Banning Ranch development rejected by Coastal Commission (buying, schools)

[pacific2]

Originally Posted by man4857

There's various methods to doing it:
Tax income/investment income
Reduce the money supply
Progressive property taxes (based on land value and/or property value)

Other ways to address affordability:
Increase the supply of housing by building more housing on available land and/or increasing density on existing land. (increasing density doesn't always imply skyscrapers, it could imply, building homes that won't be >2000 sq ft, or have smaller lots etc..)

Those would all vary depending on the area of course.

Where is there land available in South OC for building homes? The last time I checked, the largest parcel was a 25 acre site for sale in Aliso Viejo, but it may have been purchased. Even then, the city of AV would have to approve any construction plans.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Young people couldn't afford any of the homes (had they been built) at Banning Ranch anyway.

That kind of thinking completely ignores the filtering effect of housing. If you don't build enough housing for rich people, they occupy housing that would've gone to the middle class. The middle class then occupies housing that would've gone to the working class & poor, etc. This is how you end up with 30 year olds living at home with their parents if they don't move to another state altogether.

[pacific2]

Now (Seasonal dip) may be the time for millennials to get a toe in the door, even if it means buying a condo/townhouse. They will still have to forget about Newport Beach.

Local housing market cools as median price dips $20,000 to $690,000 – Orange County Register

Sales, meanwhile, fell to 3,102 transactions, down 0.5 percent year over year.

House sales were unchanged from a year ago, but condo sales dropped 5.9 percent, pulling the overall market figure downward.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

That kind of thinking completely ignores the filtering effect of housing. If you don't build enough housing for rich people, they occupy housing that would've gone to the middle class. The middle class then occupies housing that would've gone to the working class & poor, etc. This is how you end up with 30 year olds living at home with their parents if they don't move to another state altogether.

What does that have to do with what I typed?


Those homes would have been priced in the high 6 digit range or even 7 digit range, or whatever range, but certainly not in the range of where some middle class person could just come in and buy one.

That is the market reality. The market doesn't care if someone making $100,000 a year can't afford to buy a home in Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, or any beach. Coastal SoCal has been like this for decades.

If that 30 year old doesn't want to live with the parents, they should definitely move. I've always given that advice to people on this forum complaining about housing costs. No one is entitled to live in coastal OC.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by pacific2

Where is there land available in South OC for building homes? The last time I checked, the largest parcel was a 25 acre site for sale in Aliso Viejo, but it may have been purchased. Even then, the city of AV would have to approve any construction plans.

You can rezone and redevelop.... and/or loosen building restrictions at the local level.

[pacific2]

Originally Posted by man4857

You can rezone and redevelop.... and/or loosen building restrictions at the local level.

Are you familiar with Aliso Viejo? AV is very dense with very few SFRs. How about South County, do you know it? What would you "rezone and redevelop?"

[man4857]

Originally Posted by pacific2

Are you familiar with Aliso Viejo? AV is very dense with very few SFRs. How about South County, do you know it? What would you "rezone and redevelop?"

Yes, but AV is just a small part of OC... Most of the land in OC is taken up with SFRs. Just look next door at Irvine... full of SFRs and low density condos/townhomes and apartment complexes. When I say "loosen" building restrictions, I meant building townhomes/condos higher than 3-5 floors to say, 10-15 floors. Something like that. You'll have a ton more units on the market if you go with a medium sized complex.

Central/Downtown Phoenix is doing exactly that. Approving construction of apartment complexes and multiuse buildings that are higher than 6 floors up to 25 floors. Which are all "luxury" units.... with the goal being doing exactly what I've said before in the other thread: giving a nice place for those rich folks to spend their money and not compete with regular Joe in the market for his apartment. With all the people moving to Phoenix from the midwest, PNW, East Coast, you'd think rent prices would be skyrocketing here right? Wrong, it's going up at a steady rate 2-4% in line with inflation. The zoning was changed to make these projects happen. But also using the land efficiently, even though there's plenty of land in the Phoenix metro on the outskirts, there's not much left inside the city.

[pacific2]

Originally Posted by man4857

Yes, but AV is just a small part of OC... Most of the land in OC is taken up with SFRs. Just look next door at Irvine... full of SFRs and low density condos/townhomes and apartment complexes. When I say "loosen" building restrictions, I meant building townhomes/condos higher than 3-5 floors to say, 10-15 floors. Something like that. You'll have a ton more units on the market if you go with a medium sized complex.

Central/Downtown Phoenix is doing exactly that. Approving construction of apartment complexes that are higher than 6 floors up to 25 floors. Which are all luxury apartments.... with the goal being doing exactly what I've said before in the other thread: giving a nice place for those rich folks to spend their money and not compete with regular Joe in the market for his apartment. With all the people moving to Phoenix from the midwest, PNW, East Coast, you'd think rent prices would be skyrocketing here right? Wrong, it's going up at a steady rate 2-4% in line with inflation. The zoning was changed to make these projects happen. But also using the land efficiently, even though there's plenty of land in the Phoenix metro on the outskirts, there's not much left inside the city.

There's no easy fix to the housing problem. This 12/01/17 article might be of interest to you (It's a very good read):

The Great American
Single-Family
Home Problem
Building more housing, more densely, could help address a widespread economic challenge. A fight over one lot in Berkeley, Calif., shows how tough that could be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/b...home.html?_r=0

[man4857]

Originally Posted by pacific2

There's no easy fix to the housing problem. This 12/01/17 article might be of interest to you (It's a very good read):

The Great American
Single-Family
Home Problem
Building more housing, more densely, could help address a widespread economic challenge. A fight over one lot in Berkeley, Calif., shows how tough that could be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/b...home.html?_r=0

I've read that article... it all has to do with planning for the future and not today. Obviously people at the time wanted SFRs and that's all they wanted... White Picket Fence and all. Now the next generation is feeling the consequences of that decision. Just the fact that this development as large as this was rejected, it shows that the same problems still exists. Homeowners want to preserve their community and it's surroundings and doesn't care about the impacts to the housing market. Silicon Valley is a good example, as is LA/OC and many other cities which has gotten expensive. Eventually... I think what will happen is, people will get priced out they'll move somewhere else and businesses and jobs will go with them to more affordable areas. Amazon's HQ2 is a good example.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by pacific2

There's no easy fix to the housing problem. This 12/01/17 article might be of interest to you (It's a very good read):

The Great American
Single-Family
Home Problem
Building more housing, more densely, could help address a widespread economic challenge. A fight over one lot in Berkeley, Calif., shows how tough that could be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/b...home.html?_r=0

The article was informative as it relates to Brown's diabolical and disgusting plan to allow standing to sue by radical interest groups. Other than that, the article was utter rubbish. It was heavy on calls to emotion (the black 67 year old retiree in Berkeley who worries about the high prices in Berkeley as if he could live no where else) and light on the real issue: the property rights that owners had at common law that these communists are eroding entirely. Building as they want to in Berkeley and elsewhere will NOT lower housing prices, but rather, increase them for the remaining SFR stock.