one last “progressive” LOL california thing before i disappear into the depths of work,
LA passed a law that can cause criminal charges for negligent and abusive landlords and allows tenants to take their landlords to court over evictions.
great right?
it’s been a year and there have been absolutely zero cases. How, you may ask? Well, after they pass this law, they also provided zero funding for enforcement
What a minute you’re coming out against mixed used developments? The things that are one of the best ways to built integrated walkable and clean cities? Are you for any development?
I think maybe jmakin is more skeptical that it will lead to affordable housing, which may be true. But allowing residential construction on underutilized commercially zoned properties seems like a pretty clear win even if it doesn’t do much to affect rents. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with mixed use zoning directly, although I assume that is allowed?
Related, there has recently been a few examples of mostly vacant high rise office buildings being converted to residential. That could become a big trend if work from home becomes permanent for many people, and ultimately work well to alleviate both the lack of housing and the coming glut of vacant commercial property.
actual data says you’re wrong here, developers move in and do this when there’s huge demand and yes, prices tend to go up but they go up LESS than if there had been no additional development. This is econ 101 stuff.
alls I’m saying is that every time a house burns down there’s a fire truck, we definitely should have fewer fire trucks.
not in california, and if so, I’d love to see those numbers because I am literally living in a neighborhood being crushed by this
they don’t build affordable homes. they build extremely expensive (like 1.2 million for 1200 sq feet) units that extremely wealthy people buy. this appreciates all the surrounding property by a lot. landlords slowly evict, few years go by and it’s double the cost to live there as before.
like there’s very real data to look at here, california’s been building homes like gangbusters yet, people are leaving en masse because a salary under 100k is simply unfeasible in tons of areas anymore. skyrocketing rent is doing this, and it isn’t a “lol econ 101 duh supply and demand” thing at all.
First let me say that dealing with some of these issues on the ground in California definitely takes some of the bloom of the Newsom rose. And he is very personally unlikable, in ways that many people are going to absolutely hate. But I think it’s still apparent that California is doing a better job with almost everything than almost everyone, and Newsom is as good or a better option than our other choices.
This is overblown. Quick Google says CA lost 352,000 residents between 2020 and 2022, population of CA is over 39,000,000. So it’s less than 1%.
lol wow. “First I can’t sexually harass them, now you’re telling me I can’t siphon welfare funds to build volleyball facilities for them? Make up your minds, libs!”
Real.to me
…
I mean I bought a new house a few months ago in California. That’s not true
It is true. I live right next to some. and it was the same story by the “liberal” city council - oh lets get more homes to deal with rent issues. they zone it. exact opposite happens. I’m lucky that Im pretty much unevictable and moved in before they were built but the people behind me that just moved in are paying almost 40% more than me.
Just saw this on Twitter. Glad someone else posted it because I’m really baked and thought it was real.
in case anyone else wants to call me a liar, I can post the zillow showing the sale and value of the home I am talking about but that would doxx myself so I’d require at least $1,000 for that. I am involved in my local politics and neighborhood watch, I care and know a lot about these issues as they pertain to the city and area I have lived my entire life. I am not trying to make a specific commentary on mixed use development which I have zero opinion of, I am saying that when they go into effect they are usually ineffective and almost always benefit the developers, in the case of california, which has a lot of very weird things going on always with the housing market.
the very notion of affordable housing is a joke in ca. how are you going to build an affordable house - the empty patch of dirt is worth $750k alone, even if you build the house for $50k it’s still an 800,000 home, just shitty. it isn’t like “just add more houses” there’s a finite amount of land and that’s what is valuable.
I feel like you think the supply side of the supply and demand curve fundamentally doesn’t apply to commercial housing or housing in general.
“Her dad WORKED for a living!”
Yeah, I dont see none of yall throwing a ball really far for a bunch of drunk idiots to admire. Thats real workin right there.
Motherfucker LITERALLY played a game for a living and he wants to pull this shit? Fuck every part of this guy
I dont think anyone is calling you a liar, its just that personal anecdotes dont normally tell a complete story.
I 100% believe that that is happening to you and in your area. That doesnt mean it holds true for the entire state, regardless of whether some areas are like that or not.
not in this specific case, no, I do not believe it is that simple at all. it’s like you guys don’t understand gentrification is a thing and how it works.
even if this bill is noble in nature - ok sure maybe in some bizarro world that’s true despite it being like 100% developers that lobby for this kind of thing, probably out of the goodness of their hearts I suppose - what happens is city’s still have a lot of autonomy and NIMBY policies will win the day every single time. what you need to do for this to work, is build multi-story, multi-family units. they do not do this, and there’s always a fair amount of NIMBY’s absolutely frothing at the mouth to make sure the “right” people live there, which is like, luxury condos or single family homes. you’re not gonna just plop down low-rent apartments next to people who spent over a million to be in a rich neighborhood.
California is becoming a place where only the wealthy will be able to live and it is by design, whether maliciously or not.
the inland areas probably will remain cheap-ish but no one will develop out there because you need to commute 3+ hours to get any decent work and the homes are still pretty valuable.
the reason you are confusing supply and demand principles here is because there’s still astounding demand for these uber-expensive homes because ca is a fucking nice place to live.
The NIMBYs are generally preventing any development, at all, anywhere. So I think the contention is that some development, with some percentage set aside for low/mid income families, is better than nothing, which is what the NIMBYs want. Yes, the developers still win in this scenario.
Reading a lot about how many students at UCs are living in tents and cars etc because housing is so scarce. People will literally riot in places like Berkeley and Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara to keep student housing from being built.
