Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [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 03-06-2018, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,303 posts, read 21,295,020 times
Reputation: 12312

Advertisements

What do you think of this plan ?

—-
Two of California's leading candidates for governor say they're going to end the housing shortage, a driver of the state's affordability crisis.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both have said they want developers in California to build a half million homes in a year — something that's never happened, at least in modern history. And they want builders to do it for seven straight years, resulting in 3.5 million new homes from the time the next governor takes office through 2025.

Overall, the state's rate of homebuilding would have to triple the historical average, quadruple last year's production and reach nearly seven times the pace of building in the last decade.

Villaraigosa and Newsom want to build more houses in California than ever before. Experts see the candidates' goal as an empty promise
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2018, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,267,495 times
Reputation: 38559
Totally unrealistic. I really didn't like Villairaigosa's plan to try to get rid of the Environmental Quality restrictions for developers to have to make sure their developments won't harm the environment. Next thing you know, we have homes on hills that have landslides, or they're built in flood zones or high fire zones. That would be going backwards, and we can't afford to do that.

And, as the article said, in the best possible situation, it would be years before construction could be started.

So, yeah, empty promises. With some scary ideas on how to implement them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2018, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,303 posts, read 21,295,020 times
Reputation: 12312
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Totally unrealistic. I really didn't like Villairaigosa's plan to try to get rid of the Environmental Quality restrictions for developers to have to make sure their developments won't harm the environment. Next thing you know, we have homes on hills that have landslides, or they're built in flood zones or high fire zones. That would be going backwards, and we can't afford to do that.

And, as the article said, in the best possible situation, it would be years before construction could be started.

So, yeah, empty promises. With some scary ideas on how to implement them.
Yeah , of course the promise of “affordable housing “ is attractive to voters . They can’t tell people the truth of course . CA is a high demand and attractive state and it’ll never be affordable for everyone .

We see it here in L.A with Mayor Garcetti saying “L.A should be affordable for everyone no matter what their income “ this is a dangerous thing to say especially since CA already has the highest poverty rate when you adjust for cost of living.

We have a huge homeless population too I don’t think we should be encouraging more people to move here if they aren’t able to afford it .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2018, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Ca expat loving Idaho
5,267 posts, read 4,131,423 times
Reputation: 8133
Ha!! Good luck!!! It took me 6 months to find a contractor and get my kitchen remodeled last summer. And with all the fires here there will be even less contractions and workers available. Just more lies and empty promises
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2018, 10:53 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,106 posts, read 16,488,806 times
Reputation: 33120
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Totally unrealistic. I really didn't like Villairaigosa's plan to try to get rid of the Environmental Quality restrictions for developers to have to make sure their developments won't harm the environment. Next thing you know, we have homes on hills that have landslides, or they're built in flood zones or high fire zones. That would be going backwards, and we can't afford to do that.

And, as the article said, in the best possible situation, it would be years before construction could be started.

So, yeah, empty promises. With some scary ideas on how to implement them.
Agreed and regarding the bolded part. Some years back, a developer up in Natomas got away with doing that and the city experienced flooding in the new development afterwards. Lots of lawsuits followed.

Without those regulations, not only new subdivisions but older established ones will see trouble. Anytime you move or change the natural flow of rainwater it ends up finding another route and often runs right into subdivisions that never saw flooding before.

When it comes to developing the land, regulations are necessary and need to be closely scrutinized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2018, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,477 posts, read 6,465,262 times
Reputation: 6788
If they use innovative designs and higher density I'd be for it (townhomes, twinhomes, row houses, condos). Having an adequate water supply should be required. Having utilities and roads in place should be as well. California has been growing extremely fast for decades, if not over a century. The housing affordability crisis only hit from the mid 1990s on. Demand shouldn't equal unaffordable. Problem is too many people already here or with their personal housing situation in a good spot are too quick to be NIMBYs or no-growth to anyone else trying to get in on the deal. This state will not stop growing and to burying your heads in the sand and pretend just being obstructionist will force people to move away is foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2018, 11:22 PM
 
1,355 posts, read 1,910,657 times
Reputation: 904
We need skyscrapers, not single-story houses. Look at Hong Kong. That's what Los Angeles needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2018, 06:22 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
2,990 posts, read 1,663,859 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltchan View Post
We need skyscrapers, not single-story houses. Look at Hong Kong. That's what Los Angeles needs.
Exactly. Look at Miami. It's a bit much, but it really seems to be the only solution at this point. Everyone wants to live near the coast and there isn't much land left to build. Couple that with the fact that SFH are more expensive per unit, and you get less out of them than high density. CA could be affordable again with enough high rises. That also could help with Garcetti's goal of getting people out of their cars and into mass transit (assuming work is nearby or on a rail line).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2018, 07:10 AM
 
2,830 posts, read 2,488,977 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltchan View Post
We need skyscrapers, not single-story houses. Look at Hong Kong. That's what Los Angeles needs.
Speak for yourself buddy.

Most people who own property here don't even want townhomes/condos, let alone skyscrapers. Both are fugly, and both contribute to the overcrowding problem.

There's a reason SFHs have dominated LA, OC, and SJ/Silicon Valley for so long.

Last edited by ryanst530; 03-07-2018 at 07:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2018, 07:23 AM
 
18,172 posts, read 16,247,257 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
What do you think of this plan ?

—-
Two of California's leading candidates for governor say they're going to end the housing shortage, a driver of the state's affordability crisis.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both have said they want developers in California to build a half million homes in a year — something that's never happened, at least in modern history. And they want builders to do it for seven straight years, resulting in 3.5 million new homes from the time the next governor takes office through 2025.

Overall, the state's rate of homebuilding would have to triple the historical average, quadruple last year's production and reach nearly seven times the pace of building in the last decade.

Villaraigosa and Newsom want to build more houses in California than ever before. Experts see the candidates' goal as an empty promise
Stupid. Just appealing to voters who want a home built that they can afford, with a goal that is totally unrealistic.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top