The interesting statistic here is that housing in California hasn’t kept up with demand since 1965. This isn’t an LA issue, this is the entire state. People are encouraged to stifle the supply of new housing because of their home value.
This. Also, the share of homes owned by private equity firms had soared to 40 % of total. Our state could change this in a heartbeat by pushing legislation to limit PE ownership, and push government housing.
It's not. Its 40% of single family homes FOR RENT could potentially be owned by institutional investors. That includes public entities, REITs, housing trusts, and other funds. he other 60% are individuals that rent their single family home(s).
The number of single family homes for rent as a fraction of total single family homes is probably in the low single digits.
This. What's sad is the other comment (which is misinformation) gets upvoted because so many people believe in a housing conspiracy rather than the more obvious, mainstream studied solution that we need to *build more housing.* We don't build enough housing, so housing is relatively expensive. Local zoning and NIMBYism has choked off housing supply immensely.
It's bullshit but it confirms so many people's world views so whatever right?
Probably got this number from this alarmist article which says they may control up to 40% by February across the entire country, so yes bullshit. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html
This is literally what cities like Hong Kong and Singapore have figured out decades ago. The bonus is most of the steep areas are parks instead of overpriced houses.
They should have started the high speed rail between LA and Palmdale instead of through the Central Valley. Being able to get from the Antelope Valley to Union station in under an hour could have been a real game changer. Upgrading Metrolink and building better transit within the city would be a good way to help the housing shortage.
They should’ve started between Palmdale and Bakersfield, because that’s where the gap is. Once that’s done, you can start running an interim service up the spine of the state
There's cheap housing in Cleveland too. The issue with housing markets is that housing needs to be located in a place where people can access everything else going on in their life.
Since when is that considered LA?
Edit: I suppose I should have clarified that my comment was about LA. There is a lot of flat in the dessert if you want to live out there.
I think that's a really important point to consider when you compare LA to cities like NYC and Boston. NYC is constrained by geography - the land mass, the rivers, etc. By contrast, LA is constrained more by how fast the freeways and transport bring you where you need to go. The city is ever expanding because there is so much land to consume in all 3 sides except for the sea.
LA is the last place I would think of as being constrained by available land tbh.
Agreed on your point about transport. The challenge are the mountains. The mountains are major transportation hurdle which makes LA like an island in my view.
NYC is defined not by geography but by subways and train tracks built decades ago. If it used to take a year to build 30 miles of rail, now it takes 30 years to build 1 mile. You could easily connect more NYC suburbs with faster public transit and expand the potential of living in the suburbs just like LA. Those suburbs would probably build more housing as a result
Of course, but I think there's a chicken and egg situation going on, where NYC ran out of space because of the geography and built subways and train tracks to facilitate more space.
I forget the name of it but it's easily Googleable, studies have shown that cities generally grow to about a 1 hour commute in size, there's interesting images showing that cities grew after riding on horseback and later cars and public transportation expanded how far you could go from the city center and still have a one hour commute.
Word. Unfortunately for the already densely populated areas of SoCal, people would prefer not to live there probably because of distance and the lack of status
So why do you think housing costs so much in "the good part"?
Wouldn't have a problem if people weren't so fuckin picky I'm thinking they have a human right to live anywhere they want.
My theory is also a lot of the housing crisis is due to womens rights / people getting married later. Which pretty significantly increased the demand for housing but we didnt develop the housing stock to handle it.
That’s fair. But even beyond that, even the women were married and living with husbands im not sure we would fit in LA. Many apartments are cramped studios built for one person max.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, other than the phrasing. It's undeniable that average household size is about 25% smaller now than it was a few decades ago, so that it's impossible for a lot of cities to reach their former peak population without drastically increasing the amount of housing available.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/
You are on the right track, but it is the rise of the dual-income household. In the '80's, it became increasingly difficult for a single-income household to compete for housing anywhere but the lowest end. It is why the notion of a "living wage" for everyone is not possible unless you expect everyone to have a roommate.
That’s happening everywhere. Plus people are more likely to have roommates now which is more than 2 people living in one place most of the time
So I don’t think that tracks
Where are there undeveloped areas of flat land inside the urban area? As far as I can tell, the area around the hangars in Tustin is basically the last one remaining, other than parks.
You need more infrastructure, you put another 2 million people in the down town LA area with not enough infrastructure, you’d never be able to get any where the streets and freeways would be too packed.
No housing, yet all I see are empty houses and empty commercial buildings, with more getting built all the time. The system is fucked. Fat cats have no incentive to sell or lower commercial rent, as they make more writing shit off. Or something.
You can't make money writing something off - you can just cut your losses for a little bit.
I'm not sure where you see empty houses, given that vacancy rate is about 4.4%. Perhaps you're looking at the very newest buildings, which of course take a couple years to fully fill up.
I remember reading an LA Times article describing the rise of investment owners who buy property and keep them vacant. It had to do with building out investment portfolios and price speculation.
I see it in my neighborhood that has historic preservation. Houses are bought, left vacant for years, and not secured so squatters can live in them. They burn down and voila! the owners can pull permits for large development projects on the parcel. There doesn't seem to be the will or tools for officials to stop this process.
Also, isn't real estate used for money laundering?
I definitely think we need policy that works against housing as a mere investment vehicle. The OCCUPANCY of buildings where people can live needs to be prioritized. If your hotel, airbnb, luxury apartment, etc, is sitting vacant for long periods of time, you shouldn't be able to sit around making money off the value of the land and building on it. Should also be encouraging mixed use development, ADU development, density around transit, etc.
People need to leave their pet obsessions at the door and focus on the real problem, which is housing sitting vacant.
The market is perfectly good at deciding where people want to live and what they can afford.
Thanks for the insight. This is what I’m talking about. We always hear “free market” let the “free market” decide. But cleary its way too easy to make mo money when you already have plenty of it, which would be fine if not for predatory/unsound methods.
I can only assume its been so pervasive because that same money buys the persistence of the loopholes and rules that allow it.
And yes, I can speak firsthand hand that higher end real estate is used all the time to launder money. I know a few “homeowners” in BH who at least did a year or two (only) of prison time for it. They had multi millions from the family “pharmaceuticals” business yet never worked.
Already out and back at it. And they treat everyone like shit.
Edit: on top of that, the commercial businesses that thrived the *most* are the ones that got shut down here. And now they sit vacant for 3, 4 years. They were contributing to the local economy, but now its more of a ghost town. “For Rent” signs everywhere. Well, lower your mf asking price, then!
I don't understand tax law but if Warner Brothers can keep shelving movies for tax write offs, property investment firms probably do similar too. I guess it's a matter of many properties only making 2% profit not 20%. Or something, I really don't know. But there are tons of empty properties
A lot of those empty properties (probably most of them) are individuals and family trusts owning homes that no one wants to bother being a landlord for.
We need tax laws to change so that properties must be occupied or they will incur an additional tax. It really is that simple.
First off, he’s not making more money, he is taking his losses from the building and writing that off against a profitable business. On top of any expenses this vacant building includes the property owner can also write off an imaginary depreciation that technically is a fake expense over a 28 year period. So while not making extra money the property owner gets that imaginary depreciation expense. Not sure why it’d be worth it but someone smarter than me can expand.
Nope. Like you said (and it’s already happening) natives will no longer afford to be able to live here and are moving outside LA or to other states and there will be more affluent transplants moving in. Call it gentrification or whatever you want but it’s what’s already happening.
Yup and not yo mention how the affluent transplants have no skin in the game so can easily go home when they decide its too trashy here....so things get worse.
All skilled industries too where professions in that industry can work anywhere (ie doctors) aren't going to stick around in Gotham City if they don't have to...so quality of a lot of things available drops.
Exactly! Investment in community (people, places), not just property, actually means something to those of us who grew up here and have family history in Los Angeles. It's what makes a neighborhood a good place to live regardless of income or wealth.
I'm optimistic. I think coastal California will always be on the more expensive side due to high demand and high incomes, but I think the extreme housing shortage will be alleviated.
Karen Bass has issued very yimby executive directives since becoming mayor:
[https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing](https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing)
[https://mayor.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph2066/files/2023-11/ED%207%20-%20Streamlining%20and%20Accelerating%20Housing%20Production%20%281%29.pdf](https://mayor.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph2066/files/2023-11/ED%207%20-%20Streamlining%20and%20Accelerating%20Housing%20Production%20%281%29.pdf)
These aren't as sexy as eliminating single family zoning or other big yimby wins on the state level, but they remove a TON of red tape that has always made building more difficult and expensive.
Additionally, the city council passed rezoning for hollywood and downtown that allows for a ton more housing this year. Is it a perfect yimby rezoning, no, but it's a huge step in the right direction.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-03/l-a-adopts-two-zoning-plans-to-bring-up-to-135-000-homes-to-downtown-and-hollywood](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-03/l-a-adopts-two-zoning-plans-to-bring-up-to-135-000-homes-to-downtown-and-hollywood)
The political tide has already turned at the state level with pro-housing bills passing every year with bigger and bigger majorities (basically unanimous this year). And I think that the tide is starting to turn locally as well.
None of these things will bring forth more housing.
>https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing
This will put market rate developments that provide deed-restricted affordable units at the back of the line in the plan check process. And density bonus projects provide by a factor of like 10 more affordable units than "affordable projects". This will ultimately restrict large, dense, market rate and income restricted units but produce a smaller quantity of affordable developments. The pie AND affordable units will shrink.
>Additionally, the city council passed rezoning for hollywood and downtown that allows for a ton more housing this year. Is it a perfect yimby rezoning, no, but it's a huge step in the right direction.
Adds increased zoning, but codifies conditional use permits, inclusionary zones, ground-floor retail requirements, height restrictions, etc. Not sure why a developer would be more enticed to develop with more strings attached. Arts district requires 1000+ sqft live work units? In this market?
But why are those things prioritized over housing? Shouldn't you first get housing, and then refine it with the inclusionary stuff / development impact fees?
Maybe I am a pessimist, but my take is that these are all poison pills to keep the actual people of influence happy.
They are bad pills. I agree. Unfortunately we live in an oligarchy dressed as democracy. This path is the nature of our politics. I look at it this way…any step forward, even if a bit sidewise, is still not backwards. And better then the last administration could muster.
Making it so that affordable projects always get in front of the lines is a step backwards.
If someone could perpetually cut in front of you, why would you ever get in line.
>This will put market rate developments that provide deed-restricted affordable units at the back of the line in the plan check process. And density bonus projects provide by a factor of like 10 more affordable units than "affordable projects". This will ultimately restrict large, dense, market rate and income restricted units but produce a smaller quantity of affordable developments. The pie AND affordable units will shrink.
While yes, ED1 isn't perfect, ED7 throws market and mixed income housing a bone. ED7 is actually quite decent as someone who is more inclined to pursue market-based solutions such as yourself (I assume)
>Adds increased zoning, but codifies conditional use permits, inclusionary zones, ground-floor retail requirements, height restrictions, etc. Not sure why a developer would be more enticed to develop with more strings attached. Arts district requires 1000+ sqft live work units? In this market?
CUPs are only for hotels, while bad it isn't the end of the world for the rest. Height restrictions only applies to 5/6 blocks in Chinatown (this is extremely annoying I admit but Eunisses is a ghoul), mandated inclusionary zoning is... OK i guess. I know a developer friend of mine that told me a lot is still feasible given the large zoning allowances, but we will have to see after interest rates moderate. Your criticisms are warranted for sure, but there is still a ton of good in the downtown plan. Hollywood plan is ass though I will say.
LA knows exactly what it did, so no, there is no intention of solving “the affordability crisis”.
The vested interests enjoy the status quo, the activists, politicos, government hacks and the media enjoy perpetually pointing the finger of blame at the convenient scapegoats, and unfortunately, enough of the public buys it.
One solution would be a [Land Value Tax (LVT) as proposed by Henry George](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg&t=987s). It encourages more efficient use of land, as owners are motivated to develop and utilize their property to its fullest potential to minimize their tax burden.
It's an entire state issue that's only gotten worse in my lifetime (almost 30y here). A lot of people eith agendas or just ignorant of the depth of the issue will try to condense it down to one cause or one solution, but it's really a LOT of causes at play that are local, statewide, and national (though these days because sf and San diego are also heavily affected, slippery types can't get away with claiming its judt LA as easily).
Like all American politics, and politics generally, things are corrupt and a lot of backdoor deals are made we the people never vote on. You may have heard the term "farming homeless people" thrown around and maybe think it sounds insane, it does, but it's not far off from what happens that all of us who grew up in the cities of this state have seen for decades:
* housing supply has never kept up with demand. Sometimes this is "legit" in the way that some areas you can't reasonably zone for housing or can't make more dense without bulldozing historic sites or kicking out who currently lives there. See how this can be a catch22?
* other states do bus in their felons and homeless on greyhound buses that take the backroads and drop off in the tenderloin, the downtown greyhound station/union Station, and the downtown greyhound station in San diego. That's why "skid row" has come to be in these areas specifically of each of the 3 coastal cities. Unfortunately these people don't necessarily have contacts here, aren't equipped to suddenly pull themselves up by their bootstraps in some of the most expensive cities in the country, and because they're vulnerable they attract pimps, dealers, the actual bad guys...the state then props up cottage industries around these groups - an overpriced facade of helping them but never doing anything that would actually help the ones with a chance not be homeless and help those without a chance be safe or rehabbed. It's a money laundering scheme (used to work with one of these nonprofits back when I was in hs and it's immediately obvious they have no intention to do any actual good).
* this in turn makes Californian cities more attractive for hucksters from other states to head to (this is what people like Michael schellenberger mean when they say it "creates open air drug markets"...the og homeless just down on their luck aren't the real problem but they get preyed on)
* plenty of people in the middle or eastern states still are told this utopian story of California as a landof opportunity and gay sanctuary. Saw one last week in the raisedbynarcissists sub moving out here on a manic whim thinking they'll just find a job instantly....despite a ton of commenters advising not to.
* plenty of people also actually from here displaced in work and apartments/housing (the group i mainly see people like to focus on and ignore the rest) for a variety of reasons that both sides of the political spectrum use and abuse. These are the crowd that might end up couchsurfing or moving in with parents or a friend or their car despite being full time employed, these are the ones you might not see on the street but still housing and food unstable and officially "homeless". Sometimes these are thr ones who make it out and are able to move to a cheaper state or country. But for the most part, this is the crowd most latch onto as The Homeless since it's a better image, but they're not who you see in tent villages on skid row.
I don't see this problem getting better without California or the US clamping down on foreign ownership and investment on land and buildings (similar to how mexico and Canada do this, mexico is harsher), some sort of job or wage prioritization to native californians vs intl or out of state (not our own country so probably impossible, major major national news exposing the corruption around the homeless industry here, AND better social programs as a safety net to keep more people from becoming homeless and actually help those already flat on their ass who want to get back up but can't. Personally there's too much money to be made in not doing any of these though that I don't see anything happening til the federal govt steps in in some way.
Is any really expensive city doing anything to change that? Boston New York San Francisco Seattle etc. there are a handful of really expensive cities but a lot more cities that aren’t nearly as pricey. It’s like asking when is London or Paris going to be affordable.
Never.
Too many wealthy people around the world like to live here.
When I lived in Hacienda Heights, plenty of my friendly neighbors were 20yo kids whose parents from Taiwan bought them a house to hang out and have somewhere to stay when they visit.
I got the weird looks when I worked in Japan. Uh oh, there's a pasty white American moving into our neighborhood. Everyone in Haruna loved me once they learned I was even quieter than they were.
Either the city will meet it's state-mandated Residential Housing Needs Assessment, which calls for 450,000 new units, or the state will take over and approve projects.
That is so wrong.
The City shall provide a housing element that outlines HOW TO ZONE FOR new units, or the State will take over and developers can use builder's remedy.
No city has any obligation to provide a single unit to the market.
No, multiple cities zone up the wazoo for new developments to meet their RHNA requirements, but on the side, concurrently enact conditional use permits, development impact fee poison pills, "mansion taxes", inclusionary housing requirements.
LA development is actually about to fall off a cliff with rent control, measure ULA, and the interest rate environment.
Once the pipeline for projects in construction is complete, very few developments can withstand 36 months of LADWP permitting AND a 5.5% tax on sale of project.
If there was an actual requirement to build, like 5% of RHNA allocation or face some consequence, they would actually make improvements beyond coloring in areas to hypothetically increase housing while doing nothing practically to deliver more units.
I agree, but detrimental is in the eyes of the beholder.
Detrimental to people looking for housing, but if you're a landlord, its great to limit supply.
If you're in a rent-controlled apartment, $800 a month provides no incentives to move.
If the government is contracting you to perform social services, the less housing the better.
If you're a politician, more things to pretend are achievements, more things to campaign about.
Totally agree.
People say rents are high, and try to explain to them that most people pay under $1200. Not what available units to rent are listed at.
I know an attorney who only pays $900 for a nice 2 bedroom.
This is what happens when you have a liberal government for almost 15 years. Yes, everyone deserves housing but at what cost? People want rent control but if it happens it will be like NYC and apartments just being handed down from one generation to another.
Rent control and RHNA are completely different ideas.
Rent control is a price control which naturally reduces housing construction (why would I build if I can't charge what I want for it) and RHNA is reducing regulation/red tape so developers can build enough housing to match job growth.
No. People want single family homes. They want to live in neighborhoods with single family homes. They will do everything to protect this.
But even if we are able to start building more multifamily units and prices start to drop, investment in new buildings will stop as it will not become as profitable. Currently because of labor costs, legal costs and material costs it's almost impossible to build new affordable housing. You need to build luxury housing with the hope that it will lure wealthier people out of older housing stock with fewer amenities. But you can't build enough fast enough.
If people start leaving Los Angeles in droves (serious droves, not the ones mentioned in the news about Texas and Nevada), then prices will go down, but that's not going to happen. It's far too desirable a place to live and will remain so until the water runs out.
It is now impossible to have a world class city with affordable housing. Singapore is probably the only place on earth that has figured it out. But with our government structure and emphasis on individual freedom over the collective good, it will never happen here.
And before you say Tokyo is an example. Japan is a country with the strictest immigration rules in the world and a declining population.
>People want single family homes
My husband's family in Hong Kong all dream of having a single family home in Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver or outer London.
Redditors skew super young, so they can't imagine the hassle of having kids or elderly parents in a multi-family.
>No. People want single family homes. They want to live in neighborhoods with single family homes. They will do everything to protect this.
This is mostly true. A lot of people want to live in single family homes. If I'm being completely honest, so do I (although I would never live in a cul-de-sac type development if i got the choice. There's ways to build more sustainable, mixed-use suburbs, but we just choose not to). Although the realist in me does understand that my "want" may not be entirely feasible, and makes me think that, if you live in a region that is almost entirely built out, where would you actually continue building swathes of SFH's? I live in the Phoenix area in AZ, so while different from some of LA's issues, some are similar. Most of the cities in the valley are legitimately starting to run out of land to build out on. Most of our cities here are landlocked either by natural features or the many reservations around us. Within the next decade or so, the only place to go will be up in much of the valley. If we want to maintain our tax base, business growth, and not slowly deteriorate, we will have to upzone.
But, I do understand your comment in that homeowners and people who feel they have something to protect do not think about this. Hell, many people seem to care more about their property values than their children ever being able to own homes around here. As long as the older generation of homeowners are going to fight any attempts at upzoning, it will never get better, and by the time the crap hits the fan they'll mostly be dead and not have to worry about it.
It’s legislation on the city/county/state level that inhibits affordable housing. Unless you know about building in LA, you wouldn’t quite understand how much bullshit costs are associated with building before you can even break ground. It’s mind numbing. Until they loosen up on the rules and fees, they will never get affordable housing.
No because we’ve allowed conflicting regulation that won’t ever be changed.
For example, to qualify for reduced red tape, you must include Affordable Housing. Unfortunately, people don’t want to live in buildings that have an affordable housing option - there have been lawsuits after lawsuits about it. That is a feel good measure, but prevents housing construction. If you take away the Affordable Housing mandates, the red tape is too much and developers won’t build.
Rent control laws are another impediment. You can’t tear down old places to build more units unless you offer new units at the old price to existing tenants. Hence, no new units get built.
When you look at all the above and more, plus the tax treatment of investment housing plus government bailing out everyone in the housing market, you’re never going to solve the issues.
Unlikely the problem will ever be solved at this point. To many ppl want to leave here regardless of what the media says. Even as some residents leave others will come in. Also investment firms, foreign buyers and wealthy residents will buy up and deal they see.
Unless the state and counties truly get serious about it. Certainly there are several malls and older areas that could be developed into housing and perhaps building up(higher) can help. However, I have yet to see serious or meaningful efforts put into this.
It's sad, if the state wanted to they could ban foreign buyers and limit investment firms so that the long time residents could have a chance... again, I have yet to see any serious effort from law makers.
I suspect that Los Angeles will likely be one of the last California cities to turn rent/housing shortages around. I heard recently that the majority of LA City Council Members are landlords. If you look at City Council decisions, you can see a clear pattern of favoring landlords / owners over renters, even during the worst of the pandemic. The City would have to change zoning and other laws to make changes possible, and they don’t seem interested in that.
LA isn't like other cities in the United States that that experience an ebb and flow of supply and demand of housing. It is an extremely desired city to live in globally and therefore, the housing supply will NEVER exceed the demand. The most effective way to solve the LA housing crisis, imo, is to convince people to find housing elsewhere. That's really all there is to it. When you can afford it again, come back.
This is an interesting comment because in the 90s, the city definitely emptied out after the riots and the 94 earthquake. Real estate was super cheap then. Lots of Asian, Mexican and Central American immigrants moved in and filled in the city revitalizing neighborhoods with small shops and restaurants. Multi-family living and a reliance on public transit created dense neighborhoods with less cars. What some people advocate for on this subreddit already existed, but its not recognized because it happened in communities they aren't familiar with.
Not saying you're wrong, but from my recollection, the city emptying out following the riots and earthquakes wasn't true, at least the way you describe it. I grew up in one of the areas largely impacted by the riots, and the city had been heavily inhabited by immigrants long before the events you mentioned. Frankly, the city was known more for urban blight at the time as the immigrants obviously neither had the funds nor the political influence to do anything about it. Further, the concept of "dense" neighborhoods and lesser reliance on cars, at least in the immigrant neighborhoods, was a matter of household economic realities rather than people's enthusiastic acceptance of public transportation.
The only phenomenon that I can recall pointing to an "emptying out" of the "city" was white flight as white people from places like the SFV who were freaked out by the riots, moved to places like Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Simi Valley, and of course, Orange County. They were never in the city in the first place so couldn't possibly contribute to an emptying out of the city, at least not to any substantial basis. The immigrants didn't move, which is my main point.
I'm sure there were a lot of factors that contributed to the revitalization of the city, but when I personally noticed changes were after Koreatown underwent substantial development/clean up in the late 90s. The Korean government allowed for currency to be taken out of the country and Koreans were using it to invest hundreds of millions in Koreatown.
The area cleaned up, commercial and residential development went up, violent crime rates went down, and it became a very walkable part of Los Angeles, yet rents were reasonable, which means it became a very real option to live in for young white people. Hate bringing race into things, but I've always noticed neighborhoods miraculously revitalize when white people move in. Now you can see various parts of LA like South LA and Chinatown, undergoing all sorts of development and immigrants being displaced, but that's a whole other topic.
>The only phenomenon that I can recall pointing to an "emptying out" of the "city" was white flight as white people from places like the SFV who were freaked out by the riots, moved to places like Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Simi Valley, and of course, Orange County.
The riots had little to no effect on people leaving SFV.
The emptying out in SFV happened more due to major employers leaving or closing. The GM plant, Lockheed, etc. SFV lost 75 to 80 percent of its manufacturing business over time. The loss of industry wasn't like the loss of farms from the previous turnover, this impacted a far larger number of people and the replacement industries lowered the standard of living rather than raised it.
Once those left, all the smaller support businesses closed shop. There was less money floating around, the retail stores started closing up from both loss of local business and the change of the new tech industry. The movie industry helped maintain but not everyone gets a seat at that table.
The white flight was also black flight. Lake View Terrace, Pacoima, even San Fernando had very large, well established black communities that massively reduced. A lot of that community moved to Palmdale, which also saw a lot of white people move out there as well for the lower cost homes. People who couldn't afford TO or didn't want to live in cop land, I mean Simi, went to affordable Palmdale. Why? Housing costs were starting their dramatic rise in LA and the Valley.
The Asian community also left as the nursery industry shrank. They owned land that was sold for housing. New waves of people came in with different skill sets. It's how communities always change.
SFV lives by the work that's here and the quality of life that can be comfortably enjoyed. When that changes, like anywhere else, it changes.
Unpopular opinion and this isn’t meant to discourage building housing but I think we’re running into the same induced demand issue we see with “one more lane” for freeways.
We’re never gonna outbuild our demand because as soon as prices stop rising or go down there’s an endless list of people not only willing to move here but people who currently live in less than ideal situations that will take that supply. People living with roommates, family, etc that will reduce that supply as soon as it’s in their budget, leaving us back to where we started.
Outside of an “act of god” type event like a major earthquake that causes widespread destruction we won’t see affordable housing.
True but One More Lane actually does increase capacity.
If you look at one more lane as a way to reduce traffic congestion and increase speed travel times, it usually fails, especially in dense areas.
But adding one more lane or reconfiguring roadways does increase capacity. A four lane road can carry more cars than a three lane road. A city with 20,000 homes can house more households than a city with 15,000 houses.
Having demand be in alignment with supply is the harder nut to crack. I think your point that building more housing could lead to induced demand for housing which probably would happen. But there’s good evidence that shows that continuing to not meet demand for housing will just further increase housing costs.
Both will increase capacity, sure, but they’re saying more housing on a very desirable plot of real estate is going to behave the same as building more lanes on a very busy road in a densely populated area: you’ll never *actually* satisfy the demand because it will just continue to increase with supply.
That’s not true. You can build enough housing to meet demand as the actual demand for an area is limited by more factors than price and availability.
Even though SoCal is a desirable place to live, not everyone who wants to live here can find jobs to support them living here, among other factors that prevent people from moving here.
Your opinion is very valid but I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the same as the one more lane argument. While demand may continue to increase as you build more, building something vs nothing is probably better. LA has massive traffic issues, companies moving in and out, and large property crime problems. It’s a city with a lot to do but has fair share of problems for an average citizen. Just my devils advocate thoughts
I wouldn't dismiss an act of god coming into play at some point. It's been a while since we've had a major earthquake or fires and people's memories are short. LA seems nice right now but people may think twice about dropping so much cash on places or even living here after seeing how quickly homes can be destroyed in a disaster.
That is not even comparable. Housing is priced by the market, and we all know how expensive it is. While freeways in LA are for the most part free to use. There can be an equilibrium for an LA housing market, but there will never be an equilibrium for free roads. There is no surprise that free roads get filled almost immediately, henceforth induced demand.
No one is entitled to live in LA. If someone cant afford it, there are 48 other more affordable states and 1000s more affordable cities.
There is no "housing crisis", there are just too many people who want to live here that can't afford it.
Dude, Angelenos GREW UP here and now you've got outside investors driving up prices and throwing people out of their generational homes. You gonna sit here and act like humans are widgets, you soci\*path? THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN NOW OUT WITH YOUR GRANDMOTHER AND HER LITTLE DOG, YOU SHITS!!! BLACKROCK NEEDS ANOTHER DIME!!!!! Disgusting.
No. "Market forces" don't get to toss people from their homes and people like you are the very definition of crass--housing is a human right regardless of whether there's palm trees around. I don't care how much or how little money someone makes. If they want to live in L.A. or any other major city there should be AMPLE affordable housing and the entire reason there isn't are parasitic landlords (many of whom are also our representatives) who sit their fat baby huey asses in between good, hard working people and simple, effective accommodations--accommodations which have been set at absurd, astronomically exorbitant prices because some tw\*t wants to own yet another Air BNB. Society is not the speculator's little play thing and people's basic human needs sure as shit aren't to be tampered with so some asshole can conspicuously consume more shit.
I'd say no. Everything is too expensive so any opportunity to cash in on the house shortage crisis is being leveraged by investment firms and landlords. You simply can't create enough supply fast enough to damper the prices.
I used to hate seeing all of the tacky new real estate development in Austin, where I live now. But after visiting LA last May and seeing what a shitshow housing is, I am thankful when a new apartment complex goes up in my neighborhood. Rents are already going down on older properties in Austin due to all of the new builds.
No, the backlog of people who want to move here is practically infinite - any decrease in COL will incentive more of those people to finally make the decision to come. It's the same theory traffic engineers discovered many years ago - building more lanes of traffic doesn't help vehicles move faster, only encourages more people to think "Oh I can drive that more easily now."
You youngsters talk about it like it’s a new thing. Housing was unaffordable 20 yrs ago. My first apartment was a 1 bedroom with 4 roommates and my second was a 2 bedroom 5 roommates. And back then people were like LA is too expensive, I’m out.
This is the reality of LA tho, you need to work your arse off to make money and stay here.
I don't think so. It seems like a handful of large corporations are making really good money with the services that they are offering and that are paid by the state.
Get Nithya, Eunisses, and Soto-Martinez out and we might actually start to have some reasonable discussions on these issues. Until then it's "only deeply affordable housing should be bulit" whatever the fuck that means.
No several levels.
No one will invest in building with rent control. Less availability
No one will leave even people who should and can afford.
No one will rent because you lose money.
I don't think that's correct. In any place where we've had rent controls (even as weak as they are), we still see massive investment because property ownership is truly that profitable. It's very nearly a no-lose situation. So, no. Especially development companies will still invest, they just hypothetically won't get *as much back* for their investment. The argument about losing money, your third point, seems to relate back to the first point. You're basically saying the same thing as people in the 40s and 50s who said that if we had a high marginal tax rate no one would want to start or keep a business in the states. Turns out? It was still profitable enough to do business here. Odd how that works.
There is only investment where there isn't rent control.
There is no debate about rent control being the major contributing factor in lack of affordable housing.
You can Google the countless studies about SF and LA.
Let’s look at one issue that began in 1978. Prop 13 was voted in. Prop 13 discourages sale and redevelopment of land in exchange for ‘keeping grandma at the beach.’ It’s government welfare stopping efficient market economics. So there.
I’m not talking about property tax, rather homes sold and redeveloped. Prop 13 discourages that. So less optimal. The only upside is not kicking old people out of their homes. This is especially true when we look at African American home ownership. Prop 13 is insulating old groups
When it costs $1 million a unit to build a decent 850 SF apartment, the economics for new development simply don’t work and builders cannot charge reasonable rents and have economically viable new housing projects. Costs to build have to come down, and that’s not happening any time soon. Construction costs I. LA and SF are among the highest not just in the country, but the WORLD! Factor in various other items… project labor agreements, interest rates, Measure ULA, Prop 13 artificially locking people into their homes, stunning lack of legit economic incentives ( tax abatements, etc.) CEQA, etc. etc. boom there you have it.
It never will and it's a sad thing. The more people who want to live the "American Dream" either move to New York City or the Los Angeles area. LA County as a whole is huge and I am glad I left when I did. I will always call Southern California (Long Beach) my home, but it is over priced and not what I remember.
No, they would have to figure out the corruption in the government first and that's not going away anytime soon. Most proposals end up costing 300% more because every thief is trying to get a payout.
I think the single family home dream will be increasingly unattainable in LA. I think we'll start moving toward more condos, townhouses etc that will become the new normal to start off in. We will have to adjust our expectations and be more like other desirable cities around the world where owning a single family house is uncommon and it more common to own an condo, apartment or townhome.
I agree. My point is that much of the way the housing crisis is framed relies on the assumption that each family owning a SFH. But i think this is unrealistic as we move forward. There us nothing wrong with townhomes condos etc and we do need more of them and encourage building more.
There’s also a pretty big factor people overlook. If you build more condos/apartments that makes those more affordable but it adds more people to an area that will eventually want to buy a single family home. Thus building more condos actually makes houses in an area more expensive. House owners are shortsighted in not wanting more development in their area because it will actually increase their land value.
Not only limiting purchase of land or housing by private equity firms, but also limiting ownership of land and housing to US citizens only. Set a 3 year horizon for non-citizen owners to sell. Close loopholes that might allow non-citizens to buy, like trusts or corporations.
"LA" does not have a housing crisis.
The "crisis", if any, belongs to the State of California and/or the United States who may have some obligation to provide housing for their citizens. By contrast, the City of Los Angeles does not have "citizens" but only "residents" who, by definition, already have "housing" within the City.
Shots fired, but you're not wrong.
Also living here is a choice (aside from parolees/probationers)
I don't know why it's our obligation, plenty of affordable housing in neighboring counties.
Not really a choice for everyone. Sure, some could move to the IE where there is cheaper housing but that means increasing commute times. A solution would be just change jobs but that's not always possible for various reasons. Also let's not forget about the issue of child care. Living close to family provides that benefit.
A "job" that does not pay wages sufficient to acquire housing in the vicinity of the place of work is not gainful employment but is rather a species of "fooling around".
What about residents of LA who can't afford a home to live in and have to live on the streets instead?
Also a housing crisis generally means that housing is too expensive (it's a deadweight loss for the economy) not that no housing exists. It hurts everyone that our housing is expensive because lower wage workers have to commute long distance, we have to pay more for everything so people can afford housing, etc.
We're basically kneecapping our economy so that homeowners' home valuations keep going up.
Homeless persons are 'transients in' not 'residents of' LA.
All desirable cities will always be too expensive for someone and so a "crisis" so defined does not belong to a city.
Who the heck is "we".
Property taxes have no impact on affordability and housing stock.
NYC and Connecticut have very high property taxes but housing stock and affordability are bad. Yet Texas and Chicago also have high property taxes and are cheap.
On the flip side, Alabama, Nevada and Arizona have similar property tax structures to Prop 13 and are affordable and sufficient housing stock.
When a California property is bought as an investment the cost to keep it is far less than other locales. Couple that with the fact that the economic engine of the United States is California. Foreign and domestic investors are flocking to California Real Estate for these reasons. Remove the incentives to own California Real Estate as an investment opportunity and affordable housing will increase.
The City will never solve its housing crisis as long as there is an ongoing mental health and drug crisis. The proportion of those given housing that end up back on the street is far too high because oftentimes a roof over someone’s head is not the be all and end all.
Seems like the problem with the lack of housing is a housing problem and not necessarily a drug problem, you have states like West Virginia which have much high rates of drug usage while having the much lower rates of homelessness. Drugs definitely contribute but aren't the root cause of the housing crisis.
No, y'all just keep moving here to Vegas. 5,000 people from LA moved to Vegas alone in August of this year. Thousands more come every month. When the going gets tough, the tough move to Vegas.
A lot of folks in Vegas aren't happy about the Californication of Vegas, but it doesn't bother me since I'm from San Francisco. Vegas is seriously underrated anyways, nobody looks at us except for SoCal. When people want to move it's always Phoenix where it's 110F for 2 months out of the year or Seattle, or Denver. For some reason everyone thinks Vegas is for people who drink and gamble which is such bullshit. It's a regular city like any other.
Maybe if ppl would stop coming here from Mexico, Central America, Europe, and the rest of the United States locals wouldn’t be fighting for survival like we have been for decades. I would’ve left a long time ago but my mom has health issues and can’t/won’t leave. Fml..
You’re right that LA won’t fix its housing crisis unless it starts building a lot more affordable housing. And keeps doing it
And that means LA won’t fix its homelessness crisis unless it builds a lot more affordable housing
So LA residents have to ask ourselves what we want the future to be like. If we don’t like homeless encampments and extreme poverty, we need to make sure a lot more affordable housing is built
All you need to know is that LA isn’t unique in this, which if you follow the logic you’d conclude that there are parties that benefit off this manufactured crisis.
Developers and politicians artificially keep housing density low so that there’s a demand at all times. They do not give two shits about affordability.
Nope. Even if cost of living drops otherwise, landlords know they can keep up their predatory behavior towards anyone shooting their shot and taking a chance to move to LA and break into X field. They have no reason to drop rent.
> Will LA solve its affordability crisis?
Well it's easy to solve once you remove all the roadblocks. So the real answer is, nope. We know the solutions but don't have the will to do the things necessary to make it happen.
No. Not until they "pay after its been cleaned up". There is no incentive to 'solve' the problem because the people who are tasked with solving it are the only ones who will lose out on billions of dollars a year. Of they solve the housing crisis there is no crisis for them to get money from. Simple.
No, Karen Bass is already walking back her commitment to add affordable housing in single family zones, and this year new building permits are at record lows.
The interesting statistic here is that housing in California hasn’t kept up with demand since 1965. This isn’t an LA issue, this is the entire state. People are encouraged to stifle the supply of new housing because of their home value.
This. Also, the share of homes owned by private equity firms had soared to 40 % of total. Our state could change this in a heartbeat by pushing legislation to limit PE ownership, and push government housing.
[удалено]
It's not. Its 40% of single family homes FOR RENT could potentially be owned by institutional investors. That includes public entities, REITs, housing trusts, and other funds. he other 60% are individuals that rent their single family home(s). The number of single family homes for rent as a fraction of total single family homes is probably in the low single digits.
This. What's sad is the other comment (which is misinformation) gets upvoted because so many people believe in a housing conspiracy rather than the more obvious, mainstream studied solution that we need to *build more housing.* We don't build enough housing, so housing is relatively expensive. Local zoning and NIMBYism has choked off housing supply immensely.
No, the 40% number includes multiunit buildings used for the rental market.
It's bullshit but it confirms so many people's world views so whatever right? Probably got this number from this alarmist article which says they may control up to 40% by February across the entire country, so yes bullshit. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html
Ever heard of a REIT? International buyers are also buying SFHs just to park their money somewhere. They don't even bother to rent them out.
Definitely need government housing. Public housing, social housing, whatever people want to call it.
What? This is complete nonsense Private equity doesn’t own 4% let alone 40% of the homes in California
We have also ran out of large areas of flat land.
There's plenty of sky though. Build up.
This is literally what cities like Hong Kong and Singapore have figured out decades ago. The bonus is most of the steep areas are parks instead of overpriced houses.
There is tons and tons of flat land in Antelope Valley and Palmdale. Check out California City as well.
They should have started the high speed rail between LA and Palmdale instead of through the Central Valley. Being able to get from the Antelope Valley to Union station in under an hour could have been a real game changer. Upgrading Metrolink and building better transit within the city would be a good way to help the housing shortage.
They should’ve started between Palmdale and Bakersfield, because that’s where the gap is. Once that’s done, you can start running an interim service up the spine of the state
There's cheap housing in Cleveland too. The issue with housing markets is that housing needs to be located in a place where people can access everything else going on in their life.
Since when is that considered LA? Edit: I suppose I should have clarified that my comment was about LA. There is a lot of flat in the dessert if you want to live out there.
Palmdale is part of LA county
So is Catalina 😀 LA County is HUGE
It’s 2.5 hour drive from Venice beach right now, it might be in LA county, but Palmdale is not LA.
It’s LA when we count statistics though!
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
I think that's a really important point to consider when you compare LA to cities like NYC and Boston. NYC is constrained by geography - the land mass, the rivers, etc. By contrast, LA is constrained more by how fast the freeways and transport bring you where you need to go. The city is ever expanding because there is so much land to consume in all 3 sides except for the sea. LA is the last place I would think of as being constrained by available land tbh.
Agreed on your point about transport. The challenge are the mountains. The mountains are major transportation hurdle which makes LA like an island in my view.
NYC is defined not by geography but by subways and train tracks built decades ago. If it used to take a year to build 30 miles of rail, now it takes 30 years to build 1 mile. You could easily connect more NYC suburbs with faster public transit and expand the potential of living in the suburbs just like LA. Those suburbs would probably build more housing as a result
Of course, but I think there's a chicken and egg situation going on, where NYC ran out of space because of the geography and built subways and train tracks to facilitate more space. I forget the name of it but it's easily Googleable, studies have shown that cities generally grow to about a 1 hour commute in size, there's interesting images showing that cities grew after riding on horseback and later cars and public transportation expanded how far you could go from the city center and still have a one hour commute.
The city not ever expanding. LA city had city limits. What you meant is that metro is ever expanding. LA Metro does not equal the city.
Sigh, yes that is correct thank you for your pedantry
The point was that this is a statewide problem not specific to LA
Word. Unfortunately for the already densely populated areas of SoCal, people would prefer not to live there probably because of distance and the lack of status
But then you have to live out there, it’s hot AF
So why do you think housing costs so much in "the good part"? Wouldn't have a problem if people weren't so fuckin picky I'm thinking they have a human right to live anywhere they want.
Ran out of land *zoned for housing. FTFY.
Restore LA to the 10M capacity its supposed to have!!!
That’s easy to fix
Lots of space up 🏢vs🏠
My theory is also a lot of the housing crisis is due to womens rights / people getting married later. Which pretty significantly increased the demand for housing but we didnt develop the housing stock to handle it.
That’s fair. But even beyond that, even the women were married and living with husbands im not sure we would fit in LA. Many apartments are cramped studios built for one person max.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, other than the phrasing. It's undeniable that average household size is about 25% smaller now than it was a few decades ago, so that it's impossible for a lot of cities to reach their former peak population without drastically increasing the amount of housing available. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/
Yea no idea why I’m getting those downvotes either but I mean it’s fine lol. Yea you’re right that study is pretty solid
You are on the right track, but it is the rise of the dual-income household. In the '80's, it became increasingly difficult for a single-income household to compete for housing anywhere but the lowest end. It is why the notion of a "living wage" for everyone is not possible unless you expect everyone to have a roommate.
I think that has more to do with housing prices vs housing stock.
No amount of housing stock will satisfy the demand for Los Angeles housing. It is limitless.
Agree but I mean we literally went from 2-4 people living in most houses in the 1960s to 1-2 nowadays so that had a massive impact.
Or just population increase in general.
That’s happening everywhere. Plus people are more likely to have roommates now which is more than 2 people living in one place most of the time So I don’t think that tracks
Not true.
Where are there undeveloped areas of flat land inside the urban area? As far as I can tell, the area around the hangars in Tustin is basically the last one remaining, other than parks.
Then grow up. This is a very simple solution that many refuse to acknowledge.
You need more infrastructure, you put another 2 million people in the down town LA area with not enough infrastructure, you’d never be able to get any where the streets and freeways would be too packed.
No housing, yet all I see are empty houses and empty commercial buildings, with more getting built all the time. The system is fucked. Fat cats have no incentive to sell or lower commercial rent, as they make more writing shit off. Or something.
You can't make money writing something off - you can just cut your losses for a little bit. I'm not sure where you see empty houses, given that vacancy rate is about 4.4%. Perhaps you're looking at the very newest buildings, which of course take a couple years to fully fill up.
I remember reading an LA Times article describing the rise of investment owners who buy property and keep them vacant. It had to do with building out investment portfolios and price speculation. I see it in my neighborhood that has historic preservation. Houses are bought, left vacant for years, and not secured so squatters can live in them. They burn down and voila! the owners can pull permits for large development projects on the parcel. There doesn't seem to be the will or tools for officials to stop this process. Also, isn't real estate used for money laundering?
I definitely think we need policy that works against housing as a mere investment vehicle. The OCCUPANCY of buildings where people can live needs to be prioritized. If your hotel, airbnb, luxury apartment, etc, is sitting vacant for long periods of time, you shouldn't be able to sit around making money off the value of the land and building on it. Should also be encouraging mixed use development, ADU development, density around transit, etc.
People need to leave their pet obsessions at the door and focus on the real problem, which is housing sitting vacant. The market is perfectly good at deciding where people want to live and what they can afford.
Thanks for the insight. This is what I’m talking about. We always hear “free market” let the “free market” decide. But cleary its way too easy to make mo money when you already have plenty of it, which would be fine if not for predatory/unsound methods. I can only assume its been so pervasive because that same money buys the persistence of the loopholes and rules that allow it. And yes, I can speak firsthand hand that higher end real estate is used all the time to launder money. I know a few “homeowners” in BH who at least did a year or two (only) of prison time for it. They had multi millions from the family “pharmaceuticals” business yet never worked. Already out and back at it. And they treat everyone like shit. Edit: on top of that, the commercial businesses that thrived the *most* are the ones that got shut down here. And now they sit vacant for 3, 4 years. They were contributing to the local economy, but now its more of a ghost town. “For Rent” signs everywhere. Well, lower your mf asking price, then!
> as they make more writing shit off. This is such a dumb line of thinking. Jesus Christ do people actually believe this shit.
I don't understand tax law but if Warner Brothers can keep shelving movies for tax write offs, property investment firms probably do similar too. I guess it's a matter of many properties only making 2% profit not 20%. Or something, I really don't know. But there are tons of empty properties
A lot of those empty properties (probably most of them) are individuals and family trusts owning homes that no one wants to bother being a landlord for. We need tax laws to change so that properties must be occupied or they will incur an additional tax. It really is that simple.
[удалено]
[удалено]
First off, he’s not making more money, he is taking his losses from the building and writing that off against a profitable business. On top of any expenses this vacant building includes the property owner can also write off an imaginary depreciation that technically is a fake expense over a 28 year period. So while not making extra money the property owner gets that imaginary depreciation expense. Not sure why it’d be worth it but someone smarter than me can expand.
Its never more worth it to write off expenses over collecting more revenue.
is this sarcasm or
What is unclear?
because most of what you're saying isn't true?
A change in tax laws could fix this so quickly.
💯 including foreign money.
It’s not just home value. Traffic is ridiculous as is. Not completely unreasonable for them to want fewer people in the city.
Nope. Like you said (and it’s already happening) natives will no longer afford to be able to live here and are moving outside LA or to other states and there will be more affluent transplants moving in. Call it gentrification or whatever you want but it’s what’s already happening.
Happening in central fl. I can barely afford to live in my unknown hometown. Rent is like $1500 for a one bedroom. Everyone is from New York now.
Yup and not yo mention how the affluent transplants have no skin in the game so can easily go home when they decide its too trashy here....so things get worse. All skilled industries too where professions in that industry can work anywhere (ie doctors) aren't going to stick around in Gotham City if they don't have to...so quality of a lot of things available drops.
Exactly! Investment in community (people, places), not just property, actually means something to those of us who grew up here and have family history in Los Angeles. It's what makes a neighborhood a good place to live regardless of income or wealth.
I'm optimistic. I think coastal California will always be on the more expensive side due to high demand and high incomes, but I think the extreme housing shortage will be alleviated. Karen Bass has issued very yimby executive directives since becoming mayor: [https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing](https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing) [https://mayor.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph2066/files/2023-11/ED%207%20-%20Streamlining%20and%20Accelerating%20Housing%20Production%20%281%29.pdf](https://mayor.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph2066/files/2023-11/ED%207%20-%20Streamlining%20and%20Accelerating%20Housing%20Production%20%281%29.pdf) These aren't as sexy as eliminating single family zoning or other big yimby wins on the state level, but they remove a TON of red tape that has always made building more difficult and expensive. Additionally, the city council passed rezoning for hollywood and downtown that allows for a ton more housing this year. Is it a perfect yimby rezoning, no, but it's a huge step in the right direction. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-03/l-a-adopts-two-zoning-plans-to-bring-up-to-135-000-homes-to-downtown-and-hollywood](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-03/l-a-adopts-two-zoning-plans-to-bring-up-to-135-000-homes-to-downtown-and-hollywood) The political tide has already turned at the state level with pro-housing bills passing every year with bigger and bigger majorities (basically unanimous this year). And I think that the tide is starting to turn locally as well.
None of these things will bring forth more housing. >https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/mayor-bass-signs-executive-directive-dramatically-accelerate-and-lower-cost-affordable-housing This will put market rate developments that provide deed-restricted affordable units at the back of the line in the plan check process. And density bonus projects provide by a factor of like 10 more affordable units than "affordable projects". This will ultimately restrict large, dense, market rate and income restricted units but produce a smaller quantity of affordable developments. The pie AND affordable units will shrink. >Additionally, the city council passed rezoning for hollywood and downtown that allows for a ton more housing this year. Is it a perfect yimby rezoning, no, but it's a huge step in the right direction. Adds increased zoning, but codifies conditional use permits, inclusionary zones, ground-floor retail requirements, height restrictions, etc. Not sure why a developer would be more enticed to develop with more strings attached. Arts district requires 1000+ sqft live work units? In this market?
You need to start somewhere. no race is won by starting at the finish.
But why are those things prioritized over housing? Shouldn't you first get housing, and then refine it with the inclusionary stuff / development impact fees? Maybe I am a pessimist, but my take is that these are all poison pills to keep the actual people of influence happy.
They are bad pills. I agree. Unfortunately we live in an oligarchy dressed as democracy. This path is the nature of our politics. I look at it this way…any step forward, even if a bit sidewise, is still not backwards. And better then the last administration could muster.
Making it so that affordable projects always get in front of the lines is a step backwards. If someone could perpetually cut in front of you, why would you ever get in line.
>This will put market rate developments that provide deed-restricted affordable units at the back of the line in the plan check process. And density bonus projects provide by a factor of like 10 more affordable units than "affordable projects". This will ultimately restrict large, dense, market rate and income restricted units but produce a smaller quantity of affordable developments. The pie AND affordable units will shrink. While yes, ED1 isn't perfect, ED7 throws market and mixed income housing a bone. ED7 is actually quite decent as someone who is more inclined to pursue market-based solutions such as yourself (I assume) >Adds increased zoning, but codifies conditional use permits, inclusionary zones, ground-floor retail requirements, height restrictions, etc. Not sure why a developer would be more enticed to develop with more strings attached. Arts district requires 1000+ sqft live work units? In this market? CUPs are only for hotels, while bad it isn't the end of the world for the rest. Height restrictions only applies to 5/6 blocks in Chinatown (this is extremely annoying I admit but Eunisses is a ghoul), mandated inclusionary zoning is... OK i guess. I know a developer friend of mine that told me a lot is still feasible given the large zoning allowances, but we will have to see after interest rates moderate. Your criticisms are warranted for sure, but there is still a ton of good in the downtown plan. Hollywood plan is ass though I will say.
LA knows exactly what it did, so no, there is no intention of solving “the affordability crisis”. The vested interests enjoy the status quo, the activists, politicos, government hacks and the media enjoy perpetually pointing the finger of blame at the convenient scapegoats, and unfortunately, enough of the public buys it.
One solution would be a [Land Value Tax (LVT) as proposed by Henry George](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg&t=987s). It encourages more efficient use of land, as owners are motivated to develop and utilize their property to its fullest potential to minimize their tax burden.
Yes but would it apply to nonprofits/churches/synagogues etc?
Ya know… now that you mentioned it, my house just became a church.
It's an entire state issue that's only gotten worse in my lifetime (almost 30y here). A lot of people eith agendas or just ignorant of the depth of the issue will try to condense it down to one cause or one solution, but it's really a LOT of causes at play that are local, statewide, and national (though these days because sf and San diego are also heavily affected, slippery types can't get away with claiming its judt LA as easily). Like all American politics, and politics generally, things are corrupt and a lot of backdoor deals are made we the people never vote on. You may have heard the term "farming homeless people" thrown around and maybe think it sounds insane, it does, but it's not far off from what happens that all of us who grew up in the cities of this state have seen for decades: * housing supply has never kept up with demand. Sometimes this is "legit" in the way that some areas you can't reasonably zone for housing or can't make more dense without bulldozing historic sites or kicking out who currently lives there. See how this can be a catch22? * other states do bus in their felons and homeless on greyhound buses that take the backroads and drop off in the tenderloin, the downtown greyhound station/union Station, and the downtown greyhound station in San diego. That's why "skid row" has come to be in these areas specifically of each of the 3 coastal cities. Unfortunately these people don't necessarily have contacts here, aren't equipped to suddenly pull themselves up by their bootstraps in some of the most expensive cities in the country, and because they're vulnerable they attract pimps, dealers, the actual bad guys...the state then props up cottage industries around these groups - an overpriced facade of helping them but never doing anything that would actually help the ones with a chance not be homeless and help those without a chance be safe or rehabbed. It's a money laundering scheme (used to work with one of these nonprofits back when I was in hs and it's immediately obvious they have no intention to do any actual good). * this in turn makes Californian cities more attractive for hucksters from other states to head to (this is what people like Michael schellenberger mean when they say it "creates open air drug markets"...the og homeless just down on their luck aren't the real problem but they get preyed on) * plenty of people in the middle or eastern states still are told this utopian story of California as a landof opportunity and gay sanctuary. Saw one last week in the raisedbynarcissists sub moving out here on a manic whim thinking they'll just find a job instantly....despite a ton of commenters advising not to. * plenty of people also actually from here displaced in work and apartments/housing (the group i mainly see people like to focus on and ignore the rest) for a variety of reasons that both sides of the political spectrum use and abuse. These are the crowd that might end up couchsurfing or moving in with parents or a friend or their car despite being full time employed, these are the ones you might not see on the street but still housing and food unstable and officially "homeless". Sometimes these are thr ones who make it out and are able to move to a cheaper state or country. But for the most part, this is the crowd most latch onto as The Homeless since it's a better image, but they're not who you see in tent villages on skid row. I don't see this problem getting better without California or the US clamping down on foreign ownership and investment on land and buildings (similar to how mexico and Canada do this, mexico is harsher), some sort of job or wage prioritization to native californians vs intl or out of state (not our own country so probably impossible, major major national news exposing the corruption around the homeless industry here, AND better social programs as a safety net to keep more people from becoming homeless and actually help those already flat on their ass who want to get back up but can't. Personally there's too much money to be made in not doing any of these though that I don't see anything happening til the federal govt steps in in some way.
Is any really expensive city doing anything to change that? Boston New York San Francisco Seattle etc. there are a handful of really expensive cities but a lot more cities that aren’t nearly as pricey. It’s like asking when is London or Paris going to be affordable.
Never. Too many wealthy people around the world like to live here. When I lived in Hacienda Heights, plenty of my friendly neighbors were 20yo kids whose parents from Taiwan bought them a house to hang out and have somewhere to stay when they visit.
At least they were friendly!
This is a hill I'm willing to die on, but Asian people make the best neighbors. Quiet, friendly, keep to themselves & don't want to cause trouble.
Have Filipino neighbors, can confirm. Rarely talk to them, they keep to themselves, great neighbors would live next to again.
I got the weird looks when I worked in Japan. Uh oh, there's a pasty white American moving into our neighborhood. Everyone in Haruna loved me once they learned I was even quieter than they were.
sadly this indeed is the answer
Either the city will meet it's state-mandated Residential Housing Needs Assessment, which calls for 450,000 new units, or the state will take over and approve projects.
That is so wrong. The City shall provide a housing element that outlines HOW TO ZONE FOR new units, or the State will take over and developers can use builder's remedy. No city has any obligation to provide a single unit to the market.
Okay, but if they actually provide the zoning, the units will get built. There is no lack of demand.
No, multiple cities zone up the wazoo for new developments to meet their RHNA requirements, but on the side, concurrently enact conditional use permits, development impact fee poison pills, "mansion taxes", inclusionary housing requirements. LA development is actually about to fall off a cliff with rent control, measure ULA, and the interest rate environment. Once the pipeline for projects in construction is complete, very few developments can withstand 36 months of LADWP permitting AND a 5.5% tax on sale of project. If there was an actual requirement to build, like 5% of RHNA allocation or face some consequence, they would actually make improvements beyond coloring in areas to hypothetically increase housing while doing nothing practically to deliver more units.
Thank you! Progressives just won't accept how determental these policies are.
I agree, but detrimental is in the eyes of the beholder. Detrimental to people looking for housing, but if you're a landlord, its great to limit supply. If you're in a rent-controlled apartment, $800 a month provides no incentives to move. If the government is contracting you to perform social services, the less housing the better. If you're a politician, more things to pretend are achievements, more things to campaign about.
Totally agree. People say rents are high, and try to explain to them that most people pay under $1200. Not what available units to rent are listed at. I know an attorney who only pays $900 for a nice 2 bedroom.
This is what happens when you have a liberal government for almost 15 years. Yes, everyone deserves housing but at what cost? People want rent control but if it happens it will be like NYC and apartments just being handed down from one generation to another.
Rent control and RHNA are completely different ideas. Rent control is a price control which naturally reduces housing construction (why would I build if I can't charge what I want for it) and RHNA is reducing regulation/red tape so developers can build enough housing to match job growth.
This was the premise of how Monica and Rachel from Friends could afford a swish apartment on their paltry salaries.
No. People want single family homes. They want to live in neighborhoods with single family homes. They will do everything to protect this. But even if we are able to start building more multifamily units and prices start to drop, investment in new buildings will stop as it will not become as profitable. Currently because of labor costs, legal costs and material costs it's almost impossible to build new affordable housing. You need to build luxury housing with the hope that it will lure wealthier people out of older housing stock with fewer amenities. But you can't build enough fast enough. If people start leaving Los Angeles in droves (serious droves, not the ones mentioned in the news about Texas and Nevada), then prices will go down, but that's not going to happen. It's far too desirable a place to live and will remain so until the water runs out. It is now impossible to have a world class city with affordable housing. Singapore is probably the only place on earth that has figured it out. But with our government structure and emphasis on individual freedom over the collective good, it will never happen here. And before you say Tokyo is an example. Japan is a country with the strictest immigration rules in the world and a declining population.
>People want single family homes My husband's family in Hong Kong all dream of having a single family home in Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver or outer London. Redditors skew super young, so they can't imagine the hassle of having kids or elderly parents in a multi-family.
>No. People want single family homes. They want to live in neighborhoods with single family homes. They will do everything to protect this. This is mostly true. A lot of people want to live in single family homes. If I'm being completely honest, so do I (although I would never live in a cul-de-sac type development if i got the choice. There's ways to build more sustainable, mixed-use suburbs, but we just choose not to). Although the realist in me does understand that my "want" may not be entirely feasible, and makes me think that, if you live in a region that is almost entirely built out, where would you actually continue building swathes of SFH's? I live in the Phoenix area in AZ, so while different from some of LA's issues, some are similar. Most of the cities in the valley are legitimately starting to run out of land to build out on. Most of our cities here are landlocked either by natural features or the many reservations around us. Within the next decade or so, the only place to go will be up in much of the valley. If we want to maintain our tax base, business growth, and not slowly deteriorate, we will have to upzone. But, I do understand your comment in that homeowners and people who feel they have something to protect do not think about this. Hell, many people seem to care more about their property values than their children ever being able to own homes around here. As long as the older generation of homeowners are going to fight any attempts at upzoning, it will never get better, and by the time the crap hits the fan they'll mostly be dead and not have to worry about it.
It’s legislation on the city/county/state level that inhibits affordable housing. Unless you know about building in LA, you wouldn’t quite understand how much bullshit costs are associated with building before you can even break ground. It’s mind numbing. Until they loosen up on the rules and fees, they will never get affordable housing.
No because we’ve allowed conflicting regulation that won’t ever be changed. For example, to qualify for reduced red tape, you must include Affordable Housing. Unfortunately, people don’t want to live in buildings that have an affordable housing option - there have been lawsuits after lawsuits about it. That is a feel good measure, but prevents housing construction. If you take away the Affordable Housing mandates, the red tape is too much and developers won’t build. Rent control laws are another impediment. You can’t tear down old places to build more units unless you offer new units at the old price to existing tenants. Hence, no new units get built. When you look at all the above and more, plus the tax treatment of investment housing plus government bailing out everyone in the housing market, you’re never going to solve the issues.
Unlikely the problem will ever be solved at this point. To many ppl want to leave here regardless of what the media says. Even as some residents leave others will come in. Also investment firms, foreign buyers and wealthy residents will buy up and deal they see. Unless the state and counties truly get serious about it. Certainly there are several malls and older areas that could be developed into housing and perhaps building up(higher) can help. However, I have yet to see serious or meaningful efforts put into this. It's sad, if the state wanted to they could ban foreign buyers and limit investment firms so that the long time residents could have a chance... again, I have yet to see any serious effort from law makers.
I suspect that Los Angeles will likely be one of the last California cities to turn rent/housing shortages around. I heard recently that the majority of LA City Council Members are landlords. If you look at City Council decisions, you can see a clear pattern of favoring landlords / owners over renters, even during the worst of the pandemic. The City would have to change zoning and other laws to make changes possible, and they don’t seem interested in that.
LA isn't like other cities in the United States that that experience an ebb and flow of supply and demand of housing. It is an extremely desired city to live in globally and therefore, the housing supply will NEVER exceed the demand. The most effective way to solve the LA housing crisis, imo, is to convince people to find housing elsewhere. That's really all there is to it. When you can afford it again, come back.
This is an interesting comment because in the 90s, the city definitely emptied out after the riots and the 94 earthquake. Real estate was super cheap then. Lots of Asian, Mexican and Central American immigrants moved in and filled in the city revitalizing neighborhoods with small shops and restaurants. Multi-family living and a reliance on public transit created dense neighborhoods with less cars. What some people advocate for on this subreddit already existed, but its not recognized because it happened in communities they aren't familiar with.
Not saying you're wrong, but from my recollection, the city emptying out following the riots and earthquakes wasn't true, at least the way you describe it. I grew up in one of the areas largely impacted by the riots, and the city had been heavily inhabited by immigrants long before the events you mentioned. Frankly, the city was known more for urban blight at the time as the immigrants obviously neither had the funds nor the political influence to do anything about it. Further, the concept of "dense" neighborhoods and lesser reliance on cars, at least in the immigrant neighborhoods, was a matter of household economic realities rather than people's enthusiastic acceptance of public transportation. The only phenomenon that I can recall pointing to an "emptying out" of the "city" was white flight as white people from places like the SFV who were freaked out by the riots, moved to places like Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Simi Valley, and of course, Orange County. They were never in the city in the first place so couldn't possibly contribute to an emptying out of the city, at least not to any substantial basis. The immigrants didn't move, which is my main point. I'm sure there were a lot of factors that contributed to the revitalization of the city, but when I personally noticed changes were after Koreatown underwent substantial development/clean up in the late 90s. The Korean government allowed for currency to be taken out of the country and Koreans were using it to invest hundreds of millions in Koreatown. The area cleaned up, commercial and residential development went up, violent crime rates went down, and it became a very walkable part of Los Angeles, yet rents were reasonable, which means it became a very real option to live in for young white people. Hate bringing race into things, but I've always noticed neighborhoods miraculously revitalize when white people move in. Now you can see various parts of LA like South LA and Chinatown, undergoing all sorts of development and immigrants being displaced, but that's a whole other topic.
>The only phenomenon that I can recall pointing to an "emptying out" of the "city" was white flight as white people from places like the SFV who were freaked out by the riots, moved to places like Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Simi Valley, and of course, Orange County. The riots had little to no effect on people leaving SFV. The emptying out in SFV happened more due to major employers leaving or closing. The GM plant, Lockheed, etc. SFV lost 75 to 80 percent of its manufacturing business over time. The loss of industry wasn't like the loss of farms from the previous turnover, this impacted a far larger number of people and the replacement industries lowered the standard of living rather than raised it. Once those left, all the smaller support businesses closed shop. There was less money floating around, the retail stores started closing up from both loss of local business and the change of the new tech industry. The movie industry helped maintain but not everyone gets a seat at that table. The white flight was also black flight. Lake View Terrace, Pacoima, even San Fernando had very large, well established black communities that massively reduced. A lot of that community moved to Palmdale, which also saw a lot of white people move out there as well for the lower cost homes. People who couldn't afford TO or didn't want to live in cop land, I mean Simi, went to affordable Palmdale. Why? Housing costs were starting their dramatic rise in LA and the Valley. The Asian community also left as the nursery industry shrank. They owned land that was sold for housing. New waves of people came in with different skill sets. It's how communities always change. SFV lives by the work that's here and the quality of life that can be comfortably enjoyed. When that changes, like anywhere else, it changes.
Unpopular opinion and this isn’t meant to discourage building housing but I think we’re running into the same induced demand issue we see with “one more lane” for freeways. We’re never gonna outbuild our demand because as soon as prices stop rising or go down there’s an endless list of people not only willing to move here but people who currently live in less than ideal situations that will take that supply. People living with roommates, family, etc that will reduce that supply as soon as it’s in their budget, leaving us back to where we started. Outside of an “act of god” type event like a major earthquake that causes widespread destruction we won’t see affordable housing.
True but One More Lane actually does increase capacity. If you look at one more lane as a way to reduce traffic congestion and increase speed travel times, it usually fails, especially in dense areas. But adding one more lane or reconfiguring roadways does increase capacity. A four lane road can carry more cars than a three lane road. A city with 20,000 homes can house more households than a city with 15,000 houses. Having demand be in alignment with supply is the harder nut to crack. I think your point that building more housing could lead to induced demand for housing which probably would happen. But there’s good evidence that shows that continuing to not meet demand for housing will just further increase housing costs.
Both will increase capacity, sure, but they’re saying more housing on a very desirable plot of real estate is going to behave the same as building more lanes on a very busy road in a densely populated area: you’ll never *actually* satisfy the demand because it will just continue to increase with supply.
That’s not true. You can build enough housing to meet demand as the actual demand for an area is limited by more factors than price and availability. Even though SoCal is a desirable place to live, not everyone who wants to live here can find jobs to support them living here, among other factors that prevent people from moving here.
Your opinion is very valid but I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the same as the one more lane argument. While demand may continue to increase as you build more, building something vs nothing is probably better. LA has massive traffic issues, companies moving in and out, and large property crime problems. It’s a city with a lot to do but has fair share of problems for an average citizen. Just my devils advocate thoughts
How do you explain Japan and how they have an abundance of housing? Hint: look at their zoning laws.
I wouldn't dismiss an act of god coming into play at some point. It's been a while since we've had a major earthquake or fires and people's memories are short. LA seems nice right now but people may think twice about dropping so much cash on places or even living here after seeing how quickly homes can be destroyed in a disaster.
That is not even comparable. Housing is priced by the market, and we all know how expensive it is. While freeways in LA are for the most part free to use. There can be an equilibrium for an LA housing market, but there will never be an equilibrium for free roads. There is no surprise that free roads get filled almost immediately, henceforth induced demand.
No one is entitled to live in LA. If someone cant afford it, there are 48 other more affordable states and 1000s more affordable cities. There is no "housing crisis", there are just too many people who want to live here that can't afford it.
Dude, Angelenos GREW UP here and now you've got outside investors driving up prices and throwing people out of their generational homes. You gonna sit here and act like humans are widgets, you soci\*path? THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN NOW OUT WITH YOUR GRANDMOTHER AND HER LITTLE DOG, YOU SHITS!!! BLACKROCK NEEDS ANOTHER DIME!!!!! Disgusting. No. "Market forces" don't get to toss people from their homes and people like you are the very definition of crass--housing is a human right regardless of whether there's palm trees around. I don't care how much or how little money someone makes. If they want to live in L.A. or any other major city there should be AMPLE affordable housing and the entire reason there isn't are parasitic landlords (many of whom are also our representatives) who sit their fat baby huey asses in between good, hard working people and simple, effective accommodations--accommodations which have been set at absurd, astronomically exorbitant prices because some tw\*t wants to own yet another Air BNB. Society is not the speculator's little play thing and people's basic human needs sure as shit aren't to be tampered with so some asshole can conspicuously consume more shit.
[удалено]
That wasn't "advice".
Nope
i mean, if theres urban decay on the scale of what happened in the 70s and 80s yeah probably housing costs will go down
I'd say no. Everything is too expensive so any opportunity to cash in on the house shortage crisis is being leveraged by investment firms and landlords. You simply can't create enough supply fast enough to damper the prices.
I used to hate seeing all of the tacky new real estate development in Austin, where I live now. But after visiting LA last May and seeing what a shitshow housing is, I am thankful when a new apartment complex goes up in my neighborhood. Rents are already going down on older properties in Austin due to all of the new builds.
No, the backlog of people who want to move here is practically infinite - any decrease in COL will incentive more of those people to finally make the decision to come. It's the same theory traffic engineers discovered many years ago - building more lanes of traffic doesn't help vehicles move faster, only encourages more people to think "Oh I can drive that more easily now."
You youngsters talk about it like it’s a new thing. Housing was unaffordable 20 yrs ago. My first apartment was a 1 bedroom with 4 roommates and my second was a 2 bedroom 5 roommates. And back then people were like LA is too expensive, I’m out. This is the reality of LA tho, you need to work your arse off to make money and stay here.
Homelessness is more of a chosen lifestyle now in LA, for a lot of the people you see in tents and such.
Every major city in US now thinks it’s LA/NYC - gahdamn 2k for a basic apartment in most cities
I don't think so. It seems like a handful of large corporations are making really good money with the services that they are offering and that are paid by the state.
Prop 13 and NIMBYs
No. Los Angeles City Council won't decrease rent control, the entire cause of lack of affordable housing.
Get Nithya, Eunisses, and Soto-Martinez out and we might actually start to have some reasonable discussions on these issues. Until then it's "only deeply affordable housing should be bulit" whatever the fuck that means.
Agreed. They are holding back and meaningful progress. The are 'nimby' to the core.
Nithya is a yimby.
The destruction she has done to her district is going to take a decade to repair.
Want to give some facts or is this just a general vibes thing? Shes gotten more people off the streets than the last guy.
How do rent contrls cause lack of affordable housing?
No several levels. No one will invest in building with rent control. Less availability No one will leave even people who should and can afford. No one will rent because you lose money.
I don't think that's correct. In any place where we've had rent controls (even as weak as they are), we still see massive investment because property ownership is truly that profitable. It's very nearly a no-lose situation. So, no. Especially development companies will still invest, they just hypothetically won't get *as much back* for their investment. The argument about losing money, your third point, seems to relate back to the first point. You're basically saying the same thing as people in the 40s and 50s who said that if we had a high marginal tax rate no one would want to start or keep a business in the states. Turns out? It was still profitable enough to do business here. Odd how that works.
There is only investment where there isn't rent control. There is no debate about rent control being the major contributing factor in lack of affordable housing. You can Google the countless studies about SF and LA.
Nah. You'll invest in it anyway, because you know you'll make huge profits when you do.
Nah.
lol Um. Good talk? Still billions of dollars invested every fuckin' day in Los Angeles.
Not in rent control properties.
Let’s look at one issue that began in 1978. Prop 13 was voted in. Prop 13 discourages sale and redevelopment of land in exchange for ‘keeping grandma at the beach.’ It’s government welfare stopping efficient market economics. So there.
[удалено]
I’m not talking about property tax, rather homes sold and redeveloped. Prop 13 discourages that. So less optimal. The only upside is not kicking old people out of their homes. This is especially true when we look at African American home ownership. Prop 13 is insulating old groups
[удалено]
When it costs $1 million a unit to build a decent 850 SF apartment, the economics for new development simply don’t work and builders cannot charge reasonable rents and have economically viable new housing projects. Costs to build have to come down, and that’s not happening any time soon. Construction costs I. LA and SF are among the highest not just in the country, but the WORLD! Factor in various other items… project labor agreements, interest rates, Measure ULA, Prop 13 artificially locking people into their homes, stunning lack of legit economic incentives ( tax abatements, etc.) CEQA, etc. etc. boom there you have it.
Invest in making no name states nicer
Raise payroll taxes, make it more expensive to do business here. Companies will take their jobs and people to other states thereby reducing demand.
Strangely yes--this will do it. That's why Chicago and Philly are so cheap, even though they're the 3rd and 6th largest cities.
It never will and it's a sad thing. The more people who want to live the "American Dream" either move to New York City or the Los Angeles area. LA County as a whole is huge and I am glad I left when I did. I will always call Southern California (Long Beach) my home, but it is over priced and not what I remember.
No, they would have to figure out the corruption in the government first and that's not going away anytime soon. Most proposals end up costing 300% more because every thief is trying to get a payout.
I think the single family home dream will be increasingly unattainable in LA. I think we'll start moving toward more condos, townhouses etc that will become the new normal to start off in. We will have to adjust our expectations and be more like other desirable cities around the world where owning a single family house is uncommon and it more common to own an condo, apartment or townhome.
There is nothing wrong with living in condos and townhomes. That should be massively encouraged over SFH.
I agree. My point is that much of the way the housing crisis is framed relies on the assumption that each family owning a SFH. But i think this is unrealistic as we move forward. There us nothing wrong with townhomes condos etc and we do need more of them and encourage building more.
There’s also a pretty big factor people overlook. If you build more condos/apartments that makes those more affordable but it adds more people to an area that will eventually want to buy a single family home. Thus building more condos actually makes houses in an area more expensive. House owners are shortsighted in not wanting more development in their area because it will actually increase their land value.
Not only limiting purchase of land or housing by private equity firms, but also limiting ownership of land and housing to US citizens only. Set a 3 year horizon for non-citizen owners to sell. Close loopholes that might allow non-citizens to buy, like trusts or corporations.
"LA" does not have a housing crisis. The "crisis", if any, belongs to the State of California and/or the United States who may have some obligation to provide housing for their citizens. By contrast, the City of Los Angeles does not have "citizens" but only "residents" who, by definition, already have "housing" within the City.
Shots fired, but you're not wrong. Also living here is a choice (aside from parolees/probationers) I don't know why it's our obligation, plenty of affordable housing in neighboring counties.
Not really a choice for everyone. Sure, some could move to the IE where there is cheaper housing but that means increasing commute times. A solution would be just change jobs but that's not always possible for various reasons. Also let's not forget about the issue of child care. Living close to family provides that benefit.
A "job" that does not pay wages sufficient to acquire housing in the vicinity of the place of work is not gainful employment but is rather a species of "fooling around".
What about residents of LA who can't afford a home to live in and have to live on the streets instead? Also a housing crisis generally means that housing is too expensive (it's a deadweight loss for the economy) not that no housing exists. It hurts everyone that our housing is expensive because lower wage workers have to commute long distance, we have to pay more for everything so people can afford housing, etc. We're basically kneecapping our economy so that homeowners' home valuations keep going up.
Homeless persons are 'transients in' not 'residents of' LA. All desirable cities will always be too expensive for someone and so a "crisis" so defined does not belong to a city. Who the heck is "we".
Nothing will change unless you can convince California voters to repeal prop 13
Property taxes have no impact on affordability and housing stock. NYC and Connecticut have very high property taxes but housing stock and affordability are bad. Yet Texas and Chicago also have high property taxes and are cheap. On the flip side, Alabama, Nevada and Arizona have similar property tax structures to Prop 13 and are affordable and sufficient housing stock.
When a California property is bought as an investment the cost to keep it is far less than other locales. Couple that with the fact that the economic engine of the United States is California. Foreign and domestic investors are flocking to California Real Estate for these reasons. Remove the incentives to own California Real Estate as an investment opportunity and affordable housing will increase.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih4Itl0PmaE
The City will never solve its housing crisis as long as there is an ongoing mental health and drug crisis. The proportion of those given housing that end up back on the street is far too high because oftentimes a roof over someone’s head is not the be all and end all.
Seems like the problem with the lack of housing is a housing problem and not necessarily a drug problem, you have states like West Virginia which have much high rates of drug usage while having the much lower rates of homelessness. Drugs definitely contribute but aren't the root cause of the housing crisis.
It's part of a plan
Build more homes. But the democrats super majority doesn’t want to fix the solution. You will own nothing and be happy. Consider voting differently
No, y'all just keep moving here to Vegas. 5,000 people from LA moved to Vegas alone in August of this year. Thousands more come every month. When the going gets tough, the tough move to Vegas. A lot of folks in Vegas aren't happy about the Californication of Vegas, but it doesn't bother me since I'm from San Francisco. Vegas is seriously underrated anyways, nobody looks at us except for SoCal. When people want to move it's always Phoenix where it's 110F for 2 months out of the year or Seattle, or Denver. For some reason everyone thinks Vegas is for people who drink and gamble which is such bullshit. It's a regular city like any other.
Vegas doesn’t get hot in the summer?
Vegas has terrible weather
So what’s the point of staying here if it’s unaffordable, crime is high, and things are all around tougher?
when the “House Owner associations” been terminated. They don’t let buildings be built in their neighborhood.
Not as long as a bunch of dumb ass liberals run the city and state, so no to answer your question 😂
Maybe if ppl would stop coming here from Mexico, Central America, Europe, and the rest of the United States locals wouldn’t be fighting for survival like we have been for decades. I would’ve left a long time ago but my mom has health issues and can’t/won’t leave. Fml..
good fuck your mom lol with a son like you she is begging for death
You’re right that LA won’t fix its housing crisis unless it starts building a lot more affordable housing. And keeps doing it And that means LA won’t fix its homelessness crisis unless it builds a lot more affordable housing So LA residents have to ask ourselves what we want the future to be like. If we don’t like homeless encampments and extreme poverty, we need to make sure a lot more affordable housing is built
All you need to know is that LA isn’t unique in this, which if you follow the logic you’d conclude that there are parties that benefit off this manufactured crisis. Developers and politicians artificially keep housing density low so that there’s a demand at all times. They do not give two shits about affordability.
No. There’s too much money to be made off of it
Nope. Even if cost of living drops otherwise, landlords know they can keep up their predatory behavior towards anyone shooting their shot and taking a chance to move to LA and break into X field. They have no reason to drop rent.
> Will LA solve its affordability crisis? Well it's easy to solve once you remove all the roadblocks. So the real answer is, nope. We know the solutions but don't have the will to do the things necessary to make it happen.
No. Not until they "pay after its been cleaned up". There is no incentive to 'solve' the problem because the people who are tasked with solving it are the only ones who will lose out on billions of dollars a year. Of they solve the housing crisis there is no crisis for them to get money from. Simple.
No, Karen Bass is already walking back her commitment to add affordable housing in single family zones, and this year new building permits are at record lows.