I am a NIMBY, and there is no housing crisis in CA

Great Debates
1

Background information from the wiki.
[ul]
[li]Currently and for several years running, CA ranks the highest among states for poverty. Less than 1/3 of Californians could afford a median price home[/li][li]From 2012 to 2017, the SF Bay area cities added 400K jobs, but only issued 60K permits for new housing units. [/li][li]Statewide from 2011 to 2016, the state added 2 new housing units for every 10 new residents.[/li][li]California has the lowest rental vacancy rate the state has ever seen, at 3.6%[/li][/ul]

With this background, Governor Newsom’s latest budget proposal takes ambitious steps to intercede in the housing market.

There are a few items in CA that come into play:
[ul]
[li]CA currently requires that housing development over a certain number of units meet Inclusionary Housing mandates (tiers of low income housing).[/li][li]CA has a density bonus law that if developers meet certain density requirements, then they are allowed to circumvent certain local zoning rules on a tiered basis for parking, height, and setbacks. [/li][li]CA requires cities to plan for housing units at all levels of income including low and very low income.[/li][li]Certain developments are able to skip or streamline environmental review or design review if they meet certain criteria for location[/li][/ul]

As a resident, I have a desire to maintain and increase my property value. Increasing supply, all other things being equal, goes against that goal. I think local cities should be able to take steps to restrict development consistent with their neighborhoods and to maintain the character and value for the residents. I chose where I live for a number of factors. It’s safe, quiet, close to work, good schools, etc. Those things also make it very expensive. My neighborhood tends to self select on income. The proposals by the Governor seek to increase housing supply, increase density, remove barriers to building, and therefore lower my property value.

CA is a desirable place to live. As a result, the demand is high. It is expensive to build here because of the high cost of labor, environmental regulation, and supply restrictions both due to limited space and local control of land use policies. But no one has a right to live where they want to, irrespective of the cost. If people can’t afford to live in the place they want, it’s not a crisis, it’s reality. I would love to live on a cliff side over looking the ocean with 100 acres and no one around, but that’s quite pricey so I can’t. This isn’t a housing crisis, this is a ‘people want things they can’t afford’ reality. If people can’t afford to live here, I suggest they don’t.

2

In other words, “I’ve got mine. Screw you.”

3

I dunno, man. There are several factors at work there. But when suddenly there are no teachers for schools, no janitors for buildings and no cops to keep the streets safe because they can’t afford to live near there it becomes a problem.

Get me, I’m not saying it is such. But housing booms are followed by other factors that can have negative consequences. We’re seeing it hear in Charleston, now. We’re facing a shortage of all sorts of basic services - teachers, fire, trash, police, nurses - simply because housing is becoming expensive because of the number of people relocating here.

Sensible policy plans for such things and accommodates to those realities. Alternately, taxes could go up so basic service providers can afford to live in their communities. I suspect that wouldn’t be too popular, either.

4

Housing is one of those things that I think the market probably handles better than government regulation (including local government regulation), at least broadly speaking. NIMBY-ism for zoning (i.e. making sure desirable areas with only detached houses remain that way) benefits the property value for those relatively few that live there, and pretty much no one else. Opening up that area for denser development means that many more can live there – and those many more will include more skilled workers, professionals, entrepeneurs, etc. – all the types of people that increase overall prosperity for their communities.

That principle strikes me as reason enough to loosen zoning and building restrictions for prosperous single-family-home neighborhoods in sky-high-rent cities like SF, DC, NYC, and similar.

5

So you’re going to home school then?

C’mon now, I have no problem with little enclaves like Belvedere where the elite can kick up their heels and sneer at the peasants. But it is another thing altogether when an entire region( like much of the SF Bay Area )is spiraling out of reach of the lower middle-class. Not just in terms of home prices, but even affordable rentals. There are quite a few lower middle-class folks necessary to the smooth functioning of a society and they don’t function as well as a perpetual underclass living four to a one bedroom apartment and still struggling to make rent.

I’m not sure a good solution exists, nor am I sold on Gavin Newsome. However not only is Randian NIMBYism not a good look IMHO, but it is illogical. You’re going to need service workers in your area, like that EMT that is going to save your life some day.

6

One issue I have is that what may work for SF proper, doesn’t necessarily work for surrounding cities. Housing policy is greatly influenced and impacted by local factors. The way the state mandates housing laws is to apply various rules regardless of the size or location of the city. If the Apple headquarters in Cupertino creates 1K jobs, then sure it’s probably reasonable to force the city/company to take steps to provide commensurate housing. But no, further off places like Gilroy need to provide housing too. The state takes a one size fits all approach and I think it’s bad.

I’d probably be a poor quality teacher so I wouldn’t home school. But I can pay for private school if the situation called for it. Of course service workers are necessary - but if those employers cannot meet the demand, then wages will rise to eventually create equilibrium. People will have to pay more for those services - at grocery store and through higher taxes. So be it.

To be clear, I think there is a balance to be had. There is room for state intervention. But what is happening now is going further than had previously been the case so I feel like pushback is called for.

7

I was a Commissioner in San Jose. We build/subsidized a low income apartment building for teachers. No teachers qualified. Their income was too high. Altho I’d be among the first to say that teachers dont get paid enough for the shit the have to put up with, in CA, at least in Santa Clara County, they get paid quite well.

And no, they can’t afford to buy a house on just their salary*. So? They can rent a house, they can rent a apt, or if their partner works, they can afford to buy. You can easily find a place within 30% of your salary.

The idea that you are poor if you cant afford to buy a house is silly.

Altho that problem you pose does occur in San Francisco, where all housing of any type is ridiculously high, remember SF is very small and has BART and Cal Train so affordable housing is but a short commute away.

  • well, they can if they can come up with 20% down and are willing to commute a little.
8

I’m sure there’s plenty of room for reasonable debate and nuance for a community’s particular circumstances. In general, I think there would have be pretty good reasoning – more than just “the property owners would be unhappy with a loosening of zoning restrictions” – for tight zoning restrictions that prevent building of multi-family structures. But there may be such good reasons in your community and some others.

9

Yep.

The OP is setting up an untenable situation, one that could have a negative impact on the national economy. The housing stock in the Bay Area has to increase, which means there needs to be higher density housing throughout the area.

One of the reasons the OP’s property value is rising is economic growth, but if the housing costs continue to rise, that will put an end to the growth, causing the OP’s property value to plummet at some point. Maybe that’s happen after the OP leaves or dies, in which case he doesn’t care. But the rest of society has to care.

Jesus.

10

Higher density housing is one thing, and yes, there needs to be more. But there’s plenty of it in SF, just too expensive.

The issue is *subsidized *low income housing. Which is usually not really occupied by low income people. The one we checked had a parent (on Soc Sec) rent the place but actually occupied by the Tech kid, earning quite a bit.

11

The thinking of the OP – and it does have a sound logic to it, as far as it goes – is actually quite dangerous. Think about how many societies fell into strife based on the conflicts between landowners and tenants. Sure, most of those involved agricultural matters, but it isn’t like wealth is a prophylaxis from ending up with one’s head on a pike.

Many years ago, I heard a description of Silicon Valley: an economic success and societal failure. Well, enjoy your money while people’s lives crumble all around you. Sounds comfy!

12

I’m certainly no expert, but didn’t he kinda say the opposite of “I’ve got mine, screw you”?

13

Do you have enough money to pay for your security? Your own EMTs and medical staff?

Do you have enough money to hire your own sanitation workers? Road repair guys?

Surely at some point the costs conferred by your NIMBYism outweigh the benefits of your precious property value. If you are having to educate your kids at a private school because there aren’t any good public teachers willing to put up with a three-hour commute (let us ignore for the moment that private school teachers wouldn’t want to put up with that either), then that means your “nice” neighborhood isn’t all nice. If you gotta pay for your own security force to keep criminals away from your property, again, that is not a “nice” neighborhood. Most people are willing to put up with high property taxes only if they get high quality public services in exchange. Otherwise, they are just paying for a flashy status symbol. That is plain stupid.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

14

I can relate to the OP. Housing prices in my neighborhood are garnering a lot of local attention lately, due to our proximity to one of the Amazon HQ2 locations. And when my local politicians are making a concerted effort to keep the neighborhood “affordable”, it pisses me off. It’s like they are developing policies designed specifically to tank my property value.

Especially when the market is so unfavorable to buyers. For example, I want to move to be closer to my family for a couple of years, and I want to sublet my apartment during that time. My apartment has doubled in value during the 13 years I’ve owned it —— so my mortgage is for less than half the market value of the apartment — yet I’m hardly going to be able to get enough rent to cover my mortgage, taxes and common charges, the rental values are really low relative to the market values —- a 500K apartment rents for between $2000 and $2500 a month. I’ve been working on upgrading some of the finishes (stainless steel applicances, marble bathroom )- so I can get closer to the top end of that range. If I can’t, I’m going to lose money on the arrangement, given that I can only realistically count on 11 months of rent a year.

And it’s not like we are going to be short of low paying labor, there are plenty of cheaper neighborhoods that are an easy 10-15 minute mass transit commute. I like living in a nice neighborhood. Nice things aren’t cheap and I resent efforts to make the neighborhood less nice because TPTB want to keep rents low.

15

I can sympathize w/ some aspects of the OP, but I am curious whether he/she perceives any “concerns” with the current income/housing situation, and if so, how those might best be addressed. I don’t know exactly where the OP lives - how large or small it is. Here in the Chicago area, you can have a really exclusive neighborhood/suburb, but people could readily commute from less affluent areas. Does that exist in SF? What length commute are relatively low paid workers expected to make? Could that be addressed by raising their wages? Providing subsidized transportation? I don’t know what else.

Just examine your life. Do you ever eat out? Shop in stores? Use government services? How much do you expect them to earn? How should they expect to be housed? And what is a reasonable commute for them?

Middle class folk are another question. I have a friend whose 28 yr old kid in SF earns more than I do at age 58, and she is unable to live w/o a roommate. My dtr lives in Orange County. She and her fiancé both have good jobs, but they question whether they will ever be able to buy a home. But they merit no tears. When I speak with/visit them, I often ask “where to the service employees live?”

The OP sorta strikes me as tho he wishes to exist in comfort, with other people bearing the costs of supporting his lifestyle. Is that what we aspire to in a wealthy society?

Heck, I am a federal worker. I’m currently at the top of my position’s pay scale. I COULD request a transfer to Long Beach, or Santa Barbara. But after I sell my 3 bedroom
split-level 6 minutes from my office for $5-600k, what am I going to be able to buy out there?

The poor, uneducated folk commuting hours for lowpaid positions lack bargaining power. How about localities mandate a minimum wage that factors in some basic housing - say, within a reasonable commuting distance. I can imagine that being well in excess of $15/hr.

16

You think private school teachers make enough to afford houses in California? You are severely deluded, unless you are talking about private schools that charge six figure tuitions.

I’m in the Bay Area, in what was once an affordable town, and my house has quadrupled in value in the 23 years I’ve been here. I’d be more than happy for its price to plummet to only 3 times what I paid for it if we could get some more affordable housing.
We depend of workers who aren’t making tech worker salaries. I made a tech worker salary and I couldn’t afford my house any more. My daughter and her husband would love to move back to California, but while they are both making good money they feel they can’t afford it.
People see this as our big crisis now, so it is not surprising that Gavin is trying to do something about it. Whether he succeeds is another matter, but action is needed.

17

I hear all these arguments, and I agree with some of them. However, people are complaining it is too expensive to live there. Then live somewhere else!

Unemployment is a an all-time low. There are tons of jobs in Dallas, Minneapolis, Knoxville, or dozens of other more affordable cities. You can live like a king there compared to SF. So say “Bleep you, San Fransico!” and leave to better pastures. I’ve been to SF and it ain’t that great.

No one is entitled to live in Beverly Hills or Midtown Manhattan. No one in entitled to live in SF.

If SF finds itself with no burger flippers and school teachers, then shame on them. Then they will change their zoning laws. Until then, let them wallow in their money.

18

Mandating higher wages for people isn’t going to solve the problem if there isn’t more housing for them. All it will do is further increase the cost of existing housing. The high-wage workers are going to have to continue living in their cars, which is what’s happening in the San Francisco area.

And you can’t say the solution is for people to move further and further out. Longer and longer commute times represent a further cost to people’s lives, in terms of money, mental and physical health, and quality of life. You shouldn’t have to be rich to afford in time and money to do something with your life besides commute to work and back.

19

The minimum wage in San Francisco is $15/hr-How far does one have to travel to get affordable housing?
The median family salary in San Francisco is $120,470-same question.

20

San Francisco-The Golden-gated community.