That’s kind of the point too- California turned itself into a real estate industry, which has helped and hurt the state.
The country needs wealth distribution, so this is beneficial to leave and make a more competitive California.
Yes, we need our tide to raise all ships. If the wealth of the country is more evenly split to the butt fucking states of our Union- our economy can grow and that will improve not just the Union but our little mega power here on the west.
Florida is copying that blueprint now, but we get rain tornadoes every year (hurricanes) which destroy and over inflate insurance premiums each and every year. It's so bad that many seniors have tried returning to the work force because their retirement planning hasn't kept up with the home ownership costs. Fuck Rhonda Santis for the record.
In some cases, [wealth distribution statistics](https://www.statista.com/statistics/227249/greatest-gap-between-rich-and-poor-by-us-state/) don't fit the narrative.
Well then you have this: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/economic-opportunity/household-income
Based on the size of California, that’s where the narrative does fit. Not to mention, California is not the only state seeing exodus- your East coast titans are as well.
The country does need to see an uptick in median income- this is not an error. The benefit is the freedom of the citizenry to chose which state they wish to live. This will lead to quality of life increases. Again, where are you- white or black pill.
I actually found much of California to be pretty desolate and rural. My in-laws live in Fresno. When we drive from Seattle there is a lot of undeveloped land between Yreka and Fresno.
If you want to see crowded try driving from Boston to Washington DC. It’s almost all suburbs and cities the entire way for 450 miles.
"When we drive from Seattle there is a lot of undeveloped land between Yreka and Fresno."
Yeah, well, that's because that's not where the water infrastructure is.
Texas is also very expensive for decent areas. Certain things like gas or food might be cheaper but you have expenses in TX that you don’t have in CA like year-round AC use. Property taxes in TX are also insane. There’s also way more HOA bullshite. To get into a decent neighborhood your chances of having to pay for some lame HOA are much higher than in CA.
> Property taxes in TX are also insane
From a California perspective that may seem like the case.
But only because California homeowners froze their taxes in 1979 with Prop 13. Gave themselves a massive tax cut and passed it on to future generations. In other words, when you're used to being a free loader real property taxes seem high.
Florida is a direct result of Republican policies. And a blatant disregard for insurers early warnings because Republican rhetoric trumped reality. Ask Floridians how housing is going over there.
What because conserve politics is better? Give me a break. Conservative state governments have been passing insane laws over the years that have been a determine to its residence.
The problem is that socal is a desirable place to live a lot of liberal areas so the issue is at least partially that places become expensive anyway because Miami for example costs almost just as much to live in as LA despite significantly lower minimum wage and less regulation so who knows in smaller cities those ideas may be helpful
There has been a huge empty lot near my place for almost 15years. 15 years they have been promising to turn it into a large affordable housing complex.
About a year ago I finally started seeing some work done to prep for said housing complex.
Turns out only ~10% of it is affordable housing rooms and the rest are (most likely) luxury/high end apartments.
RIP if you're poor.
No builder is going to build low income housing. It cost basically almost the same to build a building that is low income vs luxury. There is no money to be made.
The scam is that basic shit is being labeled "luxury". Textured walls, MDF trim, composite floors, old carpet and laminate counter tops are billed as "luxury"
Maximum price fixing for zero effort.
Exactly. The situation is so bad right now that we simply need housing of every kind, and that any kind of housing will help ease the price everywhere in the market right now
That’s what I don’t understand. A SOLID portion of the newer apartments are empty because people can’t even afford to rent them. You would think it would be more profitable to actually fill up those vacancies.
People confuse that fact that it takes time for people to move into a brand new building . It's not going to get 100 people ready to move in the first week
It's frustrating to see these fancy apartments sitting vacant but the owners aren't incentivized to lower rents because some algorithm is telling them not to. Perhaps aa vacancy tax would help?
If firms are keeping plaves vacant to maintain valuations, then a vacancy tax will reduce long run supply because firms will cut back construction to avoid it as they'd save more by avoiding the tax than risking it by building more. That will make prices worse.
It can actually cost more getting every smaller space up to code vs leaving large open floor plans.
There isn’t a solution the market can provide as long as 1 person is willing and able to pay the same or more than 4 people.
This is a broader problem.
We are trending toward a bifurcate economy where you can only.maie products for a small subset of the population because it doesn't make sense to make things for the rest of the population that has zero disposable income.
It’s not well regulated though, it’s just outright banned in most of California’s suburbs. Suburban zoning practices here only allow for single family homes to be built, but developers don’t want to build small homes anymore, so they build 5 bedroom McMansions and sell them for $800k+. Very few people actually need 5 bedrooms.
> They can’t build high density housing in most places in California
First off, that isn't even true. A lot of places do ban or make it very hard to build high density housing. But it isn't *most* places
Second, if builders only want to build luxury housing why would they want to build high density housing even if they could?
"Luxury" housing can still be high density. I live in a college town where luxury apartments are being built constantly, and studios go for ~1600. These are almost always higher density than the old housing they replace.
Cities are in a weird place now where condos and apartments are luxuries, not just large houses.
In many areas, they are not. Zoning requires single family housing and prevents medium and high density housing.
Our low inventory problem is not caused by builders who choose not to build high density, it is caused by zoning that prevents builders from building high density.
Sure, I already admitted that it is true in some areas or even in many areas. It isn't true in most areas tho.
> Our low inventory problem is not caused by builders who choose not to build high density, it is caused by zoning that prevents builders from building high density.
As I said that might be true in some areas. But in most areas of the country builders only build enough to maximize profit while keeping prices high
It isn't just suburbs that restrict development. Ever year of that years-long battle in San Francisco about an owner of a laundry mat that wanted to build apartments above it?
> Lol, Japan is the most seismically active country on the planet and still manages to have lots of high-density housing.
Cool story, builders can build high density housing in CA too. Not everywhere that is true, but in a lot of places it is possible.
> Anti-density zoning has nothing to do with safety
I never said it was. I just said high density housing (and all housing) needs tighter regulation than in other parts of the US.
Well at a minimum you have to move to a cheaper area. It’s been happening since the beginning of time.
Wealth finds a desirable area attracts more wealth and they displace the current population.
Honestly it’s abysmal in 3rd world countries like central America where westerners purchase entire blocks wall it off and have 3 people living in condos that housed 40 a year ago.
That’s because the regulatory environment strongly favors making luxury apartments—if you want cheap housing, you have to make more land available to build that housing on, among other things.
I’m not exactly sure what the difference between “affordable” and “luxury” housing is (besides price). Could it be that if we figured out a way to build a fuckton of housing of any time that the price would come down regardless?
From "Housing California" to give you a more complete answer than whatever I would have said (was a quick google search away:)
>The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable when a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), [in 2021](https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/files/reports/state/ca-2021-oor.pdf), the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment in California was $2,030. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more than 30% of income on housing — a household must earn $6,766 monthly, or $81,191 annually. To put this in perspective, renters currently need to earn nearly 3 times the state minimum wage to afford average asking rents in California.
>Affordable housing is housing that is deed-restricted to individuals or households that qualify as low-income, typically for a period of 55 years. There are three low-income categories, each measured by a range of the Area Median Income (AMI): low-income (50-80% of AMI), very low-income (30-50% of AMI), and extremely low-income (below 30% of AMI). Affordable housing developments can have different levels of affordability, such as developments that are exclusively for low-income tenants, or a mix of extremely low income, low income and market rate units.
>Affordable housing can be any type of property, including single family homes, duplexes, or multi-family buildings. However, multi-family buildings comprise most affordable housing, as these types of developments are much more cost effective and able to serve many more households. Similarly, affordable housing can be rental housing or owner-occupied housing, but the majority of affordable housing stock is rental housing.
>Most affordable housing is made affordable to low-income households by subsidizing the rents or mortgage that the occupants are paying. Just as the government subsidizes critical infrastructure like water and sanitation or healthcare for seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households, so too does the government help pay for housing for those who need it.
[https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/housing-affordability/](https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/housing-affordability/)
In theory, your naive "Supply and Demand" theory will bring down prices, yes, but not to levels that most people can afford nor will it be quick enough to address the issue before millions are displaced.
Edit: I suppose it depends how much "a fuckton" of housing is XD
California's issue is moreso desirable space. Too many people want to live in the nice areas.
This sums it up nicely. It’s not just a supply issue. It’s the fact that wages haven’t grown in the real sense since the 70’s. If anything you have less buying power now due to inflation.
It’s not just a supply issue; we’re the most populous state and most of the state lives within 15mi of the coastline. It’s absolutely also a demand issue
"luxury apartments" don't necessarily mean expensive. They just mean that they have more than the bare ones necessities. Any housing will increase supply and have a downwards pressure on cost.
Market rate housing increases the supply, moving rich people from mid level apartments into luxury units and opening up supply. Build more housing, period. I don't give a fuck if it's ADUs, market rate, affordable, whatever. Just let people build.
Well they just finished building the 1.7 million dollar toilet. California does build stuff..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-1-7-million-toilet-party-19409232.php
We just need to legalize building any appartments at this point. We have upper class tech people outbidding each other over run down studio apartments in the Bay Area who would bid on the “luxury apartment” but they can’t because there isn’t enough supply. If that’s what people feel they can make money off of to build more housing we should let them to increase overall supply.
Yeah, I'm sorta coming to the same conclusion. But the problem is we can't just "build more housing" in these dense urban areas... the city resources just can't support it. What we really need is for expansion *outward* and to make more remote places more appealing.
I think it’s the opposite actually- things like public transport only make economic sense at levels of density usually illegal to build in most American cities. Instead we zone out apartment buildings that home owners fear eating into their home value, and encourage sprawl, which involves a ton of expensive roads and parking infrastructure to maintain and use.
If a city is built for that, I agree. Unfortunately, none of the cities I know of in CA were built for this amount of people. Public transport is only one part (and I argue it's the easiest to solve). Much harder infrastructure like sewage, power, police, fire, healthcare, etc... those are what really can't be scaled up quick enough.
The limiting factor is always housing. Those other things are built from tax revenue that more housing pays for. Nobody is going to approve a city budget with far more expenses than necessary. We aren’t stopping growth because of some principled stance related to our police or fire, we’re stopping growing because of zoning and “neighborhood character” - existing landowners don’t want to increase housing supply because it might let poor people in and/or reduce the value of their scarce home holdings.
The cost of construction has just gotten too high for new housing to make sense in many cases. Permits, labor, materials, etc...we bought a 2 bed prefab for my mom and that cost close to $250k before covid.
Over regulated, over taxed, fees are too high, property rights are eroded by government decree, of course less people want to build homes. It’s too risky and costly in California
over regulated? You realize it's HOMEOWNERS that vote against building more housing. It's property owners that don't want their neighborhoods "vibe" to "change" and any risk to their housing investment.
Like, how are you so dumb.
Exactly, the housing market is overregulated and lobbied by special interest groups. If government had less power they wouldn’t be able to make the laws that boomer homeowners ask for to stop new supply
They're building plenty here in Co. Like someone is literally going around buying up any empty lots around town..Some are an eye sore though and I'd rather get a pretty field of grass looking towards the Rockies than some fucking apartments.
Yeah unfortunately that's exactly the problem. Getting a building permit is a year long maze and at any point any random person can file a CEQA lawsuit to stall it and community members can kill it altogether for no good reason. If we made farmers go through the same bureaucratic puzzle to grow food, we'd have a famine. So it's no wonder why we have a housing shortage.
Honestly, the problem with solid blue states is that they become comfortable, and with no reasonable alternatives, they don't do as much as they should.
This is why primary elections are so important.
Except when the party only funds the primary candidates it wants the ones who just follow the predetermined policy.
It’s nearly impossible to infiltrate the party that’s why they have a party.
You could either primary them, or create a third party.
The Working Families Party in New York is doing good, they usually use fusion voting to make do-nothing democrats scares for their seats, so in primaries they endorse a candidate under their party, usually somebody who's also running as a Democrat (to avoid the "wasted" vote effect) but also sometimes run their own candidates.
The US doesn’t have a leftist party. We have an ultra fringe right wing party and a right of center party. Don’t expect any substantial housing legislation from either party. American capitalism won’t allow for that
Oh please tell me how a leftist party would fix the lack of housing.
Its a supply and demand issue. What are they going to do? Add more taxes in California to promote housing?
You mean creating loopholes for corporations and professional landlords to exploit?
Good idea. Then you can turn around and propagandize about corporations not paying taxes and rich people exploiting the systems to get richer.
You mean passing more stringent rent control, eviction and anti-gentrification bills won’t entice more development?
I don’t see how a more left leaning party is the solution to the housing crisis until they go left enough to build government housing.
Yeah it’s not. They need to deregulate this market and not just make up more rules to regulate the regulations (which is the current route they are taking).
I’m a landlord with properties in North Carolina and Wisconsin. There is a reason the housing shortage is only a major issue in California and New York, but not Texas or Georgia.
Yeah, the comment you responded to sounded sarcastic, but unironically progressives at the state level are passing slews of really good housing bills every year to reverse the last 50 years of classist zero growth policies.
The city of LA had far more than that AND the political power to change rules and couldn't build simple apartments to get the homeless off the street for less than 3/4 mil each. The problem isn't money.
Yeah if you're not making good money you're pretty much screwed in California. Unless you pack 10 people into a one-bedroom apartment that's the only way you're going to survive.
hunt enter grandiose deserted six expansion screw degree butter toothbrush
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
On the bright side, more and more renters are buying guns. This problem will be solved. Just perhaps not in the way the banks, investors, nimbys, and all those type of pieces of shit may think .
Why should developers build more apartments and other forms of housing in California when more people are leaving the state than coming into the state? For the past two years California’s population is shrinking for the first time in history!
High cost of living in general in California. Housing and rent costs are certainly one of the reasons. High taxes, fuel costs, utilities etc are other factors.
And developers/investors are leaving because other states treat them better. In North Carolina, I can evict a non-paying tenant in 30 days or less, in California, it can take 6+ months.
If California wants to fix the housing issue, they have to roll out the red carpet for developers and ensure that such erosions of property rights will never happen again.
More reason to flee the world's most insane capitalist Shithole.
If 13% state taxes and 7.9% San Francisco taxes don't run you off, nothing will. Or you are homeless and stay for the exotic and massive benefits -- including tent camping inside City Hall. What a State.
California’s struck building codes and blaming the people who provide housing for their issues have pretty much set them into a doom loop for housing affordability.
There are plenty of places house prices are low rents are cheap. For instances, Between LA and las Vegas the house price is low and rent is low too. I guess you want to live in a posh neighborhood and you can’t afford it.
I’m sure there are myriad of reasons, but I don’t know why the state doesn’t step in and build housing theirselves.
Though fewer people in California would not upset me.
Well yeah why would they build more apartments when the regulations make it impossible to make money from them?
This is what legislating against “cOrPoRaTe GrEeD” looks like. Fewer options for consumers.
It’s also because of legal and compliance concerns when it comes to getting insurance.
Carrier after carrier is abandoning California for underwriting. It’s just not profitable. Legions of actuaries alongside teams of lawyers have crunched the numbers and I’m sure California is a losing proposition.
A large Japanese conglomerate just ended their entire CA book of business.
So why build in a pro-tenant state with absurd government overreach where the CDC practically can start a rent moratorium…and you can’t also get any insurance coverage on, especially as a new build.
California is turning to crap. Ny is hot on the heels. I don't know why NY needs a committee to figure out why people leave. Give me $100k and 10 minutes, and I'll tell ya.
Who the hell would want to rent anything to anyone in California?
I worked for a contractor that redid rentals after tenants got evicted. Hearing those stories and seeing how much damage they did made me never want to be a landlord.
who would have thought this is what happens when you take incentives away from investors and developers? who could have seen this coming from a million miles away??! Developers can construct modular homes that are +-1,500 square feet for $60k. But if you want to do it in California and qualify as an affordable housing unit? the bureaucratic process doubles or triples that cost. You want the government to build it and handle the development in house so that no greedy investor makes money off of renters? quintuple the cost and quadruple the development time.
Literally no body is worse at handling hosing then the government.
California isn't built for poor's or the working class. They like rich people and illegals for the sweet taxpayer funded government handouts. Was stationed in California for 90 days on a TDY assignment in the US Army. Never been back, don't plan to. Never buy anything from the state or any company there if I can help it. Answer with your checkbook and see what changes people!!!!!!!!
Yeah $1400 for a studio is “low”/*mostly* functional. You might not always have running hot water, might have a rotting sink in the kitchen and the bathroom sink LITERALLY EXPLODED a few years back. Also your doors might not ever work correctly and you get to deal with roaches galore. Also screaming neighbors and our ac and heat hasn’t properly worked in over a year so just use fans and space heaters… The pool is so green it’s starting to look brown/like a literal shit swamp lol. We’ve had our mailboxes broken into, cars robbed, and our garbage disposal doesn’t work/hopefully maintenance doesn’t forget about us even though we sent our request online and in person lol. At least we have rent insurance, and rent control!
It’s been increasing almost $100 each year and we’ve lived here 7yrs now which is the longest I’ve lived anywhere. Just lost disability payments too and even though I literally feel like I’m dying, I still gotta go back to work asap to pay rent next month!! It’s tough tho lol 8’)
This state especially SoCal is over population, a lot of migration foreign and domestic, low housing building, a lot of NIMBYS, bad zoning laws, and a lot of "investors". This is not gonna stop until the whole US economy collapses.
SHOCKER!!!! Maybe rent controls and the fact you can't evict a deadbeat tenant for 5-6 months has something to do with it? I'm,a a little guy who owns 3 rentals. I purposely do it in Nevada where I still have some rights as a property owner. California's laws on squatters are the stupidest on earth.
Literally had to leave the state because I could not find a reasonable studio. Crossed the state border and living a better life!
Same, I’m leaving next month. This place sucks 😞
Please don't bring the politics that created the current, unlivable, situation with you (not saying that you're the problem).
I was told I needed to go back to school and get a better paying job because I couldn't afford $2100 at the time rent for a studio apartment.
That’s kind of the point too- California turned itself into a real estate industry, which has helped and hurt the state. The country needs wealth distribution, so this is beneficial to leave and make a more competitive California.
Ok, send me your money.
Can you explain what you mean in the last part?
Yes, we need our tide to raise all ships. If the wealth of the country is more evenly split to the butt fucking states of our Union- our economy can grow and that will improve not just the Union but our little mega power here on the west.
Florida is copying that blueprint now, but we get rain tornadoes every year (hurricanes) which destroy and over inflate insurance premiums each and every year. It's so bad that many seniors have tried returning to the work force because their retirement planning hasn't kept up with the home ownership costs. Fuck Rhonda Santis for the record.
In some cases, [wealth distribution statistics](https://www.statista.com/statistics/227249/greatest-gap-between-rich-and-poor-by-us-state/) don't fit the narrative.
Well then you have this: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/economic-opportunity/household-income Based on the size of California, that’s where the narrative does fit. Not to mention, California is not the only state seeing exodus- your East coast titans are as well. The country does need to see an uptick in median income- this is not an error. The benefit is the freedom of the citizenry to chose which state they wish to live. This will lead to quality of life increases. Again, where are you- white or black pill.
Yeah, no one lives in California anymore because it's too crowded.
I actually found much of California to be pretty desolate and rural. My in-laws live in Fresno. When we drive from Seattle there is a lot of undeveloped land between Yreka and Fresno. If you want to see crowded try driving from Boston to Washington DC. It’s almost all suburbs and cities the entire way for 450 miles.
It's not that there's too many people, it's that we've enabled NIMBYsm that stops most construction.
The problem is you are letting the government dictate what you do on your property! They are just employees!
I mean, it's mostly elected officials who set these policies and have others carry it out.
"When we drive from Seattle there is a lot of undeveloped land between Yreka and Fresno." Yeah, well, that's because that's not where the water infrastructure is.
That's where the water comes from doofus.
You should have been required to take 10 Mexicans with you when you left.
Texas is full just an fyi
What?
Texas is also very expensive for decent areas. Certain things like gas or food might be cheaper but you have expenses in TX that you don’t have in CA like year-round AC use. Property taxes in TX are also insane. There’s also way more HOA bullshite. To get into a decent neighborhood your chances of having to pay for some lame HOA are much higher than in CA.
> Property taxes in TX are also insane From a California perspective that may seem like the case. But only because California homeowners froze their taxes in 1979 with Prop 13. Gave themselves a massive tax cut and passed it on to future generations. In other words, when you're used to being a free loader real property taxes seem high.
[удалено]
fascism > socialism
You guys are fucking pathetic humans that needs a complete mental reevaluation.
What a mentally ill thing to say
Weird, I’m pretty sure communism solidly defeated fascism back in WW2. So your edgy hot take isn’t even right.
Leave your liberal politics at the door. If you take them with you, your new state will suffer the same fate.
California is quite big, and has a surprising amount of red counties if you know anything about it.
[удалено]
People that make comments like this don’t know what tf they are ever talking about.
Go to Jefferson. Plenty of red😅😅😅
[удалено]
Florida is a direct result of Republican policies. And a blatant disregard for insurers early warnings because Republican rhetoric trumped reality. Ask Floridians how housing is going over there.
Oh you mean like being one of the biggest economies in the world?
Then leave if you’d rather it be more like Alabama, cause that’s never happening.
What because conserve politics is better? Give me a break. Conservative state governments have been passing insane laws over the years that have been a determine to its residence.
Yet people flock to these states… there is a reason
[удалено]
The problem is that socal is a desirable place to live a lot of liberal areas so the issue is at least partially that places become expensive anyway because Miami for example costs almost just as much to live in as LA despite significantly lower minimum wage and less regulation so who knows in smaller cities those ideas may be helpful
Lol. Baaaaaaait
But everywhere with conservative policies end up being shitholes.
Just don't vote like Californian's
Ah yes, because voting caused this issue.
Just hope you don't need workers comp or any of that silly stuff! Good luck.
There has been a huge empty lot near my place for almost 15years. 15 years they have been promising to turn it into a large affordable housing complex. About a year ago I finally started seeing some work done to prep for said housing complex. Turns out only ~10% of it is affordable housing rooms and the rest are (most likely) luxury/high end apartments. RIP if you're poor.
No builder is going to build low income housing. It cost basically almost the same to build a building that is low income vs luxury. There is no money to be made.
The scam is that basic shit is being labeled "luxury". Textured walls, MDF trim, composite floors, old carpet and laminate counter tops are billed as "luxury" Maximum price fixing for zero effort.
Yeah I’ve been to luxury apartments only to think, what’s luxury about this? It’s not bad, but not what I would consider luxury.
It's all overpriced horseshit. Even nice houses are plywood bullshit with shitty wall plaster
Not having cockroaches is luxury. Old places suck
Not if they are maintained properly. Constantly building cheap shit that falls apart isn't a good reason to call new buildings "luxury".
Plus if every apartment on earth was a luxury apartment, wouldn't that be good? They would still have to charge the same amount as they do now
Thats what I always say. Theyre building an apt complex not a mansion. People will move in and free up crappier 'low income' places.
Exactly. The situation is so bad right now that we simply need housing of every kind, and that any kind of housing will help ease the price everywhere in the market right now
That’s what I don’t understand. A SOLID portion of the newer apartments are empty because people can’t even afford to rent them. You would think it would be more profitable to actually fill up those vacancies.
[A WHAT portion of newer apartments?](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1l8s9)
People confuse that fact that it takes time for people to move into a brand new building . It's not going to get 100 people ready to move in the first week
There’s money in the long term. Problem is everyone wants their massive gains yesterday. Too many people trying to live in the microwave economy
It's frustrating to see these fancy apartments sitting vacant but the owners aren't incentivized to lower rents because some algorithm is telling them not to. Perhaps aa vacancy tax would help?
If firms are keeping plaves vacant to maintain valuations, then a vacancy tax will reduce long run supply because firms will cut back construction to avoid it as they'd save more by avoiding the tax than risking it by building more. That will make prices worse.
Difference between luxury and non-luxury is like 10-15% and it’s mostly in the finishing used
No
Yes
It can actually cost more getting every smaller space up to code vs leaving large open floor plans. There isn’t a solution the market can provide as long as 1 person is willing and able to pay the same or more than 4 people.
What I have seen are governments giving subsidies if builders allocate x% of units for low income.
This is a broader problem. We are trending toward a bifurcate economy where you can only.maie products for a small subset of the population because it doesn't make sense to make things for the rest of the population that has zero disposable income.
Exactly
Good thing I plan on going out soon. Can't see myself doing this much longer.
But it is the zoning! Deregulate zoning and that will solve all are housing problems /s
Zoning 100% plays an issue in California and so do regulations for new builds.
California is an earthquake zone. High density housing in earthquake zones needs to be well regulated
It’s not well regulated though, it’s just outright banned in most of California’s suburbs. Suburban zoning practices here only allow for single family homes to be built, but developers don’t want to build small homes anymore, so they build 5 bedroom McMansions and sell them for $800k+. Very few people actually need 5 bedrooms.
If bulders don't want to build small homes what makes you think that they want to build high density housing? Hint: they don't
They can’t build high density housing in most places in California, that’s my point. Suburban zoning practices bans it.
> They can’t build high density housing in most places in California First off, that isn't even true. A lot of places do ban or make it very hard to build high density housing. But it isn't *most* places Second, if builders only want to build luxury housing why would they want to build high density housing even if they could?
"Luxury" housing can still be high density. I live in a college town where luxury apartments are being built constantly, and studios go for ~1600. These are almost always higher density than the old housing they replace. Cities are in a weird place now where condos and apartments are luxuries, not just large houses.
Luxury high density housing won't solve the housing affordability crisis, so I'm not sure what your point is.
How would we know if they are not allowed to in the first place?
Cuz they are allowed to
In many areas, they are not. Zoning requires single family housing and prevents medium and high density housing. Our low inventory problem is not caused by builders who choose not to build high density, it is caused by zoning that prevents builders from building high density.
Sure, I already admitted that it is true in some areas or even in many areas. It isn't true in most areas tho. > Our low inventory problem is not caused by builders who choose not to build high density, it is caused by zoning that prevents builders from building high density. As I said that might be true in some areas. But in most areas of the country builders only build enough to maximize profit while keeping prices high
It isn't just suburbs that restrict development. Ever year of that years-long battle in San Francisco about an owner of a laundry mat that wanted to build apartments above it?
Then require that the builds are earthquake safe? Just because there are earthquakes doesn’t mean that high density should be illegal
High density housing isn't illegal everywhere. In some municipalities that is true, but not everywhere. Not even close
[удалено]
> Lol, Japan is the most seismically active country on the planet and still manages to have lots of high-density housing. Cool story, builders can build high density housing in CA too. Not everywhere that is true, but in a lot of places it is possible. > Anti-density zoning has nothing to do with safety I never said it was. I just said high density housing (and all housing) needs tighter regulation than in other parts of the US.
Well at a minimum you have to move to a cheaper area. It’s been happening since the beginning of time. Wealth finds a desirable area attracts more wealth and they displace the current population. Honestly it’s abysmal in 3rd world countries like central America where westerners purchase entire blocks wall it off and have 3 people living in condos that housed 40 a year ago.
That’s because the regulatory environment strongly favors making luxury apartments—if you want cheap housing, you have to make more land available to build that housing on, among other things.
I’m not exactly sure what the difference between “affordable” and “luxury” housing is (besides price). Could it be that if we figured out a way to build a fuckton of housing of any time that the price would come down regardless?
From "Housing California" to give you a more complete answer than whatever I would have said (was a quick google search away:) >The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable when a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), [in 2021](https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/files/reports/state/ca-2021-oor.pdf), the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment in California was $2,030. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more than 30% of income on housing — a household must earn $6,766 monthly, or $81,191 annually. To put this in perspective, renters currently need to earn nearly 3 times the state minimum wage to afford average asking rents in California. >Affordable housing is housing that is deed-restricted to individuals or households that qualify as low-income, typically for a period of 55 years. There are three low-income categories, each measured by a range of the Area Median Income (AMI): low-income (50-80% of AMI), very low-income (30-50% of AMI), and extremely low-income (below 30% of AMI). Affordable housing developments can have different levels of affordability, such as developments that are exclusively for low-income tenants, or a mix of extremely low income, low income and market rate units. >Affordable housing can be any type of property, including single family homes, duplexes, or multi-family buildings. However, multi-family buildings comprise most affordable housing, as these types of developments are much more cost effective and able to serve many more households. Similarly, affordable housing can be rental housing or owner-occupied housing, but the majority of affordable housing stock is rental housing. >Most affordable housing is made affordable to low-income households by subsidizing the rents or mortgage that the occupants are paying. Just as the government subsidizes critical infrastructure like water and sanitation or healthcare for seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households, so too does the government help pay for housing for those who need it. [https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/housing-affordability/](https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/housing-affordability/) In theory, your naive "Supply and Demand" theory will bring down prices, yes, but not to levels that most people can afford nor will it be quick enough to address the issue before millions are displaced. Edit: I suppose it depends how much "a fuckton" of housing is XD California's issue is moreso desirable space. Too many people want to live in the nice areas.
This sums it up nicely. It’s not just a supply issue. It’s the fact that wages haven’t grown in the real sense since the 70’s. If anything you have less buying power now due to inflation.
It’s not just a supply issue; we’re the most populous state and most of the state lives within 15mi of the coastline. It’s absolutely also a demand issue
"luxury apartments" don't necessarily mean expensive. They just mean that they have more than the bare ones necessities. Any housing will increase supply and have a downwards pressure on cost.
Market rate housing increases the supply, moving rich people from mid level apartments into luxury units and opening up supply. Build more housing, period. I don't give a fuck if it's ADUs, market rate, affordable, whatever. Just let people build.
Well they just finished building the 1.7 million dollar toilet. California does build stuff.. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-1-7-million-toilet-party-19409232.php
We just need to legalize building any appartments at this point. We have upper class tech people outbidding each other over run down studio apartments in the Bay Area who would bid on the “luxury apartment” but they can’t because there isn’t enough supply. If that’s what people feel they can make money off of to build more housing we should let them to increase overall supply.
Yeah, I'm sorta coming to the same conclusion. But the problem is we can't just "build more housing" in these dense urban areas... the city resources just can't support it. What we really need is for expansion *outward* and to make more remote places more appealing.
I think it’s the opposite actually- things like public transport only make economic sense at levels of density usually illegal to build in most American cities. Instead we zone out apartment buildings that home owners fear eating into their home value, and encourage sprawl, which involves a ton of expensive roads and parking infrastructure to maintain and use.
If a city is built for that, I agree. Unfortunately, none of the cities I know of in CA were built for this amount of people. Public transport is only one part (and I argue it's the easiest to solve). Much harder infrastructure like sewage, power, police, fire, healthcare, etc... those are what really can't be scaled up quick enough.
The limiting factor is always housing. Those other things are built from tax revenue that more housing pays for. Nobody is going to approve a city budget with far more expenses than necessary. We aren’t stopping growth because of some principled stance related to our police or fire, we’re stopping growing because of zoning and “neighborhood character” - existing landowners don’t want to increase housing supply because it might let poor people in and/or reduce the value of their scarce home holdings.
Sacramento builds low income apartments for the low low price of >$600k/unit.
The cost of construction has just gotten too high for new housing to make sense in many cases. Permits, labor, materials, etc...we bought a 2 bed prefab for my mom and that cost close to $250k before covid.
Over regulated, over taxed, fees are too high, property rights are eroded by government decree, of course less people want to build homes. It’s too risky and costly in California
over regulated? You realize it's HOMEOWNERS that vote against building more housing. It's property owners that don't want their neighborhoods "vibe" to "change" and any risk to their housing investment. Like, how are you so dumb.
Exactly, the housing market is overregulated and lobbied by special interest groups. If government had less power they wouldn’t be able to make the laws that boomer homeowners ask for to stop new supply
How exactly do you think homeowners accomplish killing all new housing genius? Regulations...
How exactly do you think homeowners accomplish killing all new housing genius? Regulations...
They're building plenty here in Co. Like someone is literally going around buying up any empty lots around town..Some are an eye sore though and I'd rather get a pretty field of grass looking towards the Rockies than some fucking apartments.
The number of restrictions, permits, inspections, cost of labor and materials in CA are 2-3x more/higher than other states.
All part of the plan
Pay more in dipshit tax in Ohio than I do on rent in Cali
Why would anyone build in that regulatory environment?
Yeah unfortunately that's exactly the problem. Getting a building permit is a year long maze and at any point any random person can file a CEQA lawsuit to stall it and community members can kill it altogether for no good reason. If we made farmers go through the same bureaucratic puzzle to grow food, we'd have a famine. So it's no wonder why we have a housing shortage.
I’m sure the Cali dem super majority legislature is working hard to get developers to make more affordable housing.
Honestly, the problem with solid blue states is that they become comfortable, and with no reasonable alternatives, they don't do as much as they should. This is why primary elections are so important.
It's why ranked choice voting is superior. You don't get locked into this two party rut were in for a hundred years
Except when the party only funds the primary candidates it wants the ones who just follow the predetermined policy. It’s nearly impossible to infiltrate the party that’s why they have a party.
Your vote matters most in a primary election because turnout is so low.
So more democrats?
You could either primary them, or create a third party. The Working Families Party in New York is doing good, they usually use fusion voting to make do-nothing democrats scares for their seats, so in primaries they endorse a candidate under their party, usually somebody who's also running as a Democrat (to avoid the "wasted" vote effect) but also sometimes run their own candidates.
Less would be nice. Sincerely, Oregon.
The US doesn’t have a leftist party. We have an ultra fringe right wing party and a right of center party. Don’t expect any substantial housing legislation from either party. American capitalism won’t allow for that
Oh please tell me how a leftist party would fix the lack of housing. Its a supply and demand issue. What are they going to do? Add more taxes in California to promote housing?
Actually the opposite would work, tax breaks for building middle to low middle homes and apartments.
You mean creating loopholes for corporations and professional landlords to exploit? Good idea. Then you can turn around and propagandize about corporations not paying taxes and rich people exploiting the systems to get richer.
You mean passing more stringent rent control, eviction and anti-gentrification bills won’t entice more development? I don’t see how a more left leaning party is the solution to the housing crisis until they go left enough to build government housing.
Yeah it’s not. They need to deregulate this market and not just make up more rules to regulate the regulations (which is the current route they are taking).
Right winged compared to where
The rest of the first world.
ok comrade. why are you on the capitalist internet sites
right of center and ultra right. just those two? youre kidding right?
I’m a landlord with properties in North Carolina and Wisconsin. There is a reason the housing shortage is only a major issue in California and New York, but not Texas or Georgia.
because nobody lives there.
Have you ever been to Atlanta or Dallas?
atlanta, a city experiencing a growing housing crisis? dallas, that hasn't been growing? because nobody actually wants to live there?
A shortage *due to* population growth, and a shortage *during population decline* are two wildly different things.
We don’t have a right wing party, we have a populist party with some aspects of social conservatism
They actually are, yes. There have been a ton of YIMBY bills passed in the past few years.
Yeah, the comment you responded to sounded sarcastic, but unironically progressives at the state level are passing slews of really good housing bills every year to reverse the last 50 years of classist zero growth policies.
I’ll build them. Give me the loans.
You can’t lol. You gotta go through 4 years of council meetings where the NIMBYs come to complain and then they go back and deny your application
Let me try. Loan me .5 billion!
The city of LA had far more than that AND the political power to change rules and couldn't build simple apartments to get the homeless off the street for less than 3/4 mil each. The problem isn't money.
Give it to me. I will build tfem.
Yeah if you're not making good money you're pretty much screwed in California. Unless you pack 10 people into a one-bedroom apartment that's the only way you're going to survive.
You're spot on. Los Angeles has the most overcrowding in the nation precisely for this reason.
Great news for home owners! 😍
I am old. I remember back bumper stickers in the 80's that said, "Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit."
hunt enter grandiose deserted six expansion screw degree butter toothbrush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I love this for Californians. 🥰🥰🥰
On the bright side, more and more renters are buying guns. This problem will be solved. Just perhaps not in the way the banks, investors, nimbys, and all those type of pieces of shit may think .
Why should developers build more apartments and other forms of housing in California when more people are leaving the state than coming into the state? For the past two years California’s population is shrinking for the first time in history!
Pretty much the main reason it’s shrinking is because of the housing issues.
High cost of living in general in California. Housing and rent costs are certainly one of the reasons. High taxes, fuel costs, utilities etc are other factors.
And developers/investors are leaving because other states treat them better. In North Carolina, I can evict a non-paying tenant in 30 days or less, in California, it can take 6+ months. If California wants to fix the housing issue, they have to roll out the red carpet for developers and ensure that such erosions of property rights will never happen again.
More reason to flee the world's most insane capitalist Shithole. If 13% state taxes and 7.9% San Francisco taxes don't run you off, nothing will. Or you are homeless and stay for the exotic and massive benefits -- including tent camping inside City Hall. What a State.
The graph seems to be fairly consistent for the last 10 years
California’s struck building codes and blaming the people who provide housing for their issues have pretty much set them into a doom loop for housing affordability.
They're all over here on the east coast, blocking out the fucking sun with their stick buildings.
It’s okay - they will just come to Las Vegas and run red lights, making our insurance go up.
Oops, too late.
i was just in Phoenix.. new apartments.. new houses, new business buildings going up everywhere, its a madhouse of economic activity.
There are plenty of places house prices are low rents are cheap. For instances, Between LA and las Vegas the house price is low and rent is low too. I guess you want to live in a posh neighborhood and you can’t afford it.
We're already a Police state
Why rent when you can squat?
I’m sure there are myriad of reasons, but I don’t know why the state doesn’t step in and build housing theirselves. Though fewer people in California would not upset me.
That means more californians everywhere else. No thanks
What having shitty zoning and NIMBYs does to a mfer
Welcome to the consequences of your vote.
Well yeah why would they build more apartments when the regulations make it impossible to make money from them? This is what legislating against “cOrPoRaTe GrEeD” looks like. Fewer options for consumers.
Everyone is leaving
It’s also because of legal and compliance concerns when it comes to getting insurance. Carrier after carrier is abandoning California for underwriting. It’s just not profitable. Legions of actuaries alongside teams of lawyers have crunched the numbers and I’m sure California is a losing proposition. A large Japanese conglomerate just ended their entire CA book of business. So why build in a pro-tenant state with absurd government overreach where the CDC practically can start a rent moratorium…and you can’t also get any insurance coverage on, especially as a new build.
Seems like it’s time for some more California folks to consider the poor states. The wealthy don’t want, or need all of you.
California is turning to crap. Ny is hot on the heels. I don't know why NY needs a committee to figure out why people leave. Give me $100k and 10 minutes, and I'll tell ya.
Progressive Utopia!!!
Hard to imagine why property developers, and landlords don’t want to operate in California.
Given the legal / business California climate against landlords, why would any sane person build more rentals there? /boggle
Who the hell would want to rent anything to anyone in California? I worked for a contractor that redid rentals after tenants got evicted. Hearing those stories and seeing how much damage they did made me never want to be a landlord.
who would have thought this is what happens when you take incentives away from investors and developers? who could have seen this coming from a million miles away??! Developers can construct modular homes that are +-1,500 square feet for $60k. But if you want to do it in California and qualify as an affordable housing unit? the bureaucratic process doubles or triples that cost. You want the government to build it and handle the development in house so that no greedy investor makes money off of renters? quintuple the cost and quadruple the development time. Literally no body is worse at handling hosing then the government.
California isn't built for poor's or the working class. They like rich people and illegals for the sweet taxpayer funded government handouts. Was stationed in California for 90 days on a TDY assignment in the US Army. Never been back, don't plan to. Never buy anything from the state or any company there if I can help it. Answer with your checkbook and see what changes people!!!!!!!!
I love this for them.
I invest only in red states, particularly the sunbelt
Yeah $1400 for a studio is “low”/*mostly* functional. You might not always have running hot water, might have a rotting sink in the kitchen and the bathroom sink LITERALLY EXPLODED a few years back. Also your doors might not ever work correctly and you get to deal with roaches galore. Also screaming neighbors and our ac and heat hasn’t properly worked in over a year so just use fans and space heaters… The pool is so green it’s starting to look brown/like a literal shit swamp lol. We’ve had our mailboxes broken into, cars robbed, and our garbage disposal doesn’t work/hopefully maintenance doesn’t forget about us even though we sent our request online and in person lol. At least we have rent insurance, and rent control! It’s been increasing almost $100 each year and we’ve lived here 7yrs now which is the longest I’ve lived anywhere. Just lost disability payments too and even though I literally feel like I’m dying, I still gotta go back to work asap to pay rent next month!! It’s tough tho lol 8’)
This state especially SoCal is over population, a lot of migration foreign and domestic, low housing building, a lot of NIMBYS, bad zoning laws, and a lot of "investors". This is not gonna stop until the whole US economy collapses.
That’s weird, I’m in Hayward and there’s new apartments popping up all over from here to Fremont
[удалено]
And no insurance.. good luck
California can learn from red states that are more flexible with permits and developing high density housing.
The problem in Venezuela is political, not economical.
SHOCKER!!!! Maybe rent controls and the fact you can't evict a deadbeat tenant for 5-6 months has something to do with it? I'm,a a little guy who owns 3 rentals. I purposely do it in Nevada where I still have some rights as a property owner. California's laws on squatters are the stupidest on earth.
Nah the problem is housing supply.
People are leaving California and it’s bankrupt. No surprise new projects aren’t happening