Let’s not forget the carbon foot print commuting so far in stop and go traffic likely driving an older vehicle because that is what you can afford has on the environment.
I have a feeling Bone might have a different view if he wasn’t protected by prop 13. So one can enjoy the benefits of a shortage market without the pain.
In theory economic regulation like this benefits everyone, and in practice this rule may too. But what this law also does is provide an avenue to slow or limit construction. A similar law also exists in 14 other states.
The hypothetical can be fleshed out, sure. But based on the information presented I took the scenario with all else being equal. But yeah, increasing supply as in the example would depress the nearby homeowner’s home value.
If a city wants to do that, I think that’s up to the city. I’d be opposed to the state coming in and mandating it. My whole point is that differing cities have different interests that can be expressed locally.
First off, that 30% figure is not even close. In the Bay Area, 50% is more likely. For my first house, I was a little north of 65%. Being house poor is a real thing, but those choices are out there for those that want to make them. But in reality, if a person is living in Belvedere and is a teacher - that’s a hobby for them most likely. But it’s not like the city needs to double wages to attract teachers - they can raise them marginally until someone is willing to make that commute.
I don’t know why I would. The mechanisms may differ, but the practice of preserving home value would remain, possibly by other means.
That the figure in the Bay Area is 50% just indicates that we are in a housing crisis. If the actual figure followed the rule of thumb for most people we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I didn’t look up the figure, but what you give sounds plausible.
I think the answer to your second question is unknowable. The salaries of health care workers and teachers are typically outside the control of residents through their city budget. Municipal workers can get their pay from city coffers, so perhaps the residents there would pay their workers more. But school employees are county funded. Health care workers are most likely privately funded, unless they work at a county facility which is then paid for by the county.
Looking at the city employee wages, they are a bit higher, and high for a city of that size so perhaps the residents have decided to compensate their employees more. Market forces at work. But in any case, there is no requirement that people live near where they work. If they choose to commute, then they have decided the benefits outweigh the costs.
This is a distinction without a difference. What makes housing affordable is supply and demand. Restricting supply means that prices are artificially high which necessarily means that housing is unaffordable. Passing laws that say that housing can not be built is exactly the same as banning affordable housing. Inclusionary housing laws are just stupid symbolism because they are nowhere near enough to actually affect house prices. They just create a small group of lucky people who will probably end up being friends of politicians. The law changes you mentioned are what needs to happen to allow actual affordable housing to be built.
If you don’t want to live in Coruscant then your options are the same as what you offer others, either move to a neighborhood where housing is more expensive or move to a part of the country that is deserted. Either pay for what you want or go elsewhere to get it. Don’t use local government to force everyone else to pay for your lifestyle.
Why wouldn’t using local zoning and other laws be an available choice? If I can convince enough of my neighbors, enough people in my voting district, and enough people throughout the region to vote for these things, that seems like an available option.
For example, the practice of zoning for single family housing is seen my some as restricting supply. Or of having minimum lot size, or maximum density. A significant amount of people who live in places that have these rules (everywhere) like them. It’s not that hard to convince someone to oppose a 20 story high density apartment complex next to their house or their school.
No, that’s the minimum wage in SF. In the rest of California it’s now (2019) $12/hr for companies with 25 or more employees, $11/hr for those with fewer employees. Some other municipalities in the Bay Area have minimum wages greater than the state minimum, including Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Redwood City, and Berkeley.
Can you clarify? Do you think restricting say, used car lots, garbage dumps, strip clubs, etc. in residential neighborhoods also reduces prosperity? Because that is done through zoning. How about traffic mitigation, a system of collector and arterial road systems? Or providing adequate parking, walking systems, Green space, or transit routes? All through zoning. Are you opposed to any zoning?
I’m not opposed to every type of zoning, just the specific type of zoning restrictions that you’re talking about – restricting residential building beyond single detached homes (or similar) in very sought after areas near large cities in order to protect already inflated property values of those homeowners. Zoning should be about overall community benefit and prosperity, not protecting home values when doing so holds back the overall prosperity of the community.
A significant number of people used to like living in places with restrictive covenants against selling to blacks and Jews. But society decided go ban those practices because society realized they are not conducive for a healthy society.
I am pretty dang certain a significant fraction of the American populace would be in favor of swapping out their drinking water supply with Mountain Dew. There is always a significant fraction who elevate their own likes over what is good for both themselves and everyone else.
What if the overall community says that’s what they want? Like, a city votes 100% in favor of single family homes. It seems you’re okay with the county level, regional governmental body, the state, or even the feds overriding that community. I suppose it depends on how you construe community.
As I mentioned before, the League of CA Cities is a lobbying/advocacy group that represents the cities in CA. They routinely oppose state action in this sphere. Some cities want to eliminate single family zoning, which is fine for those cities. But what the League wants is for cities to be able to decide this. The community of cities in the state has spoken that letting them decide is better for overall prosperity of the community of all cities.
I’m certainly opposed to those types of restrictions, or any other based on protected classes. If income becomes a protected class, I think that leads to some absurd results.
Even if restrictive zoning were to be limited or eliminated, there will always be places that are out of reach for some due to economic realities. I see this as a spectrum of targeted outcomes - whereas on one end of the spectrum people can live whereever they want without regard to cost, and at the other end even greater restrictive actions limiting supply as much as possible driving price up and people out.
I wouldn’t argue in favor of either end, but I think most homeowners would favor something that leans towards the latter, however slight.
I’d take it on a case by case basis. But what you have described for your community sounds very specifically like the type of zoning restrictions that only help those home owners, while harming overall prosperity and everyone else nearby. And thus should be opposed.
Like I said, my community is every city in the region. Every city wants local control. So for the sake of example, let’s say the bay area has 7 million people. Folks in SF and Oakland probably would lean your way. Call it 3.5M people. What about that community?
What you’re descirbing here is literally no different to me than saying, “Oil companies want to do X. The lobbying organization that speaks for all oil companies want to do X. The oil companies and their lobbyists have spoken, and they know best whether its a good thing to do X.”
There was a time when where you currently live was much less dense housing. And when it was time for that to change, due to city growth and housing needs, those then living where you are were also likely wildly opposed. Possibly feeling things should simply stay as they are because such progress would negatively impact the nature of their neighbourhood, and their property values.
Those changes, imposed on the then unwilling, substantially contributed to the growth of the city you see today.
Come down to it, perhaps this is just another change resistant old codger fighting against inevitable progress.