Why does everyone want L.A. to be affordable? (San Bernardino: low income, appliances)

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by asdfer

So let me get this straight. In your fantasyland:
The developer "starts out with lots of land" and then somehow before construction starts "the land has been given to some environmentalist project". So the FOR PROFIT developer has donated the land (that he owns) to an "environmentalist project"? What does this even mean? You aren't a developer, nor have you ever talked to one have you.

If land is your constraint, you don't build fewer homes per acre. You build more units and try to cram as many as possible in. Duh.

In Ventura County projects have been shelved for years. Many projects that did get off the ground only happened when land was given away. A smaller percentage of homes were built on those projects. You can look up red tape that developers face all day long. You don't need to be a developer to see what is happening in California. One of the bigest proposed projects that I have been following would create a massive amount of homes along the 126 corridor from Valencia and in towards Fillmore. That project has been in the news for the past 30 or so years. Stalled by red tape and environmentalist. It may still happen though.


https://www.law360.com/articles/6230...-in-california

Gift of Land to Save Money for Developer : Growth: A parks agency gets 6,000 acres from Ritter Ranch builders, along with $30,000 to maintain it. Another bidder wanted a $1.74-million endowment. - latimes

Conservancy Makes Offer to Developer for Canyon : Studio City: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy offers an undisclosed amount to keep Fryman Canyon from being developed. - latimes

[Hopeful for Life]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Uh no. Old people aren't responsible for the shortage in housing supply. It's the Democrat politicians who impose such a heavy cost burden to actually develop that have caused that.

Not to mention having to compete for housing with all of the immigrants that Calif has attracted.

[asdfer]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

In Ventura County projects have been shelved for years. Many projects that did get off the ground only happened when land was given away. A smaller percentage of homes were built on those projects. You can look up red tape that developers face all day long. You don't need to be a developer to see what is happening in California. One of the bigest proposed projects that I have been following would create a massive amount of homes along the 126 corridor from Valencia and in towards Fillmore. That project has been in the news for the past 30 or so years. Stalled by red tape and environmentalist. It may still happen though.


https://www.law360.com/articles/6230...-in-california

Gift of Land to Save Money for Developer : Growth: A parks agency gets 6,000 acres from Ritter Ranch builders, along with $30,000 to maintain it. Another bidder wanted a $1.74-million endowment. - latimes

Conservancy Makes Offer to Developer for Canyon : Studio City: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy offers an undisclosed amount to keep Fryman Canyon from being developed. - latimes

You realize that's completely unrelated to your previous post, right?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Uh no. Old people aren't responsible for the shortage in housing supply. It's the Democrat politicians who impose such a heavy cost burden to actually develop that have caused that.

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Millions of houses occupied by ONE or TWO individuals and the occupants aren't responsible for the shortage in housing supply? Millions of NIMBYs who oppose development and they're not responsible as well?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Millions of houses occupied by ONE or TWO individuals and the occupants aren't responsible for the shortage in housing supply? Millions of NIMBYs who oppose development and they're not responsible as well?

So people's choices in how to live (fewer persons in a home) render them at fault for the entire housing situation? I see the link, but the way people live is part of a life choice and is also based on societal norms in this society. These sorts of choices cannot really be attributed as the cause because these are deep seated notions of how one should live. Are people in So Cal at fault for not wanting to live as dense as folks in Hong Kong? You sure make it sound that way.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

So people's choices in how to live (fewer persons in a home) render them at fault for the entire housing situation? I see the link, but the way people live is part of a life choice and is also based on societal norms in this society. These sorts of choices cannot really be attributed as the cause because these are deep seated notions of how one should live. Are people in So Cal at fault for not wanting to live as dense as folks in Hong Kong? You sure make it sound that way.

Well keeping the city the same isn't feasible anymore. Getting pissed that there is dense development in the 2nd largest city in the U.S. is like being pissed that a river has water..

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by socal88

The reality is that times change and we live in a competitive, capitalist society where supply and demand primarily sets the price and some folks can't accept that they aren't getting as much as they used to for the same price.

If someone can't afford to live somewhere or it doesn't meet their standards, then they should either revise their expectations or find another area to live that meets or comes close to meeting their expectations.

LA has finally realized that it needs to improve infrastructure to support a higher density metropolis but there will be growing pains for a while until that happens.

The problem with the "capitalist" argument is that supply is artificially constrained by NIMBYism and oppressive zoning laws. A certain amount of regulation is a good thing, but over-regulation is not.

The [green] gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.

Fixing California: The Green Gentry

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Cream1

That's life son.

Want to live in a better neighborhood? Make more money.

It's funny how so many leftists on these forums sound like the conservatives they love to gripe about. Maybe you're not a leftist, but many others on these forums have expressed the same "let 'em eat cake" attitude.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by socal88

I also don't know how much longer the state [of TX] can survive on no state income tax. It's also having a hard time building infrastructure to keep up with the population boom. Traffic was almost comparable to LA at peak times.

Texas' state finances are in good shape. Their bond rating is AAA, the top rating. California's is AA-, 3 notches below Texas'. Maybe California could learn a thing or two from TX.

[Cream1]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

It's funny how so many leftists on these forums sound like the conservatives they love to gripe about. Maybe you're not a leftist, but many others on these forums have expressed the same "let 'em eat cake" attitude.

Definitely not a leftist but thanks for checkin in, boyo.