What's being done to fix the housing crisis in California? (Los Angeles: 2013, condo)

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Finper

For some reason Ca hates tiny homes and homes made of cheaper pre used materials like shipping containers. Even though that’s very “green”. Could it be the developers that rule Ca stopping this??? Hmmmm

No.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

… And you still haven't addressed the issue of where people will live if we don't build housing in [California] cities…

Simple: Boise … you can take them all.

Now then, that question answered you still haven’t answered my question … and I asked first: ‘why do we need more people?’ … in cities or rural. In what ways do more people improve California?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

The vacancy rate includes homes that are being remodeled and those between tenants. Statistically there will always be some percentage of vacant rentals at any given moment. CA is a large state, so 1.2M homes is a small percentage of the total housing stock.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of where people will live if we don't build housing in cities. We're talking about housing for people that already exist, not more people in general. I'm arguing that it's better for more people to live in existing cities vs. sprawling out.

I welcome anyone who wants to move to Boise and contribute their time and talent to making it a better place. We're in the process of up-zoning the city, so please leave the NIMBYism behind.

1.2 million housing units is nearly 9% of California’s total (14.5 million housing units). No, that many units are not in remodel. Nor vacation rental.

Good for you in Boise. This issue is about California, being discussed in the California forum. Idaho has a total population of 1.8 million, with about 235,000 in Boise … um, compared to California’s 39+ million with multiple cities ranging from 3x - 16x the size of Boise (and that’s not including exponentially bigger metro areas). You like living like a termite? You should have stayed in California. But by all means feel free to take 10s of millions up there to your neck of the woods.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Frac

How many of those homes are 2nd/3rd homes that are being held off market?

Estimates I have read range possibly in the area of 300,000 +/- in CA. So what?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Texas is in fact growing much faster than California last couple decades and is now at 30 million people.

As far as vacancy, the numbers I've seen show low can't rates.

If you think California is so desirable, why do you think there are so many vacancies?

So what?

What is it you think is important about California competing with Texas for being the most overcrowded state relative to popular venues and resources?

Why does this matter to you?

Why does it matter at all?

How can Montanans be so happy in Montana with such a small population and limited economy?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

California has a huge amount of homelessness and out migration

What has homelessness got to do with your vision to increase urban density? All that will happen is homelessness will increase … because: homelessness is a collateral function of extremely successful economies occurring in highly desirable regions for lifestyle. The people experiencing homelessness are marginalized folks who can’t compete for the lifestyle cost demands of upscale developing of California.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

…
I didn't say over population is desirable.

Then why are you advocating for development to create growth?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Didn't say there was a zero vacancy rate

Texas has double the vacancy rate of California and also a higher home ownership rates. Because it builds more housing

Again, why is this important to you?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Clearly neither side is going to change their views, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

So this is for anyone out there who may be observing this ridiculous thread: Please note that if you're not already a homeowner in CA, the NIMBYs would rather you just go away. They don't care that housing is a human right They got theirs, too bad for you. Don't let them get away with this. You matter. You have important things to contribute to your neighborhood. California CAN live up to it's value of being an inclusive place for people of all types and incomes. But you have to get involved and demand more housing. More density. Get plugged in with your local YIMBY group. Write letters. Show up at city council meetings to support new housing.

So, you feel motivated, after leaving California for Idaho, to advocate for growth in California that will negatively impact those Californians who continue to live here.

Housing may be a human right, if everyone wants to get on board with that gracious ideal … but WHERE that housing is developed IS NOT a right of intrusion and adverse possession by anyone wishing to stake a claim.

Persons who have been established in ownership matter in our society. Imposing on their investments is antithetical to our cultural foundations.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Yep, the LAO does good work and tell it like it is, including the challenges. Yet infrastructure is largely an issue of investment and can be overcome, especially for dense urban areas where per capita water usage and miles driven are much lower compared to suburbs. This is why, despite the challenges, the LAO's overall recommendation is to build a lot more housing in dense coastal urban areas. Here's the full quote from above (emphasis added):



And interestingly, this is what's starting to happen in California. The NIMBYs want folks to believe nothing can change, that homeowners have a stranglehold on policies that ensure their property values skyrocket. They want folks discouraged. And yet policies are changing in ways that would have been unimaginable just 10 years ago. Again, get involved. Make your voice heard. Coastal cities can become places where families on regular incomes thrive. Walkable cities where you don't have to sit in soul crushing commutes, where you can easily walk down the street to a corner market for groceries or pop into a neighborhood cafe. It is doable.

Utter nonsense …. UNLESS you can reduce populations… which you can’t (I wish). As long as our modern culture is so completely focused on material wealth, coastal living will go to the wealthier among us. Crapping up the coasts by cramming in more population just ruins it for everyone. Easy for you in Boise to say California coast should be developed into a termite mound.

As I said before, your posts read like subterfuge from an expatriate bent on revenge.

Call yourself an “unapologetic urbanist” till you are blue in the face. That simply rings hollow and disingenuously coming from one who fled California for the sparsely populated northern frontiers.