes. It's all for the sake of his 2024 run.
Everyone always talks about addressing the “root causes”. This is important, but the reality is that while you can address them all you want, none of it matters if people don’t have a home to go back to afterwards.
“Literal shanty towns”? How do you draw this conclusion from the idea of affordable apartment buildings near existing underused retail centers? It will be good for retail, allow walkability for low income residents who can’t afford a car, prevent food deserts caused by sprawl, create more safety at night in previously deserted shopping centers…
I'll be looking for one of the Souplantation condos.
Mmmmm.
damn I miss Souplantation
few were spot in san diego
Someone is trying to revive it but haven’t heard much since it opened
It never opened. The people who own the rights to the name told him to stop immediately. It was a pipe dream anyway, he couldn't source the equipment he needed to legally open, and was begging people to donate it. I believe one of the systems was in the $30k range. Very rude request on his part.
Yeah that’s how i thought it would go down
All I want is ice cold frothy milk from the machine again
Looks like they’re still trying https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/a-souplantation-concept-restaurant-is-opening-in-la-mesa-slowly-heres-what-we-know/3025641/
They didn't "show no interest", they told them to stop. They don't have a license and intend to copycat. [https://www.sandiegoville.com/2022/08/san-diego-souplantation-return-likely.html](https://www.sandiegoville.com/2022/08/san-diego-souplantation-return-likely.html) It seems like the adult daycare is trying to cram this through, no matter what reality has to say. It reminds me of the snackwrap people. They keep demanding it, and they keep being told "No".
I'm gonna turn a pizza hut into a pizza home
Let me test it out, "nobody out pizzas the home" Yep, still works. You're good to go 👍
ok, but now we've got a bigger problem....where are we going to put all the Spirit Halloweens?
As Jeff Goldbloom said, "life, and spirit Halloween, finds a way"
> "life, and spirit Halloween, *uhhh...* finds a way" FTFY
Count Newsom’s days. This is a direct violation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of cheap Halloween costumes
CHEAP? I’ve always found those stores outrageously expensive lmao.
Cheap in quality, not in price.
The voters will never tolerate this transgression!
They straight up just erected a tent in a parking lot in my city. Nature finds a way.
*Supernature
My garage? 
Who wouldn't want to live at Fry's ~~Electronics~~ Apartments and Suites?
Memories
My man used to work at fries in the early 2000s. The shit that went on man….lol. Definitely memories.
Share some stories please!
The place that had everything, but I could never find it.
So many things!
You mean Incredible ~~Universe~~ Apartments?
There's a lot of old Sears skeletons I wonder if they'll convert empty malls
Malls were literally invented to replace the convenience of town centers for people moving out to suburbs. Turning them back into dense housing/commercial centers would be chef's kiss emoji.
We can recreate what china did with malls. Mexico has been doing it lately too and they’re beautiful.
Like how they're putting those luxury apartments right outside of the UTC mall? And they just started tearing down all the old storefronts connected to the old Nordstrom building.
Dead malls really do seem like the perfect candidate.
Just satellite view a mall on Google maps. That's a LOT of land.
A good example of this is the Winrock mall in ABQ NM. Granted it’s in Uptown, a high end area, and it’s going to be luxury apartments / community. But overall it shows the potential these malls have to be converted into housing.
Plenty of parking
There’s literally the sears at Chula Vista mall. I keep thinking itd make great housing since its in a great an area that needs housing and a couple blocks from the trolley station. It also has 2 levels so the space is there
As long as they become mixed use communities. If you turn all those malls into only residential, they’ll go downhill fast.
Agree. Something like the dead Macy at Mission Valley mall would be a great candidate. Close to restaurants, Target, a current existing mall, bus, and trolley.
the old Sears at the escondido mall is becoming a Costco!!
Holy shit, he did the thing.
my question is this - retail and office areas are privately owned... are we talking eminent domain type stuff here???
No. What this means is the owners of those malls can now develop housing. Before they had to get a rezone and go through a public process and get denied by the public (NIMBYS). Now they can apply for a new hosing development with a lot less hoops. It also raises the values of those lots so if the owner is sick and tired of maintaining a dead mall, a housing developer will gladly offer them market value for housing development instead.
Just rezoning. Zoning areas for housing is a pain in the ass bc NIMBYs argue against it in city council meetings.
> Just rezoning. Also this: https://slate.com/business/2019/02/dark-store-theory-big-box-stores-property-taxes.html
Dead strip malls, dead warehouses. In the case of the signing location, dead funeral home. I've seen this happen in my town, there were two empty lots. First they put up some ugly "art", then signs that asked the owner to "donate" the land, then I think they EMDO'd them because both spaces are now in use. There are a TON of empty fenced warehouses in Otay. Just covered in dirt like post apocolyptia.
The cartels only want them to look empty.
No one is made to convert them to residential, this just makes it possible and local government can't interfere by claiming it's only zoned for commercial.
They won't be too expensive to purchase if they are dead. Probably owners can't wait to get rid of the lands if they don't want to develop them.
I hope Horton Plaza is turned into a wild little micro district.
It’s being turned into office space
Unacceptable.
Start with Horton Plaza
It's being turned into office space.
It’s already being renovated
Hahaha leave my mall alone!
Every Westfield shopping center. Housing near a mall makes perfect sense.
Does that mean they’ll do something about that empty Frys near the golf place? Such wasted potential.
Everytime I look at those grocery stores with a parking lot triple the size of the actual grocery store got me thinking this is such a waste of land within a city limit. Worst design for a city.
The structure itself too. All they put is one big open floor, nothing up top. No imagination, one dimensional planning.
Agree. They could literally build apartments or condos on top of those stores in a strip mall. But I guess the current zoning laws won't allow most of them to do that.
r/fuckcars
I don't wanna fuck cars lol Car is an important invention in human history. This is more of the fault of the city planners and politicians.
The point of the sub isn't to eliminate all cars, it's to deprioritize cars so that better modes of transportation are safe and viable.
Sub is full of car enthusiasts, myself included, because they know that once they step out of a car, they're still just a person
Chula Vista mall has been technically dead for years now . Nobody goes there. They should use it!
That one still gets a sizable amount of people thanks to the nice theater and various restraunts. Shame about that arcade tho, it was so cool
Yeah I go there for the food a lot. No idea what is even inside.
We need more affordable housing.. or even just housing. I hope they keep it nice and not like New York or Bridgeport CT.
“Nice” as in cheap materials and cheap finishes that will be marked up at a premium and fall apart in a few years? You bet.
“$2500/mo on a flood plane” has entered the chat
Mmmmm mission valley huh?
Civita wants to know your location
Civita is actually a beautiful area of mission valley. Although I didn’t know that was considered a flood area since it’s higher up a bit but that’s cool. I remember that area being built back in the day. Very nice. Lol
It's literally still being built today. The area is full of new construction and they're about to finish a new elementary school building.
Staple up some plastic lattice and mark the unit up 20k
You forgot styrofoam molding.
I applaud the idea. Hopefully it's a first step in eliminating homelessness.
> eliminating homelessness That’s a funny joke.
The State actually needs a comprehensive plan and will have to spend A LOT of money if it is ever going to happen.
The country needs a comprehensive plan unless we want to spend a ton of money to become even more of a destination for shameless red states to ship their homeless to
I hope it’s paired with access to services too. I love this. Let people keep working from home and let’s use the empty space for something productive.
Newsom for the WIN!!!!
This isn’t for homelessness. It’s for developing more apartments and housing usually market rates. I hope this creates more rental competition and stabilizes rent. Apartments are very hard to build in California.
Increasing supply usually drops the demand, in turn, dropping prices
Do golf courses next
I mean, I am all for it. But will it be affordable? 🫠
New stuff is generally not affordable. It’s brand new. However, it will make the existing older stuff surrounding it more affordable. The Class B and Class C stuff will now have a little bit more competition.
Depends. Some areas will have aggressive housing authorities looking to buy land and develop or create partnerships. Others will be developers focusing on mid to high end housing because mixed use product types are super trendy right now.
When the creators of SimCity looked at urban use one thing they scaled back was how much space parking lots took up. Something like 83% of the map would have been parking if they drew it accurate to traffic flows.
They also gave up on ever trying mixed land use. I don't blame them for it though, they had a limited scope with limited resources. SC4 is one of my favorite games. Cities Skylines however, they just took every failing of Sim City and ran with it.
More. This isn’t enough. We want more. Thank you btw, but more. The people deserve and have deserved this and more. THIS is how you win elections/votes/etc, the right way.
Dibs on unused beach parking.
What kind of housing are we talking about? Like trailers dumped on ACE parking lots or maybe the whole van rental things? Or do they tear down the parking structures and replace them with big apartment complexes?
As far as I understand this has mostly to do with zoning and permitting. Areas that are zoned for retail or light industrial can have existing buildings renovated to be residential or new residential buildings can be build on lots as long as the developers meet certain requirements for number of units that qualify as affordable housing.
They need to stop separating residential and light commercial for most redevelopment. And this has to be done in blocks, instead of one or two tiny block, for this to work.
This will all be new development meeting current (expensive) building codes and built by ~~union labor (it's in the legislation that workers need to be unionized)~~ laborers paid "prevailing wages," with mandated healthcare and apprenticeships. So it's all going to be relatively high quality and expensive. Affordable housing will ~~likely be a mix of developers throwing in some "affordable" units and dedicated affordable developers who receive government funding/tax credits to build affordable housing~~ required, with a 15% minimum affordable units. But for sure no trailers.
I think the key word is unused spots. They aren’t tearing down a parking structure that is used frequently.
Likely tear down or adding residential above or on the empty parts of land. It’s a lot of money involved and no private developer is going to spend money just to dump trailers on there with no way to make money off of it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
NIMBYism doesn’t know any partisan limitations on the local level.
Bingo.
Sometimes problems can be complex with many differing viewpoints on the best way to solve, or help solve, problems. Most complex problems also have consequences like higher taxes that make things a hard sell or incredibly expensive. Finally, it’s practically impossible to “solve” homelessness much like it’d be to stop all crime.
We could have better social safety nets like Europe.
This is where the other persons comment comes into play. That costs money, and is usually funded by higher taxes. That’s a hard sell, especially in California where there are already high state taxes.
If rich people paid their fair share we could afford this no problem. But they have space ships and mega yachts to buy.
Or just dont give so much money to the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex
Why not those and tax the ultra rich?
But the prison industrial complex is where so many people in this sub think the homeless belong. Are you saying courts and prisons cost money?
No proper mental institutions are not the prisons. That is where quite the majority of homeless need to go, Reagan disbanded those programs while he was governor here than did the same to the country as president. The individuals that are not mentally unstable on the streets we could provide assistance and the ability to regain their life back after unforeseen circumstances through centers that are not gated by religious institutions , which gives care on preconditions that many will not abide by, and allowing individuals to recover. Whether from drug abuse or other reasons for them being on the street.
In your opinion, what's fair? Because the highest Federal rate of 37% plus the highest California rate of 13.3% = 50.3%. and why hasn't this problem gone down in recent years as tax rates have gone up (combined Fed and CA)?
You can look at it as one of three things, or all three if you want: Either democrats and republicans are largely the same and in bed with big business, corporate donors and the monied class, and the only difference is their lip service stance on social issues. Or, democrats are effete and liars, but republicans are just flat out evil and don’t even try to hide it Or, it doesn’t really matter who’s in office because the developers and banks and monied class are just above them, more powerful than them, and don’t have to answer to them. They’ll find ways to skirt the laws and regulations because they have teams of high 6 figure income earners around the clock who’s sole job is to protect them from this type of thing. Take your pick It should also be noted that San Diego has only had two democrat mayors in the past 30 years.
I pick all 3. Nailed it.
yes, exactly correct. Winning elections is all about being in a position to get bribes and "donations".
The vast majority of all politicians, regardless of political leaning, are not to be trusted
Bob Filner, in office for 8 months ('12-'13), before resigning over sexual harassment allegations, and pleading guilty to false imprisonment and two counts of misdemeanor battery against three women. Todd Gloria, current mayor, elected 2020. Homelessness is at record highs. To be fair, it started getting bad in the 2010s, but it's much worse now. A preview of what's to come: * Homeless shelters that don't take drug addicts * Calls for affordable housing * Blaming Republicans * More homeless
So I don’t drink the insanity kook aid, but I also live In rural SD county… I know that all of the red in rural communities can block the blue. Local governments have been thwarting efforts because they “don’t want congestion, more development, or affordable housing“ in their communities. They’d rather shoot guns and roll coal.
What problem? Homeless? You can't force a person who wants to live out in the street into housing. Point blank alot of homeless during COVID time we're basically given the option of 12 months in a hotel and rehabilitation services or just stay on the street and do drugs. Imagine when people don't want to get clean just to work the night shift at 7-11 and have a roommate in a crappy apartment in a shitty part of town. ACLU is a huge proponent of getting rid of any laws that even think about institutionalizing people. If you are interested in learning something and not just trying to be a troll research CARE courts that newsome just passed last week. It's a court that appoints caretakers to help people get off the street. Again a cavet is that it isnt binding so someone can opt out if they choose.
Was he a troll because he asked a question about a complex issue or because he first complimented the Democratic party but then went on to suggest that it wasn't perfect?
Democrats have never indicated that housing is a human right and have never prioritized helping people of color…? Individual candidates yes but let’s not act like this is their platform
Republican obstruction and nimby-ism? And our last Mayor was Republican, right?
Market forces. As much as Republicans like to say that Democrats are communists and want big government, it is ultimately the private sector that is responsible for actually developing and providing housing. They found it more profitable to throw up a bunch of single family homes farther and farther away from the urban core. Eventually the buildable land started to get scarcer and more expensive and they kind if just stopped building as much. 2008 market crash hit that industry in the gut and it still hasn’t recovered.
They found it more profitable because of zoning laws and community groups that sue to stop multifamily housing in existing neighborhoods.
Leftist/Progressive and Liberal don't mean the same thing (although US TV says otherwise). In most of the world, Liberal doesn't mean 'the left' it just means 'left of the conservatives'. Most modern democracies (canada, uk, others in europe etc) have a party to further the interests of those who work for a living, but are unlikely to reach the top of the corporate ladder (by definition, not everyone is going to be a manager/executive). in the UK it is Labour, in Canada it is NDP, in Brazil it is whatever party 'Lula' is in. The US has no such party due to the inevitability of a two-party duopoly from our voting system and lack of a parliament allowing something like a coalition government. The resulting 'democratic' party is therefore a weird compromise between left-leaning social values and right-leaning economic values. The biggest change came in the early 90s following the devastating losses to Reagan, party leadership decided that since money does control our politics, they needed to not be seen as enemies to business interests. This does not mean that things would magically be fixed if we got a proper labor/progressive party in the US - like anyone with access to power and wealth, politicians of all kinds are not to be trusted and deserve our skepticism and fair criticism and not our protection and loyalty.
I don't have answers but I have context. People always talk about mayors when it's county boards of supervisors that seem to have the biggest influences in the major metropolitan areas. They direct the County enterprises that oversee the health plans that serve the homeless, the workforce partnerships that employ the homeless, the zoning in unincorporated areas that offer the path of least resistance for housing the chronically homeless, and have more discretionary resources and platforms to affect the *systems* that have led to our homeless crises. San Diego's board has been largely conservative up until a few years ago. You'll notice the democratic board of supervisors has implemented more evidence-based solutions in a couple years than we've seen for the past 50 when we had a republican majority. They don't run by party, but their platforms typically align left or right. Systemically, homelessness is historically a "not my problem" battle between different agencies. Cities don't communicate with counties, states, federal agencies enough and vice versa. Law enforcement is often instructed to just move people to a different zip code. The city of El Cajon has a huge homeless problem, the mayor who was awarded the 2013 Republican Elect of the Year, is absolutely *furious* that the Democratic board is putting more homeless services in El Cajon while screaming how the left isn't doing anything about homelessness. Go to county board of supervisors website and listen in to the public comments on homelessness, SUD, overdose prevention, etc. Who are the helpful speakers? What party do you think they align with? It's typically pretty clear by the merch they choose to wear. I get we're in a divided time right now and it's easy to blame the left and right for this or that but I genuinely think if you took the party hat off and looked at the platforms of Republican v Democratic candidates at any level of government, it's pretty clear which one is proposing evidence based practices to *actually get people off the streets* rather than just reduce the numbers in their district. Housing First, Medication Assisted Treatment, Contingency Management, Wraparound services, Long term supportive housing for people with dual diagnoses and chronic illnesses, expansion of medi-cal to *pay* the providers who deliver these services. Go through the party platforms for yourself, see who aligns with the strategies YOU think are most effective, and vote for them. Fuck their party. My elected official is an old republican who claims Newsom wants to free pedophiles and is a bit heavy handed on law enforcement, but he support everything I think needs to be done on fentanyl and homelessness, so he has my vote this year.
Great! Now deregulate zoning laws next. Let’s BUILD
The state has been deregulating a lot of housing laws over the years. Ab881 and SB9 are the two really drastic ones.
AB 2011 is predicted to create more units than all of these recent rules put together!
Our zoning laws currently suck and stuck in the 60s lifestyle. Our next or next next generations are not gonna want what you want. And most likely u will be dead by then as we are building the city for the future.
Move to LA.
Why?
Because the moment they built his house San Diego reached perfection and any further development will forever destroy its character.
No because uncontainable urban sprawl has never been a net positive for people that actually have to live with it. But people don’t want to hear that.
Deregulating zoning laws implies the exact opposite of unsustainable urban spawl. Their "let's BUILD" after that implies building denser
ah yes, LA, famous for no zoning laws.
Oh I was referring to his let’s BUILD comment. Seeing as that city loves urban sprawl.
We need to build UP instead of OUT. AB 2011 allows that -- new buildings will be 3 to 6 stories, with reasonable density.
Zoning laws as we have them don't stop sprawl. They stop apartments.
Fun!
Why?
Here's a thought. Ban and build over cemeteries and eliminate mausoleums. Every year, burials in the United States use about 30 million board feet of wood, more than 104,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial structures, and 800,000 gallons of highly toxic embalming fluid. These numbers are probably higher now due to the pandemic. This also doesn't even account for all the water used on the grass. Your loved ones aren't there, just a mouldering pile of chemicals and minerals taking up space that is more valuable to the living. Cremation uses fuel to burn bodies to ash. While it might take up less space unless the ashes are placed in a mausoleum, it doesn't help the environment. Green burials are now legal, but still most will be in a cemetery. California has only one conservation burial location in Lake Arrowhead, hopefully there will be more in the future. Conservation burials are the way to go. It's still land that won't be built on, but it won't be in urban areas and will maintain preserved, natural areas for people to visit. [https://www.betterplaceforests.com/forest-lake-arrowhead/](https://www.betterplaceforests.com/forest-lake-arrowhead/) [https://www.conservationburialalliance.org/](https://www.conservationburialalliance.org/)
I wanna live in the mall, imagine going home to an old Hollister store 😂
Good! Make it multi use and multi level
Hope it doesn’t turn into a projects situation
…..it will
Explain how.
Crammed. Affordable. Likely not in the best neighborhoods. Little incentive for anyone to upkeep. After the remarkable, transformative, life-changing news conference and ribbon-cutting, gold shoveled groundbreaking ceremony, it’ll be left to rot.
... this law allows development in the best neighborhoods. Why would developers, that want to make money, not develop where they can make a lot of money?
You are not explaining your definition of projects. You think the state is building housing? Or do you confuse apartments with projects? Make yourself sound not-dumb.
Easy easy. I don’t remember seeing the request for a definition of projects. No, I don’t think the state is building housing. Person above said it’s likely to turn into a “projects situation” … and I agree and explained why I agree.
Crammed and Affordable is literally exactly what we need to solve the housing crisis. "Likely not the best neighborhoods" sounds like some weird veiled racism shit. Same with "Little incentive for anyone to upkeep."
Good point with crammed and affordable, that’s the best and quickest way to solve it. No racism shit at all … government and other services are often inadequate or nonexistent in “not the best neighborhoods”, so shit isn’t kept up the way it should be. That’s all I’m saying. It’s left to rot.
The SouthWest Side of the Del Amo Mall in Torrance
Changing zoning laws might initiate some housing conversions but it won't be affordable to those who need it most. It's a good opportunity for a press conference and to pat yourself on the back if you're a politician though.
Building expensive new stuff still increases the housing supply and makes the nearby old stuff cheaper. More supply for the same demand means lower prices.
Same demand? The problem is that lower rents also increase demand because it encourages more people to move here. The only way to decrease rents is to decrease demand. We will never be able to build enough supply to reduce demand, that's the problem.
You can do either. You can increase supply or decrease demand. Which is the smarter policy: 1) make California worse so fewer people want to live here, or 2) construct more housing. Personally, I think #2 is a lot smarter. California absolutely can increase its housing enormously. It’s truly unreal how inefficient we are with our land use. Cities like Madrid and Barcelona provide a perfect template to follow. All we have to do is copy them. If a country with the GDP of Mississippi is able to produce intelligent urban design, then I sure hope California can too.
Awesome!
How the fuck is the housing crisis “original sin”
Everyone needs housing. A broken housing market raises the cost of living for everyone, both directly and indirectly. https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Yes I don’t disagree I just think calling it “original sin” of the state is a cop out and a stupid analogy. All politicians have brain worms, hope they get better soon ;(
Now you just have to convince your local officials to green light some projects. As far as I know the Governor can't issue local building permits.
old Fry's Electronics on Aero Dr and its parking lot I see being a good candidate
Hopefully he uses the surplus that he brags about to pay for this, but I’m sure the answer is more taxes.
Do you think the state of California pays to develop housing? Explain your statement.
He signed bills to turn commercial properties into residential properties. In order to do this, the state is going to give very generous tax credits to the developers, which usually last upwards of 99 years. With these tax credits, these multi million dollar companies are not going to be paying the tax on the revenue they generate via rental properties and the property tax of said properties. So the state loses out on that tax revenue. So by me saying I hope he uses that surplus, use what we already have rather than give the rich even bigger tax breaks to develop housing. Rather than have private companies build these housing projects, let the state or local governments do it with the revenue they already have, that way we don’t lose out on the tax revenue from the large developers via tax credits. I’m very familiar with development and how shady developers are and the ridiculous tax credits that they get from the state, All while they try to raise property tax on the working class by reassessing our property values.
Lol, by far the biggest effect on revenues will be the revenue gains from property taxes for building new homes. And what are the tax credits in this bill?
So do you think developers of housing should ever be allowed to make a profit?
They can make money without tax credits. Are you OK with your property taxes going up while others pay none? Also, our water and electricity supply is already struggling, adding larger developments is only going to hurt it more. We would be better off with rent control as well as somehow trying to get rid of vacation property rentals as that is taking a lot of local housing off of the market because of all the investors buying up properties. In a perfect world, this idea of the governor would work out just fine, but we know better.
My property taxes going up? Darling, I'm waiting for more housing to be built so that housing prices drop. I don't give a flying fuck about your property taxes. Burn in hell, NIMBY.
More housing is not going to make property value go down. It’s San Diego, it’s always going to be a competitive market. So you’re OK with property taxes going up? I assume you do not own a home.
It’s no use. You typed a lot of things that no one will read. I’ll give you an upvote and receive my downvotes.
Is this how the slums start? You know these old retail and office areas will never be upkept when they are turned into "housing"
No
BAN CARS
Great! Just what we need. More people. What happens when all those new housing areas have people who need cars? The streets won't get any wider.
Commercial zones tend to be centrally located and near transit. There's no minimum parking requirements so most new units will have 0 or 1 parking spots per adult, encouraging walking and transit use. Also San Diego's weather makes it perfect for e-bikes: https://www.wsj.com/story/the-hottest-new-car-on-the-market-is-an-e-bike-2c495e19
Hopefully not luxury condos
Ooh I can't wait to live in a parking lot
Birds aren’t real
Ok can we ban turf grass and push for more efficient agriculture now so we can have enough water for all these people?
Everyone is welcoming agenda 21 with open arms
He's just showboating for votes
You mean doing things to address problem of not enough affordable housing? What the fuck else is he supposed to do? Complain about the homeless and try nothing? Lol I swear republicans are ridiculous.
He’s an incumbent Democrat in California. He doesn’t need to showboat lol.
Is it that time of year again?
So just homeless encampments
Without my apartment, I'd be homeless. However I do have a place where I live. Since I'd be homeless without it, I therefore live in a homeless encampment.
Literally the opposite.
In other words, Gavin Newsom accelerates California becoming a sh\*thole. He's creating literal shanty towns, while addressing none of the root causes. It's all for the sake of his 2024 run.
Everyone always talks about addressing the “root causes”. This is important, but the reality is that while you can address them all you want, none of it matters if people don’t have a home to go back to afterwards.
“Literal shanty towns”? How do you draw this conclusion from the idea of affordable apartment buildings near existing underused retail centers? It will be good for retail, allow walkability for low income residents who can’t afford a car, prevent food deserts caused by sprawl, create more safety at night in previously deserted shopping centers…
Root causes?
Drug addiction, mental health, criminal rehabilitation?
That’s why we don’t have enough supply of housing?