Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that's great another tech company moving to OC. It doesn't say how many are moving here but I'm sure they will find lovely 700k plus homes in south county to live in. They might not be thrilled with the traffic here but tough **** it's only getting worse.
ps Jamba juice is very popular here in OC along with Carl's Jr who also moved elsewhere
that's great another tech company moving to OC. It doesn't say how many are moving here but I'm sure they will find lovely 700k plus homes in south county to live in. They might not be thrilled with the traffic here but tough **** it's only getting worse.
ps Jamba juice is very popular here in OC along with Carl's Jr who also moved elsewhere
Wonder why the traffic keeps getting worse every year. With all the businesses leaving in droves you'd think people would be leaving. Things that make you go, huh?
Back to work on the boat I go ... Heigh ho heigh ho.
Ok then. Please allow us draw from your deeper perspective and identify that faulty policy as it affects housing, and explain why it should be given more so much more significance than functional capacity and demand.
I'm not the one dragging TX into this. Feel free to stop flogging it, especially when it runs counter to your narrative.
And yes, your accusations of chest thumping are pure crap. Those **** me off more than anything. They intentionally misrepresent others' opinions illogically and unfairly.
Gladly;
One example is with the San Mateo County Planning Commission that spent five years deciding what can or cannot be done with the site of an old racetrack that was no longer economically viable. Five years! That's more time than it took to build the Golden Gate Bridge! The delay didn't cost the members of the commission a single red cent. But five years of delay do not come cheap. Delays such as this are not uncommon across our state and it can sometimes take just as long to build an apt complex in SF. Whoever ends up in those units will have to pay the higher rents as a result.
Those who already own homes benefit the most as the prices continue to inflate. They vote in measures that obstruct the building of new homes and apartment complexes. So when 1/5 of new-home buyers in California pay at least half of their income for housing and 1/4 of California renters do the same, that puts a damper on what else these people can afford to do.
All the NIMBYism; open space laws, planning commissions, historical preservations, etc etc are roadblocks to building. It gives developers less of an incentive to want to build affordable housing. It restricts supply and artificially inflates home and rent prices.
I am a liberal myself but I don't see this as liberalism or progressivism but a NIMBY ploy to disguise the plain fact that those who already have theirs want to keep other people out, especially other people not as upscale as themselves. It's limousine liberalism.
Now of course I am not blind to the fact that CA is a hot desirable piece of real estate. This is simple economics. But what gets complicated is evading the political situation which gets more painful. When a growing population creates greater demand for housing but the government blocks efforts to meet the demand, the prices for existing housing start to inflate.
CA will always be expensive. But four or five times the national average? Are we really that desirable?
The worst of it is in the Bay Area, but LA gets some of that too. In the Valley where I live is where I like it cus there is some sense to all of the madness.
And the reason I say it's chest pumping on your part is I ask; what is the real purpose of defending such policies? I don't necessarily mean you but when stuff like this is brought up, no one says, yeah that sucks, some of it has to go, help CA be a bit more affordable but instead it's "NO, there is nothing wrong here, we're just too desirable, everyone wants to be here and that's the only reason why things are the way they are. It's not policymakers, it's not faulty policy, and if you don't like it, move to AZ or adapt or die."
All the NIMBYism; open space laws, planning commissions, historical preservations, etc etc are roadblocks to building. It gives developers less of an incentive to want to build affordable housing. It restricts supply and artificially inflates home and rent prices.
Good. Excellent. More NIMBYism would be great.
"Build it and [more] will come". And come. And come. And come. It's been going on since longer than you've been alive.
If it weren't for all the "open space" and "shoreline" and "planning" regulations there wouldn't be any public shoreline or open spaces that make California where you - and 250 million tourists annually - want to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
CA will always be expensive. But four or five times the national average? Are we really that desirable?
Yes.
You're new to California, right? Wait till you get used to living here and over a period of 20 or 30 years find yourself wondering where everything you used to love went.
W T F? Tule Mutt are you serious? So you support the policy of keeping people out because of some ego driven paranoia that we are so awesome that everyone will want to live here? No matter what CA will always be expensive because of the premium to live here and no amount of reducing NIMBYISM will make CA as affordable as AZ. Simple supply and demand will always check that. What I am getting at is why this defense of illogical policies to benefit a certain class's tastes which has consequences for the rest of Californians? Which inflates prices and causes delays which add costs?
So you're an elitist? Is that it? If so, just admit it even if to the small extent that is massages your illogical ego driven fear of hordes coming to invade the state.
W T F? Tule Mutt are you serious? So you support the policy of keeping people out because of some ego driven paranoia that we are so awesome that everyone will want to live here? No matter what CA will always be expensive because of the premium to live here and no amount of reducing NIMBYISM will make CA as affordable as AZ. Simple supply and demand will always check that. What I am getting at is why this defense of illogical policies to benefit a certain class's tastes which has consequences for the rest of Californians? Which inflates prices and causes delays which add costs?
So you're an elitist? Is that it? If so, just admit it even if to the small extent that is massages your illogical ego driven fear of hordes coming to invade the state.
You're real invested in this "ego" illusion aren't you?
There's no ego.
There's no paranoia.
There's no elitism.
There's no illusion about being "so awesome everyone will want to live here".
Not everyone wants to live in California by any stretch. Just more than the state can handle and retain its qualities along the coast.
The policies you think of as "illogical" do not seem a bit "illogical" to others.
Gladly;
One example is with the San Mateo County Planning Commission that spent five years deciding what can or cannot be done with the site of an old racetrack that was no longer economically viable. Five years! That's more time than it took to build the Golden Gate Bridge! The delay didn't cost the members of the commission a single red cent. But five years of delay do not come cheap. Delays such as this are not uncommon across our state and it can sometimes take just as long to build an apt complex in SF. Whoever ends up in those units will have to pay the higher rents as a result.
Those who already own homes benefit the most as the prices continue to inflate. They vote in measures that obstruct the building of new homes and apartment complexes. So when 1/5 of new-home buyers in California pay at least half of their income for housing and 1/4 of California renters do the same, that puts a damper on what else these people can afford to do.
All the NIMBYism; open space laws, planning commissions, historical preservations, etc etc are roadblocks to building. It gives developers less of an incentive to want to build affordable housing. It restricts supply and artificially inflates home and rent prices.
I am a liberal myself but I don't see this as liberalism or progressivism but a NIMBY ploy to disguise the plain fact that those who already have theirs want to keep other people out, especially other people not as upscale as themselves. It's limousine liberalism.
Now of course I am not blind to the fact that CA is a hot desirable piece of real estate. This is simple economics. But what gets complicated is evading the political situation which gets more painful. When a growing population creates greater demand for housing but the government blocks efforts to meet the demand, the prices for existing housing start to inflate.
CA will always be expensive. But four or five times the national average? Are we really that desirable?
The worst of it is in the Bay Area, but LA gets some of that too. In the Valley where I live is where I like it cus there is some sense to all of the madness.
And the reason I say it's chest pumping on your part is I ask; what is the real purpose of defending such policies? I don't necessarily mean you but when stuff like this is brought up, no one says, yeah that sucks, some of it has to go, help CA be a bit more affordable but instead it's "NO, there is nothing wrong here, we're just too desirable, everyone wants to be here and that's the only reason why things are the way they are. It's not policymakers, it's not faulty policy, and if you don't like it, move to AZ or adapt or die."
Thank you for the illustration, it helps. Believe me, I get your frustration.
But, and I’m not parsing here, that is not a policy, but a local instance that, in aggregate, could be a practice. That difference is crucial. Like most things, once you start drilling down how land used decisions are made, it gets sticky. I see that what you perceive as undue delay in that instance was not caused solely by officious bureaucrats (who were totally not all in the pocket of developers) but complicated by competing private interests, NIMBYs and overly litigious d-bags. We agree. But those are not "policies." They are competing interests fighting of scarce and dwindling available resources. One of those interests, the owner of the track in question, made use of the land by running horses until one month before construction:
[i]After the track failed to acquire a 2-year extension of the deadline to replace its dirt oval with an artificial surface for the safety of the horses from the California Horse Racing Board, it was announced that Bay Meadows intended to close November 4, 2006 immediately following its summer-fall season.[1]
On July 3, 2007 the California Horse Racing Board unanimously voted to approve a one-year exemption for Bay Meadows to continue horse racing in 2008 on its current racing surface. Bay Meadows was open to race for its last Spring Meet, February 6, 2008 to May 11, 2008. From May 14 to August 4, simulcasting occurred in Bay Meadows every open day, with free parking on August 4, free admission on August 11, and both on August 18.[2] There were ten final race dates run in August 2008 for the San Mateo County Fair, with the last official race occurring on August 17, 2008. The last day Bay Meadows was open for simulcasting was on August 18, 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Meadows_Racetrack
But let's assume aggregate local delay were to magically disappear statewide, all that would yield is a marginal and temporary increase in housing inventory. And, assuming maximizing inventory is necessarily a good thing, the market itself had already told us the amount of desirable land is extremely limited. To the extent there is any open land in CA that is not parkland, held by the BLM or native tribes, they remain undeveloped simply for lack of demand. Even I might consider Plano over Blythe.
And, assuming maximizing inventory is necessarily a good thing, the market itself had already told us the amount of desirable land is extremely limited. To the extent there is any open land in CA that is not parkland, held by the BLM or native tribes, they remain undeveloped simply for lack of demand. ...
But let's assume aggregate local delay were to magically disappear statewide, all that would yield is a marginal and temporary increase in housing inventory. And, assuming maximizing inventory is necessarily a good thing, the market itself had already told us the amount of desirable land is extremely limited. To the extent there is any open land in CA that is not parkland, held by the BLM or native tribes, they remain undeveloped simply for lack of demand. Even I might consider Plano over Blythe.
This goes a bit beyond just NIMBYism too. The CA Land Conservation Act offers huge reductions in property taxes to landowners who agree to keep their land agricultural. Other devices used to impede the building of homes include refusals to connect new homes to existing water systems - which may even come with restrictions to connect the existing water systems to to additional water sources. Efforts to improve a stretch of coastal highway in NorCal called 'Devil's Side' have been thwarted repeatedly by local residents. 2/3 of San Mateo County is legally off limits due to open space measures. It can hardly be surprising that the remaining land is much higher than places without such restrictions, wouldn't you say? From the standpoint of the economy as a whole, the allocation of land among it's competing uses is now not determined by competing bids of potential users but is heavily influenced by the practices above.
The protected land can even drastically reduce the market value making it easier for the government or some non profit conservationist group to buy it for a fraction of it's value vs alternative users who will actually build something of value on it. Just in San Fran alone there is the Peninsula Open Space Trust which owns 17000 acres of land to in order to halt the development of McMansions for "farming". So prices don't serve their function of allocating scarce resources among competing alternative uses. It's third parties that able to override people's desires or preferences with their own desires and preferences. It's been eroded by them and the media's portrayal of development - mutl-use, mcMansions, etc as ugly and "soul sucking".
But back to your excellent post, I think that we can't say for sure what will happen once market forces are restored over the situation we have now. Maybe we disagree on how limited a supply we're talking about but I think letting the market work is preferable to planning that creates all such of added headaches.
It's simply a conflict of visions for CA.
Last edited by radiolibre99; 05-10-2016 at 07:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
