Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

atreyal t1_j9qrboc wrote

> For the first time, a housing project of any height, any density, with any lot coverage and any or no parking, can be constructed in the vast majority of the Bay Area. As long as developments are 20% low-income or 100% middle-income and are environmentally sound, they can be certified by local planning departments with a swift, administrative approval.

That does sound like decent news?? Wonder what qualifies as low income in Cali though.

209

amitym t1_j9ro0xf wrote

>Wonder what qualifies as low income in Cali though.

It doesn't really matter. The Bay Area needs housing units en masse. After 300,000 new units have been built, we can assess whether there needs to be more targeted construction, but up until now a hyperfocus on whether the 20 new units of X project will be "low-income enough" has missed the point that 20 new units doesn't mean diddly squat, at any income level. It's the massive crushing scarcity of the entire market that's squeezing everyone.

Gatekeeping NIMBY crusaders have until now successfully derailed the conversation into the ditch of nitpicking over insignificant disputes. The real goal was to avoid large-scale changes in the housing market entirely. Fortunately it seems they have finally been thrown back.

100

Eswyft t1_j9tnli2 wrote

Vancouver has the same issue. They tried to go a large scale rezoning plan and there was a large push from rich residents to have it zoned like "Paris".

Paris, the thousand year old city with no real dt core and unlimited land with no geographical barriers.

Vancouver, a dt core where most business is that is a literal island and The broader area that has oceans or mountains on all 4 sides meaning it is very land restricted and there is an area that isn't even central, downtown, that is highly sought after . We've everyone river crossing requires a 15bn bridge because the rivers and ocean there are huge, unlike the over passes they have in Paris

Nimbys are cancer they got theirs, you can rot.

This from someone that lives in Paris and lives in the affected area and actually owns where that development was for, in other words I'm fine with you knocking down my neighborhood of low rises if it means fellow Canadians can actually own a home.

What nimbys have done is delay and deflect, first claiming it was foreign ownership, then landlords.

If there wasn't such scarcity, people wouldn't buy them to rent them out for profit but we're constantly at .2 percent vacancy.

Foreign ownership is taxed heavily and the money is put to affordable housing, their market share is tiny.

Also, even if you believe the first two points BUILD MORE AND FIND OUT, cuz the status quo of doing nothing isn't helping

15

atreyal t1_j9u7lkp wrote

Yeah the prices are so high because there is not enough supply. People bitch about the price of housing there. The people who all own don't want more houses though because it will tank the price of their own. Vicious cycle. Still change moves in small steps and hopefully this is the beginning. Dead right on there needing to be a lot of new houses built to have any real affect on price.

3

mtcwby t1_j9v82j0 wrote

Do you actually know how much it is to build a house? I think you're in for a bit of a shock and realize it's not all zoning.

−5

atreyal t1_j9vq0im wrote

Considering I own one yeah. I also don't live in Cali anymore. You know you point isn't mute or anything but you could phrase it better to come off a little less condescending. Don't phrase your points in a question you are then gonna answer with no input back.

3

mtcwby t1_j9vtrst wrote

One of the big issues with our costs related to California housing versus other places is our code is rightly tougher seismic code and a lot of other code that isn't as necessary but adds on a lot of cost. The other part is the cost of permits, hookups and other fees. About 200k per house in my part of the Bay Area. That gets marked up. Single family house cost is over 800K now. They're not going to get cheaper.

2

atreyal t1_j9wrce7 wrote

That is insane cost wise, I dont see how a lot of people afford anything.

1

mtcwby t1_j9wsdlg wrote

It's worse than that with the current interest rates for mortgages and construction loans. The developers can't charge less than cost and their cost has gone up yet a huge portion of the population can't afford it either. So not much gets built because developer is also analyzing who is going to buy from them. Short of rates going down which I don't think will happen, only the state can step in and possibly take over some of the government associated cost. I don't think they will do it however.

1

atreyal t1_j9x61aq wrote

Yeah I think we are at a tipping point. Something has to give.

1

MS_125 t1_j9uebqh wrote

If they build enough, the prices will come down and the income requirements will become less significant.

3

atreyal t1_j9r0z9b wrote

Interesting. 80% for family of 4 is still a ways above 100k. Kind of sad. Thanks for that though.

52

mtcwby t1_j9r8xwv wrote

And they're not going to be built by developers due to cost and lack of margin for those groups. You can zone all you want but it the numbers don't work it won't be done privately without a subsidy.

15

atreyal t1_j9u7t4f wrote

Maybe, nothing really ever happens quickly and this sounds like a step to actually getting stuff rolling. If nothing happens they may look to subsidies for builders or not. Could all be a pipe dream.

1

mtcwby t1_j9ughmf wrote

The problem with subsidies is they encourage a lot of political wheeling and dealing and generally high build costs as people milk it.

I'd like to see them decouple the low income housing fees from new construction because I think ironically they drive prices up and create more of a need for low income housing. It's not that it's not funded but don't collect from new construction and do something out of the general fund instead. Local government's role in the increase in housing prices is not really mentioned but with hookups and the like it can easily top 200k. That gets marked up too by the developer because they're putting the initial cash out there. Ameliorate that some and we might get out of this vicious cycle we're currently in with high rates and high costs making it difficult to build. More so than zoning in many ways.

3

molotov_cockteaze t1_j9skchs wrote

$120k in SF. Someone please just kill me.

7

MasticatingElephant t1_j9tudcb wrote

Holy schnitzels I thought San Diego was bad. I knew Bay Area would be worse but San Francisco’s median is almost DOUBLE San Diego’s.

6

atreyal t1_j9u73mc wrote

I don't see how anyone could live in SF on 120k single even

−1

thewhizzle t1_j9uhnb5 wrote

Roommates. Don't own a car. Be reasonable about your expenses.

2

atreyal t1_j9ut2dz wrote

Sounds like the American dream. Crowd fund basic living expenses. I'll pass.

2

molotov_cockteaze t1_j9vp1c3 wrote

It can be done but it’s not going to be like living on $120k in Omaha. Still probably better than living in Omaha tho.

2

atreyal t1_j9vq7e8 wrote

Probably. Pluses and minuses to each area. Depends what is important to you.

1

Tobias_Atwood t1_j9ynfb8 wrote

Omaha pluses: all the genetically modified corn you can eat.

Omaha minuses: you're in Omaha.

2

MasticatingElephant t1_ja4jagt wrote

I dunno. I’ve lived in CA my whole life, but have tried to move away a few times. I think if it wasn’t for the ocean, I could probably live in a lot of places.

1

ginger_guy t1_j9ty1w0 wrote

The real benefit of new housing in markets with high demand is that it keeps rich people from pricing middle class people out of their homes and middle class people from pricing working class and poor people out of their homes. Basically, it stops 'the great filtering' effect. So as silly as it seems, even 200 new luxury apartments can help keep low income residents from being displaced.

2

atreyal t1_j9u78m8 wrote

Hopefully it is a boon and not another way for rich people to take advantage of something. Really needs to be large scale to have any effect on housing prices though.

2

ginger_guy t1_j9uec7w wrote

I'm actually really glad they included the 20% low income requirement. The poverty rate in California is 12% so a 20% requirement (I know, its AMI, but still) is a great way to make sure lots of construction will happen without the negative side effect of hyper concentration of wealth.

2