Didn't We The People Just Vote AGAINST Rent Control? (Los Angeles: real estate, renter)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by artillery77

The poorest people don't get the new homes. The richest people get the new homes. The next tier moves into the homes they vacated. The next tier moves on from there etc.

Or slightly less rich move into their homes, and upper Middle Class move into theirs and the poor groups still cant buy anything as there is nothing being built or any resales on the market they can afford.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by artillery77

The poorest people don't get the new homes. The richest people get the new homes. The next tier moves into the homes they vacated. The next tier moves on from there etc.

Where/when did I say that they do?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Or slightly less rich move into their homes, and upper Middle Class move into theirs and the poor groups still cant buy anything as there is nothing being built or any resales on the market they can afford.

Exactly, and since building SFH's is more lucrative than building low/median cost apartments there are not enough rentals either.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Exactly, and since building SFH's is more lucrative than building low/median cost apartments there are not enough rentals either.

Ditto multi family homes, Condo's and even high rises. Can't build them fast enough or cheap enough for the middle class and lower, in the popular areas of CA.

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yeah I was going to say, it's like they don't understand how a market works. I've rarely raised rent beyond 5% annually, and only in cases where the demand for the unit/home was so overwhelming (I'm talking triple digit applications).

But if government is going to set the ceiling, well 7% it is.

7% PLUS cost of living is my understanding

[ysr_racer]

Don't we already have rent control? It's called the free market.

It sucks to be poor. It always has, it always will.

[InchingWest]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Plenty of examples exist of projects that started out as 1000's of acres of planned communities and by the time the environmentalist groups got involved, the state got involved, the NIMBY's got involved you end up with the developer donating a majority of the land to some land conservancy, the project is as best 10% of what it was going to be, and the developer is out lots of money for the land. The only thing to do is build luxury housing to recoup the cost of the project. In our area what that means is large homes on small lots.

The same thing happens here in Maryland, though only perhaps a quarter of the land ends up going into Wetland conservation, though that's not a terrible thing. What they do now though is they are forced to develop "mixed housing", meaning that the developer will build 4k square foot homes on 1/8th acre lots with houses literally 10ft. apart from each other and elongated front to back with almost zero yard space.

And if you want to pay 500k for that house, you will get to live in the shadow of a townhouse development that the developer was forced to build for "middle income" residents. These will go for 350k, but will eventually be rented out after the 1st buyers decide to have kids and move to a better school district. The neighborhood will slowly decay in this way until about 50% of the properties are rentals and a handful of them section 8 properties, and then it'll decay further. Every police offer I know will tell you that town house communities have about 10-15 years of pleasant living, and my eyeballs agree. The communities that were built back when I was in middle school have turned into Obamavilles for sure, with the decay especially visible after I returned home after the military.

Then, regarding the developments I was typing about earlier, right next to the town houses you will have a massive apartment complex built for "low income" residents. The sidewalks will be nice and it'll be clean for a couple years, but once they're full they will turn into the apartment complex nightmares common throughout the country and the schools will further suffer from this as well. But remember those nice single family homes on the 1/8th acre lots only a hop, skip & jump away? Well since they are within walking distance of the apartments and since it is all the same community, those houses will suffer from the same trash and robberies and decaying schools that the apartments are causing.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Or slightly less rich move into their homes, and upper Middle Class move into theirs and the poor groups still cant buy anything as there is nothing being built or any resales on the market they can afford.

In 2017, the census estimates there were 331,510 housing units in San Jose, CA.



They also estimate that there were 1,023,031 people living there....roughly 3 per household. Estimate is also that there were approximately 624,405 Citizens aged 18 or over...and that of those, despite the Man Jose moniker, only 50.1% of them were male.



Assuming everyone got married or had a roommate, that would require 312K households, hence a surplus of homes. If everyone stayed single and wanted to live by themselves, there would be a vast shortage.



Now figure that there aren't 400,000 children under age 18 in the city...No, what you have are non-citizens.



You can't build housing for non-citizens because they aren't going to stay. Yet you still have to house them somewhere.



Increases to the supply may not trickle all the way down to ownership for the poor, but it trickles down to the next level....its just the richest are going to be Corporate buyers that need to house their temporary workforce.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

7% PLUS cost of living is my understanding

Thank you CA Democrats. Making stuff more expensive even when trying to make things cheaper.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

Don't we already have rent control? It's called the free market.

It sucks to be poor. It always has, it always will.

That's the best part of being poor! Being poor is terrible. It's the greatest incentive for getting off of your ass and making something of yourself. I loved being poor!!!