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.
Actually, California's population growth rate has been about the same as the U.S. as a whole for the past 20 or 30 years. This can easily be checked with a google search.
And even the liberal New York Times recently recently did an article on how California's restrictive zoning regulations has led to a crisis in home affordability.
...the churning economy has run up against 30 years of resistance to the kind of development experts say is urgently needed. California has always been a desirable place to live and over the decades has gone through periodic spasms of high housing costs, but officials say the combination of a booming economy and the lack of construction of homes and apartments have combined to make this the worst housing crisis here in memory.
Other liberal leaning outlets have said similar things over the past few years:
There is a deep literature tying liberal residents to illiberal housing policies that create affordability crunches for the middle class. In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes.
But surely you understand you're talking about second-order effects, while the root cause remains the population explosion caused nearly entirely by immigration since 1970 or so.
"restrictive land use policy" seems to be one of these faux-libertarian canards that basically is just a hostility to any restrictions on development...which is a daft and unreasonable position to adopt. No thinking person could possibly defend such a policy.
"Build whatever you want however you want to" is simply NOT a responsible or rationale policy approach to land management. It is a blatant error to paint opposition to unfettered development as "illiberal".
But surely you understand you're talking about second-order effects, while the root cause remains the population explosion caused nearly entirely by immigration since 1970 or so.
"restrictive land use policy" seems to be one of these faux-libertarian canards that basically is just a hostility to any restrictions on development...which is a daft and unreasonable position to adopt. No thinking person could possibly defend such a policy.
"Build whatever you want however you want to" is simply NOT a responsible or rationale policy approach to land management. It is a blatant error to paint opposition to unfettered development as "illiberal".
I agree with some of what you're saying. I don't think it's fair to automatically blame "liberals" for development policy and the lack of housing being built. Most people no matter what political affiliation tend to try to protect their current quality of life a where they live. Basically shut the door behind you once you move in.
But surely you understand you're talking about second-order effects, while the root cause remains the population explosion caused nearly entirely by immigration since 1970 or so.
"restrictive land use policy" seems to be one of these faux-libertarian canards that basically is just a hostility to any restrictions on development...which is a daft and unreasonable position to adopt. No thinking person could possibly defend such a policy.
"Build whatever you want however you want to" is simply NOT a responsible or rationale policy approach to land management. It is a blatant error to paint opposition to unfettered development as "illiberal".
I am not necessarily against restricting immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Pretty much every other developed country (including countries open to immigration like Canada and Australia) has tried to restrict uneducated immigrants from coming to their respective countries. It's the 21st Century and we need people with 21st Century skills.
That said, America's population growth has slowed down over the last 30-40 years--and so has California's. So I don't buy this overpopulation BS. America and other developed countries actually have the opposite problem--not enough young people to support the old people on Social Security.
Beyond that, the use of hyperbole is beyond annoying. Because surely the only alternative to our current restrictive land use policies is "build whatever you want however you want". Yeah, that's what I was advocating. <sarc>
Oh, but hey, the New York Times is well known for promoting "faux-libertarian canards".
I agree with some of what you're saying. I don't think it's fair to automatically blame "liberals" for development policy and the lack of housing being built. Most people no matter what political affiliation tend to try to protect their current quality of life a where they live. Basically shut the door behind you once you move in.
I do. Liberals are so big on equality yet they are the ones who support policies that work against it. They are so quick to point out what they see as other people's greed and selfishness, but never see their own.
I do. Liberals are so big on equality yet they are the ones who support policies that work against it. They are so quick to point out what they see as other people's greed and selfishness, but never see their own.
I get what you're saying and why you blame "liberals" because it's the Bay Area so any problem automatically can be blamed on them by default. But you see more conservative areas in coastal CA with the same problems as far as housing affordability. Granted it's not quite as severe but despite their pro development policies (OC and SD County in particular) they cannot meet demand and have affordability issues.
Can you at least agree there is no way for Coastal CA to supply the demand for single family homes to where it would be considered "affordable"? There's no land left to develop in SoCal along the coastal zone for SFH' to meet demand. Same with NorCal. So in order to accommodate demand we have to build dense, multi-family developments no?
I get what you're saying and why you blame "liberals" because it's the Bay Area so any problem automatically can be blamed on them by default. But you see more conservative areas in coastal CA with the same problems as far as housing affordability. Granted it's not quite as severe but despite their pro development policies (OC and SD County in particular) they cannot meet demand and have affordability issues.
Can you at least agree there is no way for Coastal CA to supply the demand for single family homes to where it would be considered "affordable"? There's no land left to develop in SoCal along the coastal zone for SFH' to meet demand. Same with NorCal. So in order to accommodate demand we have to build dense, multi-family developments no?
Yes, I see your point and I certainly agree that you can't meet the demand with single family homes. Yes, I do think denser development is the answer--admittedly only a partial one.
My biggest gripe is California isn't really even trying to meet housing demand any more, which is pretty much what the New York Times article said. The NYT article also mentioned housing prices skyrocketing in many parts of the state outside the coastal metros. I know prices have skyrocketed in Sacramento as well.
Yes, I see your point and I certainly agree that you can't meet the demand with single family homes. Yes, I do think denser development is the answer--admittedly only a partial one.
My biggest gripe is California isn't really even trying to meet housing demand any more, which is pretty much what the New York Times article said. The NYT article also mentioned housing prices skyrocketing in many parts of the state outside the coastal metros. I know prices have skyrocketed in Sacramento as well.
Seeing the graphic where it showed how much rents have and are rising in Sac and how few rental units are being built is rather alarming. I agree with you there, regulations and NIMBY's have created a housing crisis but I think some of the blame belongs on the private sector too. There is all this demand yet a lot of home builders are holding back it seems. They make more money of big, expensive homes versus smaller, cheaper homes so there is incentive for them to artificially restrict supply too.
Seeing the graphic where it showed how much rents have and are rising in Sac and how few rental units are being built is rather alarming. I agree with you there, regulations and NIMBY's have created a housing crisis but I think some of the blame belongs on the private sector too. There is all this demand yet a lot of home builders are holding back it seems. They make more money of big, expensive homes versus smaller, cheaper homes so there is incentive for them to artificially restrict supply too.
Which is why imo, the govt needs to be involved in the housing game to some extent. NIMBYS and developers dont care about anyone but their own agendas, which locally means the poor and middle class are shut out as far as housing needs being met.
Meh, I feel like many other countries are way more aggressive in tackling the issue of affordable housing for all.
Denser development is simply an extremely short term answer that will have no impact whatsoever over the long term. It is unfortunate that when it comes to housing, the finger pointing and name calling typically ensues. And as much as the Johnny-come-latelys complain about the natives, they simply want to get theirs with no concern for the future generations (yes, they will be in the same boat you're in now).
You could build denser housing and eliminate rent control, and you'd be in the same situation in the next 20-30 years. The only thing that would happen is the city and the closer surrounding areas would fill up from people that live in the peripheral areas and have the 2 hour commutes, and those areas would become vacant. That would immediately drive prices right back up in the city and the surrounding areas would start to fill in with the people that couldn't afford the higher prices.
The only thing that will stop the population boom is a weakening job market (you can't have it both ways). And I don't recall a lot of people cheering when unemployment was nearing 9% some 7-8 years ago.
I have no idea why people think building higher density housing is such a good idea anyway. The city is crowded enough, traffic in the Bay Area is horrendous, and the infrastructure couldn't possibly support it.
The Middle Class is priced out (there's no denying that). In the very near future, the Bay Area will have the elite and the small percentage of low income people that live in subsidized housing. Those that are smart (and not foolhardy enough to take the bait and sell), will rent their homes to these one percenters, and live comfortably in another area.
Denser development is simply an extremely short term answer that will have no impact whatsoever over the long term. It is unfortunate that when it comes to housing, the finger pointing and name calling typically ensues. And as much as the Johnny-come-latelys complain about the natives, they simply want to get theirs with no concern for the future generations (yes, they will be in the same boat you're in now).
You could build denser housing and eliminate rent control, and you'd be in the same situation in the next 20-30 years. The only thing that would happen is the city and the closer surrounding areas would fill up from people that live in the peripheral areas and have the 2 hour commutes, and those areas would become vacant. That would immediately drive prices right back up in the city and the surrounding areas would start to fill in with the people that couldn't afford the higher prices.
The only thing that will stop the population boom is a weakening job market (you can't have it both ways). And I don't recall a lot of people cheering when unemployment was nearing 9% some 7-8 years ago.
I have no idea why people think building higher density housing is such a good idea anyway. The city is crowded enough, traffic in the Bay Area is horrendous, and the infrastructure couldn't possibly support it.
The Middle Class is priced out (there's no denying that). In the very near future, the Bay Area will have the elite and the small percentage of low income people that live in subsidized housing. Those that are smart (and not foolhardy enough to take the bait and sell), will rent their homes to these one percenters, and live comfortably in another area.
You build more densely near the jobs so people spend less time on the road ways. This is sorely needed in Silicon Valley where they keep building mega office complexes but no housing. Probably because using space for commercial leads to higher tax revenue than residential.
The only long term solution is to offer tax breaks to companies that move from high demand housing areas to low demand housing areas.
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.
