U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2013, 02:45 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,010,353 times
Reputation: 1349

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
The Plan Bay area documents show the UGBs, and the plan is for until 2030. Maybe I misunderstood it, but I think it means the 2013 UGB = 2030 UGB, fixed. I would expect an UGB expansion every 5 years, and if the plan is to describe everything until 2030 then they should have an UGB for: 2013, 2018, 2023, 2028, 2033. ... But it does not show any expansion at all.
You're right. PBA does call for all growth to be inward and upward. But, to be fair, the CA senate is creating some top-down pressure to stay within growth boundaries. ABAG is simply following the line. Sacramento county was just a headline for stepping out of line: Sacramento County Approves New Sprawl, Rejects the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

But, let me ask you, would you be willing to accept flat growth on the value of your property for the sake of affordability? Most people wouldn't in reality, even if they supported the idea in theory. Citizens would be in an uproar that they wouldn't make a profit on their homes (the home you live in isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle, but that's a whole other thread).

And developers don't want flat price growth, either. They want to make a profit. Unfortunately, without an RDA to subsidize development (San Jose's shot itself in the foot when times were good), it can be hard to entice developers to stick through the development process in the area.

On the bright side, at least we don't have the development process of SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2013, 04:14 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,507,248 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
You're right. PBA does call for all growth to be inward and upward. But, to be fair, the CA senate is creating some top-down pressure to stay within growth boundaries. ABAG is simply following the line. Sacramento county was just a headline for stepping out of line: Sacramento County Approves New Sprawl, Rejects the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
I saw south of Folsom they sell nice new SFHs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
But, let me ask you, would you be willing to accept flat growth on the value of your property for the sake of affordability? Most people wouldn't in reality, even if they supported the idea in theory. Citizens would be in an uproar that they wouldn't make a profit on their homes (the home you live in isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle, but that's a whole other thread).
What do these people think, where is the appreciation profit coming from? Out of thin air? No, it comes from the younger generation's future wealth/savings. This is a wealth transfer from those who (will) earn it with work to those who are sitting on land/lot ownership. From all the wealth that I will generate throughout the rest of my life, a bigger portion (that it should be) will be paid to current home owners at the time of purchase of my first home. The multi-player market just makes it obscure so the theft is not obvious. Also the double digit appreciation is not sustainable, it will cause another burst/crash. With the same thinking, lets legalize carjacking, fraud, home invasion and slavery too, these are all money making schemes without actually working for the profit. None of them are victimless crimes. So organized massive theft should not be government policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 10:40 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,010,353 times
Reputation: 1349
As if on cue, someone in the San Jose forum began asking "Why don't they build more houses?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by IJustLoveThis View Post
Hi everyone. I've been lurking around this forum for awhile but I registered to ask this question.
I will be moving to the San Jose area in a few months. I just finished college and will be starting out at one of the Big 4 public accounting firms there. I'm familiar with the cost of living, so no need to go there.
It seems a major portion of the high housing prices is the shortage of homes.
I believe banks are still afraid to start lending to anyone deemed at all questionable, but does anyone have any other ideas as to why there isn't more houses being built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top