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.
Which posters are these? And you think there are a lot of people in the Bay Area like this, huh? Would that be the same group of people that posters here feel don't want to expand housing because "they got theirs", lol. I gotta tell ya. I don't know anyone that cares if someone buys a home (more power to them...I'll applaud them). My neighbor moved away a couple of years ago. I can assure you, we didn't get together and plan a scenario so that someone couldn't buy his house. In fact, the only thing he said was all things being equal (i.e. similar offers on his house), he would try to find the nicest family possible (and he did a good job...I love our new neighbors).
I'm also humored by the typical intolerance in your statement (yes, let's make anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint "powerless").
Did it ever occur to you that some people think the viewpoint that all you have to do is expand upward and build 5-6 story buildings, skyscrapers, etc,. is going to be pretty useless in the long run and simply overpopulate the city and turn it into a New York type environment? And I happen to think it's clear that the reason it hasn't happened is people like you are in the minority in your thinking (how can I not think that since this isn't the first time it's been talked about and it's never gained any steam).
I always find it funny how people will post some article they've found somewhere of some guy with some blueprint of all the big buildings they'll be putting into the city and how it's going to solve all the "problems". Of course, the one thing that is always missing is how they'll either take down the economy or how they will stop people from coming into one of the most desirable cities in the country (pretty much the only way I could see rentals and housing prices coming down).
There are currently over 850,000 people that live in San Francisco. From 2000 through 2009, the population increased by 52,000 people. In just the first 5 years of this decade, the population has increased by 48K (so nearly matched the entire last decade). Not only will you not be able to meet demand at this pace, but the only thing that would happen is people from outlying areas would just flock to the city and buy or rent all the new units. People would then inhabit the outlying area and new people coming to the area would once again drive up prices (seems pretty logical to me).
In addition, most of my friends who are homeowners, and have relocated (something my wife and I are thinking of doing) don't even sell their home. They rent them out. And pretty much all of them aren't the least bit concerned about some drastic reduction of rents or mortgages (none of us think it could happen for any real duration and we'll all be getting cash flow regardless).
I hardly think the next recession will be quite normal since this is one of the cleanest home buyer cycles in the last 20 years
-1/3rd have been bought with cash. I have no idea why people always claim this would result in some sort of distressed inventory. It will do nothing of the sort. It actually works against the "bubble" argument.
-Buyers of 2010-2014 have equity protection
-Cash Flow of these buyers get better each year since most have fixed debt payments with rates of 3.25%- 4.25%
It's the exact opposite from the housing bubble years. Even semi exotic debt are structured in a way where you still need to have the income capacity to own the debt.
You've already got 72% of available rental stock under rent control. What other artificial means could you manufacturer to bring prices down (and more importantly that you could get people to agree to?). You're never going to be able to stop income inequality (shy of full blown socialism). But many of you will continue to try anyway. And in the end, all you're doing is passing on the cost of things to the very Middle Class you claim you're trying to help.
Hi, I think you need to read everything I wrote instead of responding to one line. Not sure why you mentioned condoning the sale of a neighbors home????? Why would you care about that unless a horrible family moved in. Anyway, I think that the process needs to be streamlined so that one or two people cannot stop a project. It is just too cumbersome as it is now. The Bay Area is decades behind in building. Stopping all building will not help. Building more will help. It will not solve the issue b/c, like I said, this area did not plan ahead and people (maybe like you) stopped all new development in the past.
IDK anything about you but what you write here. To me, you just want to fight with others and nothing else. Me, I'm here for amusement and sometimes I get some good info. That means, I will not fight with you. OK!
As for me being a minority in this opinion - IDK. Maybe once the replacement is complete, we can take over and turn this into mini-manhattan. LOL Seriously, this area is nothing like NY. Go for a trip and find out on your own.
Hi, I think you need to read everything I wrote instead of responding to one line. Not sure why you mentioned condoning the sale of a neighbors home????? Why would you care about that unless a horrible family moved in. Anyway, I think that the process needs to be streamlined so that one or two people cannot stop a project. It is just too cumbersome as it is now. The Bay Area is decades behind in building. Stopping all building will not help. Building more will help. It will not solve the issue b/c, like I said, this area did not plan ahead and people (maybe like you) stopped all new development in the past.
IDK anything about you but what you write here. To me, you just want to fight with others and nothing else. Me, I'm here for amusement and sometimes I get some good info. That means, I will not fight with you. OK!
As for me being a minority in this opinion - IDK. Maybe once the replacement is complete, we can take over and turn this into mini-manhattan. LOL Seriously, this area is nothing like NY. Go for a trip and find out on your own.
Sorry, I responded to your comment...not just one line. Again, what's with the straw man arguments? Who are these one or two people that have the ability to stop a project? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. It's not being done because the majority of people don't want it done because as you said...it won't solve anything. So why would anyone do it if it's no more than just a short term fix. I've been to New York (which I why I commented the way I did). I find it laughable that every time something is said contrary to what people like you believe, the first thing out of the mouth is "oh you're just looking to start a fight". Uh no, I'm just throwing out a logical comment. Just because people aren't into "group think" doesn't mean they're trying to start a fight. If you have an issue with someone retorting your comments in a logical fashion, maybe you shouldn't make a comment. There's nothing derogatory in what I said and it's to the point of your comment.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-01-2016 at 08:34 PM..
Sorry, I responded to your comment...not just one line. Again, what's with the straw man arguments? Who are these one or two people that have the ability to stop a project? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. It's not being done because the majority of people don't want it done because as you said...it won't solve anything. So why would anyone do it if it's no more than just a short term fix. I've been to New York (which I why I commented the way I did). I find it laughable that every time something is said contrary to what people like you believe, the first thing out of the mouth is "oh you're just looking to start a fight". Uh no, I'm just throwing out a logical comment. Just because people aren't into "group think" doesn't mean they're trying to start a fight. If you have an issue with someone retorting your comments in a logical fashion, maybe you shouldn't make a comment. There's nothing derogatory in what I said and it's to the point of your comment.
You are a confrontational person. I think you may be taking this all too seriously and to heart. This is just a discussion group. Anyway, the bay area has a housing crisis and the process to build needs to be streamlined. The peninsula needs to take on their share of the burden. That means dense housing near CalTrain stations and other walkable areas. Also, it should be a regional effort but I don't see that happening.
You are a confrontational person. I think you may be taking this all too seriously and to heart. This is just a discussion group. Anyway, the bay area has a housing crisis and the process to build needs to be streamlined. The peninsula needs to take on their share of the burden. That means dense housing near CalTrain stations and other walkable areas. Also, it should be a regional effort but I don't see that happening.
Yawn. Yep, that's what I'm doing...discussing. You seem to have an issue with people that disagree with you. You also seem to have this knack of say what "needs" to happen, making people "powerless" and the like, even though you're clearly in the minority on your thinking. But of course you're the tolerable one. How amusing. As I've mentioned to many of the other posters, perhaps you should look at the process on how this is done. Namely getting a "majority" vote and replacing elected officials. Somehow, I'm thinking you're not going to get that vote despite your thinking of what "needs" to be done. I take this stuff lightly too because it gives me a good laugh when people think they speak for the group as a whole.
It's like you think the topic has never come up before. It has and the majority have said they're not interested. Probably because it's no solution.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-02-2016 at 10:38 AM..
Yawn. Yep, that's what I'm doing...discussing. You seem to have an issue with people that disagree with you. You also seem to have this knack of say what "needs" to happen, making people "powerless" and the like, even though you're clearly in the minority on your thinking. But of course you're the tolerable one. How amusing. As I've mentioned to many of the other posters, perhaps you should look at the process on how this is done. Namely getting a "majority" vote and replacing elected officials. Somehow, I'm thinking you're not going to get that vote despite your thinking of what "needs" to be done. I take this stuff lightly too because it gives me a good laugh when people think they speak for the group as a whole.
LOL, I never said I was tolerant of anything or speaking for anyone but myself. I guess you could call me intolerant of the housing policy that has been in place for decades. Have a great Saturday!!!
Not sure where you think a tunnel in the South Bay would be needed, they don't even currently have BART service.
The south half of the Bay certainly does have BART service; I use it regularly when I visit the area. And I already said where I thought a tunnel would be helpful, just a few posts before your response. Fremont has BART as well as a bridge entrance, and a LOT of techie residents, some of whom commute to the Peninsula along with many others in the East Bay, who clog the bridges for hours in the mornings and evenings. The time is long past when it was appropriate to think of the different parts of the Bay as separate systems; transit needs to be thought of as a Bay Area region-wide issue, with an approach that connects as many parts of the Bay as possible into a whole.
The south half of the Bay certainly does have BART service; I use it regularly when I visit the area. And I already said where I thought a tunnel would be helpful, just a few posts before your response. Fremont has BART as well as a bridge entrance, and a LOT of techie residents, some of whom commute to the Peninsula along with many others in the East Bay, who clog the bridges for hours in the mornings and evenings. The time is long past when it was appropriate to think of the different parts of the Bay as separate systems; transit needs to be thought of as a Bay Area region-wide issue, with an approach that connects as many parts of the Bay as possible into a whole.
The South Bay is Santa Clara County and currently doesn't have BART service. They've already proposed rebuilding a rail bridge that is parallel to the Dumbarton Bridge and having rail service along that. A tunnel doesn't really make a lot of sense there.
LOL, I never said I was tolerant of anything or speaking for anyone but myself. I guess you could call me intolerant of the housing policy that has been in place for decades. Have a great Saturday!!!
Yep, and one that will probably be in place for years to come because it's what the majority of people appear to want. Sounds fair to me. You do the same.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-02-2016 at 12:51 PM..
This topic is about what the Bay Area needs, not necesarilly what we all want. Of course most people who are already set where they live (and are most likely to vote in local elections) aren't going to necesarilly vote for more housing. Why would they? That goes against most people's human nature.
People seeking housing in the area don't get a vote since they're not even living here yet.
The point is, this thread is really a hypothetical one about what should be done in the area if we want to address the overall housing needs of today (and really, yesterday, because of our gigantic backlog), and of the future. And in that context - yes, if we want to address the overall housing issues of the region, we need to build more (and specifically, build smartly by building much more densely and targeting walkable areas close to transit).
The problem with these discussions is that there is no middle ground. It doesn't have to literally be nothing ("no more change!") vs. bulldoze region and rebuild Manhattan in its place (a common thing I see - and no, it's not what I'd want to happen here, either).
We can, as Jade has rightly mentioned, find a middle ground and target areas that are ripe for construction: "brown" lots (old military bases or shutdown/abandoned industrial and shipping areas), parking lots, abandoned businesses)...there are still TONS of opportunities to build smartly in the Bay Area that don't do anything to change the fabric of our communities in drastic ways (i.e. tearing down existing buildings).
The biggest issue I see is that we, as a region, tend to think really small when it comes to these projects - squandering gigantic opportunities, and sometimes conversely harming our efforts and putting more pressure on existing-neighborhoods/communities.
A great example: Bay Meadows in San Mateo.
They had an amazing opportunity there to essentially build Downtown San Mateo 2.0. Set the scene: a huge amount of land becomes available, perfect to put in a new neighborhood. Instead of building towards the future they built it in a very suburban way - such wasted opportunity.
They could have thrown up at least 1 or 2 10-15 story buildings (These exist in San Mateo, mind you - and have for over 50 years! I don't see people picketing outside of my building where I live in San Mateo saying how terrible it is...). Maybe a few 5-8 story buildings to go with it. Instead we get suburban townhouses (come on!) and maybe a few 3 story buildings...
All that prime real estate - gone down the drain due to inefficient planning and small thinking...
I mean, yes, of course these developments are better than nothing. But it's just such a great example of the historical issues of Bay Area development. We keep shortchanging ourselves when we actually do build...and then we wonder why we're faced with the ridiculous regional prices.
Instead of having significant forethought about what's needed, we keep wanting to pretend that it's 1950 and that we should still be building suburban style developments.
And before anyone jumps on me saying I want to roll in here and destroy the Bay ARea. That's ACTUALLY the exact opposite of what I want. If we would only build smartly/densely in a few select areas, we could actually go a huge way towards preserving the other parts of the region.
All those SFH neighborhoods on the peninsula (this is for you PermaBear)? Well, if you have a few dense areas on the peninsula for people that want to live in a dense way, let those people live there...and they'll have no interest/need to seek out living elsewhere. Instead, when we do build, we get half-assed efforts that really don't satisfy that demand. And we're left with increased demand on the outlying areas...
Also, one more comment: I'm not sure how much I'd say people in the region are against development. I happen to know a lot of people (yes, many of them are natives) that completely agree that we need more housing. Why would a native think that way? Maybe they understand that as the world grows, you need to actually build a bit more to accommodate that growth.
Also, these people are also feeling the forces of increased housing costs on them too - sure, some of them live in their homes now - but what about their children (such as many of my friends, and my GF's siblings/cousins, whose parents have lived in the area/the City for many generations). What are they do if they want to continue to live in the area? Of course they can get a great paying job - but that still isn't a guarantee of anything. They'll still feel the pressures to leave.
This also goes for people that have lived in the area for a while that aren't natives, but previously contributed heavily towards the wonderful culture of the region ("artists", "eccentrics", "free-thinkers", or other interesting people that maybe don't have the best-paying jobs, but are still part of the interesting fabric that is Bay Area culture).
As more of these people leave, the area will keep changing culturally...maybe it feels counter intuitive, but building more (even if only in smart/dense ways) can go a long way towards preserving the culture of the area (by providing some housing options for these individuals).
If we do nothing, which is pretty much what we're currently doing, maybe nothing structurally will change about the region. It might still look the same - but I can assure that things will still change. Change is happening either way, whether we all want to admit it, or not. And while change has always been a part of SF's history (and the history of CA and the US overall), by trying to at least create housing for lower-paying fields we can at least try to stem the cultural changes of the area.
I guess we're faced with a choice of what kind of change we want, in that respect. And a lot of people that I know and speak to often about the housing crisis in the region actually support building more housing.
Full disclosure: I can afford the region - this isn't about me, or about "whining" (a common "argument" for dismissing these legitimate discussion points). It's purely about wanting to see (sustainable) housing opportunities available for people in all income brackets.
I think you're confusing a "want" and a "need". Let's also be clear that whether or not Neutrino's post says the "SF Bay Area", his source is only talking about San Francisco (feel free to reference it and you'll find I'm correct). And that's fine because San Francisco is certainly a catalyst to much of the Bay Area housing costs which rise and fall in relation to the prices in the city. I am thankful to Neutrino for posting it as it shows the misnomer of people trying to blame all their ills on those evil tech companies (which couldn't be further from the truth).
Those of us who have lived in the area for any length of time know that "affordable" is what the market commands. If it wasn't affordable, then no one would be buying houses or renting. In addition, the thought that you are going to drive down housing and rental costs in such a highly desirable and compact area is nothing more than a pipe dream (and most people who have lived here for any length of time know this...hence you have complete resistance to any thought of building "up"). You need look no further than the amount of units that were put into SOMA. And the results after those massive amount of units were put into existence? A continuation of the same high rents people complained of. I think it's clear that the experiment failed miserably. It did nothing whatsoever to bring costs down. And that's because no one ever looks at the other piece of the puzzle. Namely that coastal cities are desirable to live in and that without some restriction on the amount of people that enter San Francisco or the industry that enters the area, the city is doomed to have some of the highest costs in the nation. If we had vast areas of land to build on (like some parts of Texas), you might have a case...but we don't. Those that know that this is nothing but a short term fix and no solution whatsoever, would disagree with the notion that this is a "need". It is clearly a want for people that got here recently.
We have rent control restrictions, and every time a luxury high rise is built, the contractors are required to build low cost housing (not sure if you knew that). None of this seems to have helped bring down costs (and some would argue it's done the exact opposite). Of course the first thing that happens is the low income families flock to them and the lucky few get them. Of course that does nothing to help the Middle Class (but they typically get kicked to the curb on things like this). Ultimately the only thing that would happen if more housing/rental units were built is all the people that live in the outlying areas would simply flock back to the city (similar to these low income families), instantly occupy all the units, and it would simply open up those outlying areas. Then the people that move in there would be making the same complaints that people are making now (that seems rather obvious to me, but clearly not to others).
As for your Bay Meadows example, you may have felt a better job could have been done on it. But the bottom line is, that area was built the way it was because the community there wanted it that way (and that's the way it should be).
I look at it like comparing 24 Hour Fitness to the Bay Club. 24 Hour Fitness does nothing to control the amount of people that enter their facilities. In fact, they do everything in their power to bring in as many people as possible (screw the current members). They run outrageous deals to get in everyone ($19 initiation fees and $19 per month...come on down!!). The end result being lines to wait for treadmills and the rest of their equipment, a very crowded, highly inefficient, and unpleasing environment to work out in. The Bay Club has a much higher priced initiation and higher monthly dues. It's a very enjoyable experience for those that are members. There are also members that got in when prices were a little lower, and locked in on lower monthly fees. The atmosphere is more relaxed, you can get an efficient workout in, and all and all, it's an enjoyable experience. They appreciate both sets of members. Sure there are people that complain and say they want to be members of the Bay Club. And that's life. There are some that sacrifice because they want that experience and maybe foresake going out to dinner a couple of times a month because they're not in the same income levels as the others. And there are others that say, no thanks...they can think of better ways to spend their money than to use it on a health club membership. That's a choice that an individual can make for themselves. Clearly the exclusivity comes from being able to afford something and it's no different than living in the city. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone needs to live in the city, nor am I going to shed a tear because someone can't live here. There are plenty of places my wife and I can't afford also. I have a client who has a Bentley. I can't afford that either. And you know what...I'm fine with that. I've never been into class envy and to a large extent, that's all this is.
P.S. As for the children, there's no reason a home owner can't will their property to their children (and most people I know do). My wife and I will be renting (not selling) our home with the intent of keeping the property in the family when we eventually move away for the warmer climate we desire in retirement.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-02-2016 at 04:43 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.
Have a great Saturday!!!
