Why am I only hearing about "affordable housing" in this housing crisis (San Jose: house, construction)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

The answer is yes.

The "affordability crisis" is, at its core, a supply crisis. Every bay area mayor talks about uppercase "Affordable Housing," but no mayor seems to be talking about what their own city halls can do to streamline the planning and development process to bring supply back in line with demand and deal with the lowercase affordable housing crisis. It is deeply frustrating that city councils and mayors across the region have been kowtowing to "no development anywhere, ever" types.

^^^This^^^

I have been saying the same thing forever, but you said it better.

[things and stuff]

I find it odd that you can be an uneducated, unskilled person and make it in california and get subsidized housing in an urban area, with public transportation (subsidized in many cases), get subsidized electricity, water, free healthcare, free DAYCARE, help fixing up your car if it doesn't pass smog test, etc but the moment you get a white collar job you lose all those benefits and California tells you to go scr$w yourself even though living is really hard for many middle class folks and many can't afford housing in prime locations that many subsidized housing units are in.

The funny thing is that these wealthy politicians and developers who are making big $$ off these affordable housing units (federal dollars) never seem to want the homes right next to them to become affordable.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

The answer is yes.

The "affordability crisis" is, at its core, a supply crisis. Every bay area mayor talks about uppercase "Affordable Housing," but no mayor seems to be talking about what their own city halls can do to streamline the planning and development process to bring supply back in line with demand and deal with the lowercase affordable housing crisis. It is deeply frustrating that city councils and mayors across the region have been kowtowing to "no development anywhere, ever" types.

I am for mass market-rate housing. But not in San Jose. We already build enough here, and I'm sick of our city shouldering the housing burden for the Valley. All we get is ****ty traffic and the thankless "bedroom community" ridicule.

It's time the peanut villages between SF and San Jose (I'm looking at you PA, MV, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino) get their **** together and start building homes in decent number instead of the bull**** 200 units every 10 years. A bunch of selfish d!kcwads.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

I find it odd that you can be an uneducated, unskilled person and make it in california and get subsidized housing in an urban area, with public transportation (subsidized in many cases), get subsidized electricity, water, free healthcare, free DAYCARE, help fixing up your car if it doesn't pass smog test, etc but the moment you get a white collar job you lose all those benefits and California tells you to go scr$w yourself even though living is really hard for many middle class folks and many can't afford housing in prime locations that many subsidized housing units are in.

The funny thing is that these wealthy politicians and developers who are making big $$ off these affordable housing units (federal dollars) never seem to want the homes right next to them to become affordable.

Welp, if it helps, we don't build that many of these "affordable housing" types anymore since the shutting down of RDA's. And to me, that's a good thing!

[spicydreamt]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

It's time the peanut villages between SF and San Jose (I'm looking at you PA, MV, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino) get their **** together and start building homes in decent number instead of the bull**** 200 units every 10 years. A bunch of selfish d!kcwads.

Unsubstantiated allegations.

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/...apter-8-12.pdf

8.12-3.3: "Between 2000 and 2008, the number of housing units in Santa Clara increased from 39,521 to over 44,166"

and 8.12-51 (Summary):
"Between January 2007 and December 2009, 1,181 housing units were constructed in the City. An additional 155 are under construction and another 1,551 units have been approved. Proposed projects and focus area plans would result in another 2,553 housing units in the City."

What are your sources?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

I am for mass market-rate housing. But not in San Jose. We already build enough here, and I'm sick of our city shouldering the housing burden for the Valley. All we get is ****ty traffic and the thankless "bedroom community" ridicule.

It's time the peanut villages between SF and San Jose (I'm looking at you PA, MV, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino) get their **** together and start building homes in decent number instead of the bull**** 200 units every 10 years. A bunch of selfish d!kcwads.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph but not your first. San Jose is "less bad" about building new housing than other SV cities, but that doesn't mean it's doing a good job.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

Unsubstantiated allegations.

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/...apter-8-12.pdf

8.12-3.3: "Between 2000 and 2008, the number of housing units in Santa Clara increased from 39,521 to over 44,166"

and 8.12-51 (Summary):
"Between January 2007 and December 2009, 1,181 housing units were constructed in the City. An additional 155 are under construction and another 1,551 units have been approved. Proposed projects and focus area plans would result in another 2,553 housing units in the City."

What are your sources?

Still nowhere near enough.

[abqcd]

This housing crisis is really a failure of all levels: the public voter, the big companies and of the government. The public is supposed to prod their elected officials into addressing the issue and allowing higher density development. The big companies, that create the demand in the first place and make billions, are supposed to pay the taxes required to build the infrastructure to transport their workers. The government is supposed to spearhead the projects, planning and taxation required.

What puzzles me the most is why the tech companies don't care more. The housing crisis is so bad that even a mid-level Google engineer can't afford to house a family. Only the 20 something young graduates and the 55 year old directors can afford housing. They are missing out on the most productive segment of workers.

I guess they figure its cheaper to lobby Congress to import more H1B workers who live 10 to an apartment and send the rest of their income back home, than it is to employ American workers who are raising the next generation of workers.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

Unsubstantiated allegations.

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/...apter-8-12.pdf

8.12-3.3: "Between 2000 and 2008, the number of housing units in Santa Clara increased from 39,521 to over 44,166"

and 8.12-51 (Summary):
"Between January 2007 and December 2009, 1,181 housing units were constructed in the City. An additional 155 are under construction and another 1,551 units have been approved. Proposed projects and focus area plans would result in another 2,553 housing units in the City."

What are your sources?

LOL. And San Jose built 8,000 units in North SJ alone the last 3 years and currently building another 2,000. Right now there's 3,000 planned for Cottle in South San Jose (with 1,000 already under construction), 2,200 planned in Communication Hill, and roughly 2,500 in Downtown (with 1,000 of that already in construction). So spare me while I applaud with a smirk at Santa Clara's peanut 4,000 units in 8 years.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I agree with your 2nd paragraph but not your first. San Jose is "less bad" about building new housing than other SV cities, but that doesn't mean it's doing a good job.

Sorry, I am now a hardline opponent against housing in San Jose, except in Downtown areas, until the job levels here are balanced with residential components.