Millennials simply can't afford to live in OC (San Francisco, Sacramento: rail, design)

[CLT4]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

When supply is essentially locked, then saying "simply increase supply" for housing isn't such an easy thing without trampling on the private property rights of people who already live in OC.

You are assuming that private property rights extend beyond your property. Why does a neighbor get to control what another neighbor puts up? They don't own my lot. They are welcome to buy it if they don't like what I'm doing with it and offer a fair price. The millennial is welcome to buy it too... if they can't afford it. Tough luck. If you can't afford it. Tough luck. If my neighbor can't afford it. Touch luck. If a dumb can afford it, great.

Instead, you are saying property is communal. My land belongs partially to my neighbor and their land belongs partially to me. I can tell them how to use it, because the way their house looks is partially owned by me. Their property is a shared resource belonging to the community and if we all agree they use it a certain way, THEN they have private property rights. It is mainly mine, but also somewhat a "public good" that helps maintain the neighborhood the way the majority see fit.

In addition, I could directly lose on my private property by not being able to sell to the highest bidder. The pool of bidders is limited to people that want to construct a single family home. So maybe a company will pay me $1.5 million so they can use the land to sell tractors. Instead, my private property has been regulated to $1 million, which is how much somebody will pay to buy a single family home use. So instead, MY private property rights are trampled on by my neighbors, who have a communal ownership on my property by using the government to exert force.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CLT4

I'm not actually arguing that we eliminate regulations on housing... I'm asking us to shift our mindset from "oh the free market just made it that way" and actually admit that there a also built in social regulations that also contribute to the shortage of housing we have today. It is the free market + REGULATION that create the shortage of homes. We don't WANT to create enough housing for other people. We like single family homes and we want it regulated that way. We don't CARE our children don't have the ability to buy a home in the neighborhood we raised them in unless they become a doctor, because we care more about our investment / profit. We care more about aesthetics and visual appeal than about housing space. We regulate it that way so it benefits us.

Also... we continue to think our private property right extend to other people's properties and that our "value" is more important than what somebody else wants to do with their land.

Yes the reason it's that way is because of something called "economic externalities", a basic economic concept I was trying to get you to acknowledge and which I described in the part of my post that you did not choose to copy for some reason (perhaps because it explains what you're missing from your post?).

Here I'll do it for you.

Like I said, I agree in principal, but I've seen "master planned" neighborhoods (e.g - Irvine, Laguna Niguel) where it seems that the livability, benefits of master planning, have created a thriving community that is both desirable and meeting the needs of the people who live there.

I've also seen communities where lack of zoning has lead to people living next to dumping sites.

Land and zoning I believe sometimes is failed by the free market because you simply can't make more of it, it's not a service or a consumable good. There is a limited amount of land in Newport Beach, or "The Coast", so once it's ruined, you can't say "Well the market has spoken, so I'm going to another coastal area that doesn't have garbage dumps", because the supply is essentially locked.

This is why zoning exists, because you cannot simply "create more coastal OC land", so with a locked supply, there needs to be a way to protect and make sure that supply is usable. If ONE individual decided to turn his lot into a nuclear dumping ground (crazy person), that's not a MARKET decision, that's an individual who has externalized his negative economic externality upon society and would have a huge effect on the general market. Zoning is a way of "internalizing" an externality so that if someone breaks a zoning law, THEY incur the majority of the economic damage, not the greater society.

[CLT4]

^ I completely agree with everything you just said. So can we admit that the housing market is not completely free and has lots of government involvement to offset numerous economic externalities, some of which are negative to people that do not yet own property and some of which are beneficial to people who already own property. Overall, we as a society are saying the zoning and regulations are a good thing.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CLT4

^ I completely agree with everything you just said. So can we admit that the housing market is not completely free and has lots of government involvement to offset numerous economic externalities, some of which are negative to people that do not yet own property and some of which are beneficial to people who already own property. Overall, we as a society are saying the zoning and regulations are a good thing.

There are actually very few markets in the U.S that are "completely free", from the food we buy, or even buying a car. Part of the reason why car prices are rising is because of the increased safety features and crash test requirements that are now part of the DOT's requirement to sell vehicles in the U.S (and why China and India have yet to launch a car in the states).

As for "zoning and regulations are a good thing", that depends on the zoning regulation being discussed.

A regulation that prevents people from storing spent Uranium in residential areas is "probably" a good thing overall, I struggle to find any cons.

A regulation that says "Jews cannot purchase property within the neighborhood" is probably overall a bad thing as I struggle to find any benefit and only negatives with such a regulation.

[CLT4]

^Agree completely. We live in a pretty regulated mixed economy. Even moreso in California.

[payutenyodagimas]

you can only build so much in a desired place. California City, the Antelope Valley, these places have laid out cities just waiting for people/developers to build and live.

[CLT4]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

you can only build so much in a desired place. California City, the Antelope Valley, these places have laid out cities just waiting for people/developers to build and live.

They suffer from chicken and egg problems (in addition to bad weather. Might as well move out of state). What comes first... jobs or people to do jobs?

[SoCal_Mom]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

you can only build so much in a desired place by the beach. California City, the Antelope Valley, these places have laid out cities just waiting for people/developers to build and live.

Don’t forget about the Victor Valley and Barstow Basin.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

The problem with your analogy is that cars or other consumable goods can be produced in greater quantity by a variety of suppliers. If Hyundai decided one day to suddenly triple the price of their entry level sedans, then demand would flock to Hondas.

With OC "land", the supply is essentially locked. This is the point I think CLT4 is missing in his own "libertarian" point about zoning. When supply is essentially locked, then saying "simply increase supply" for housing isn't such an easy thing without trampling on the private property rights of people who already live in OC.

So the issue is property rights then? As always. It's just a conflict of interest.

Because if ownership of land is public versus private, then the public sector, government gets to decided how densely they want to pack it. But again as I've said before, no one is stopping OC to start building skyscrapers to add a huge supply of housing. The only thing stopping that from happening is the land use restrictions, community, and homeowner backlash. (NIMBYs)

This is also precisely the same issue with San Francisco. Because adding supply of housing gives you that choice. Skyscrapers are essentially the time-delayed version of a mass produced automobile. The housing prices in OC would indicate that there is a huge demand for more housing in OC, yet it's not being met. Supply isn't "locked" per say as in, once the land is occupied with something, it cannot be changed. It definitely can, it's just locked by different interest groups who are against a higher supply of housing, it's this thought that, the community is allowed to control the community's residential development in general. Hence why in San Francisco, NIMBYs are hated.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by CLT4

They suffer from chicken and egg problems (in addition to bad weather. Might as well move out of state). What comes first... jobs or people to do jobs?

Jerry Brown's plan to add high speed rail to hopefully develop some of these communities in cheaper areas but still allow people to commute to the jobs via rail in the big city got shot down. So there goes that plan.