What's being done to fix the housing crisis in California? (apartment, to rent)

[CA4Now]

"The majority of voters remain disillusioned with housing costs in California. Seventy-four percent of voters view housing affordability as a major issue, according to a February survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, and nearly 90% are worried that younger generations won’t be able to afford a home in the state."

State lawmakers are pushing new bills to increase production of affordable homes. A few are: Assembly Bill 68 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=202320240AB68), Senate Bill 4 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB4), and Senate Bill 423 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202320240SB423).

Will these homes really be "affordable"? Thoughts?

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ons-labor-rent

https://calmatters.org/commentary/20...le-of-despair/

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Affordable. Unless the land is free forget it. People just need to understand they aren't entitled to live on a coast.


Both bills include a guarantee of union-level pay, known as prevailing wages, and some healthcare benefits for construction workers. Those labor standards were included in last year’s agreement and are supported by the California Conference of Carpenters .

[AnythingOutdoors]

If they build enough units it will become more affordable. Don't know that the coast will ever be cheap, but elected leaders should at least aim for teachers, police, and firefighters. The only way to build this many units along the coast is to build higher. And no, earthquakes aren't a problem with modern building codes.

[Hemlock140]

Just like Seattle, building "affordable homes" will do nothing to solve the homeless crisis. If anything, it could help apartment dwellers buy an entry level house or condo. With the exception of a few organized homeless camps and tiny house villages, the homeless do not have jobs that would provide the funds needed for even the most affordable housing. Even if provided with free housing, many would just stay under the freeways so they can do whatever they want without being bothered. When free or subsidized homes means rules that must be followed many will pass on it.

[Thekdog]

Until they build a lot more market rate homes, the price of market rate homes will not decline


But they continually shoot themselves in the foot, passing laws like transfer taxes, rent controls, inclusionary zoning, labor mandates, environmental codes and more that make it hard and expensive to build housing

Also, cities don't really care in general. They don't see much property tax revenue so would rather permit retail anyway

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Just like Seattle, building "affordable homes" will do nothing to solve the homeless crisis. If anything, it could help apartment dwellers buy an entry level house or condo. With the exception of a few organized homeless camps and tiny house villages, the homeless do not have jobs that would provide the funds needed for even the most affordable housing. Even if provided with free housing, many would just stay under the freeways so they can do whatever they want without being bothered. When free or subsidized homes means rules that must be followed many will pass on it.

This pretty much

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Until they build a lot more market rate homes, the price of market rate homes will not decline

But they continually shoot themselves in the foot, passing laws like transfer taxes, rent controls, inclusionary zoning, labor mandates, environmental codes and more that make it hard and expensive to build housing

Also, cities don't really care in general. They don't see much property tax revenue so would rather permit retail anyway

Are they getting that much less from residential property taxes as opposed to commercial?

The Property Tax Base Is Diverse. Property taxes and charges are imposed on many types of property. For the 1 percent rate, owner–occupied residential properties represent about 39 percent of the state’s assessed value, followed by investment and vacation residential properties (34 percent) and commercial properties (28 percent).

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/...0(28%20percent).

[CA4Now]

One reason inventory is so low nationally is that many homeowners were able to lock in record low interest rates in 2020 and 2021. Mortgage rates have skyrocketed since then—the rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage reached 6.7% on March 9, nearly double that of a year ago, according to Freddie Mac. That means that homeowners who bought or refinanced with low interest rates are reluctant to sell their homes and buy another with a mortgage with a much higher interest rate.

The low inventory makes house hunting an even more painful and emotionally charged process than usual, because buyers are finding that there just aren’t that many options. They have to choose between paying a high price for the inventory that is available, or waiting—potentially for a long time.

One other reason that there’s low inventory? The influx of investors who have bought properties, including single-family homes, to rent. Investors bought 24% of all single-family homes in 2021, up from around 15-16% each year going back to 2012, according to a Pew Stateline analysis.

https://time.com/6261427/current-us-...inventory-low/

[blameyourself]

You know CA4Now, this topic has gone on for years and I suspect it will never go away. But when you drill down on this, the term "affordable housing" is simply a catchall that means different things to different people. For some it might mean prices that were around a short 10-13 years ago. Others look at it as 1990 pricing, and yet others will want prices like 1970. Making claims like it has to be a certain percentage of the median wage are also subjective and ambiguous (who says it has to be at said percentage?). You also have the same cast of characters that scream "exodus" but also claim housing is unaffordable. That group claims we need more supply, but of course their so-called exodus (if it were real....clearly it's not) would produce the same result. And on the other side of the equation is waving a magic wand, creating this 'affordable' housing and impacting people that own houses so that their equity drops substantially (why should they take a hit?).

Many areas of California are extremely desirable and most surveys say the state is the most desirable in the nation, despite what the bashers would lead you to believe. And of course it's not the affluent making these claims or is it established residents (in general). It's really the people trying to get in or those that don't earn enough to afford the cost of living. Has anything really changed with this argument in the last 20 to 30 years? Ultimately people/communities figure it out. If there are essential services they want, they'll need to accommodate people in those professions. And if someone doesn't work in those professions or another one that offers the wages needed for people to live to their standards, they'll either have to make due by modifying those standards or leave. I think that's just reality despite the people that choose to complain about it.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Affordable housing, as defined by HUD: https://archives.hud.gov/local/nv/go...-04-06glos.cfm

Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities.

California can produce affordable housing, but this would require building a lot more multifamily housing. Things like 5-6 store apartment buildings.