Let’s get cracking on solving the affordable housing problem, and power through the next recession! Pala, Valley Center, Ramona, etc. – here we go! Hat tip to Larry who had this on his FB account:
http://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/
An excerpt:
And it is simple: Yes, you can build your way to affordable housing. Aside from economic decline and depopulation, it is the only strategy that actually works.
You can do it through a state monopoly as in Singapore, an array of public and limited-profit associations as in Vienna, or private developers as in Chicago, Germany, Houston, or Montreal.
But to have affordable housing, you have to build homes in great abundance, and without that, other affordability strategies such as rent control and inclusionary zoning can be fruitless or counterproductive, as in San Francisco. Building plenty of housing is not just one way to affordability, it is the only way—the foundation on which other affordability solutions, measures against displacement, and programs for inclusion rest.
http://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/
You need to take the profitability out of buying real estate as an investment vehicle. Apartments and MFH are suitable for investors; SFH and Condos should primarily be for owner-occupiers. Anything beyond your primary residence and a second home should be taxed heavily to disincentivize ownership by investors. Flipping or short-term ownership should also incur financial penalties. The supply side of the equation needs to be fixed, but there are many ways to curtail the demand side by speculators and rent-seekers that would help keep the price of housing more affordable.
Who pays for the house building? Hard to figure out.
He brings up successful Tokyo, Singapore, and Vienna. Cities with VERY strict immigration policies, yet he doesn’t mention the “I” word. He mentions Chicago, which is the murder capital of the country, or darned near it, and the most politically corrupt, and marvels at the lower prices for housing.
He brings up San Franciscans demanding some areas be kept untouched for wildlife, yet doesn’t explore how paving over the last increments of open land affects local wildlife, as well as the psychology of the people living in a community with no open natural areas. He speaks of “depopulation” as if it’s a bad thing, and saddles it with a sinking economy as if that is a de facto result in reducing excessive population clutter.
As far as Germany, I very nice lady I know, who used to fly to Munich twice a year to visit friends said after her last trip, “I’m never going back. The city is lost,” owing to egregiously irrational immigration policy. She says it’s no longer safe to walk at night in a neighborhood that was extremely safe until a few of years ago.
Towards the end he says “And it is simple…”
Whenever someone approaches a politically-charged problem with that cliche, he’s lying, and he knows it. The author’s approach is anti-intellectual, and just creates more noise and confusion, which is likely his aim.
And finally, this:
“Part of the problem in California is the perverse and pervasive effects of the 1978 tax revolt ballot measure Proposition 13, which slashed, froze and distorted property taxes statewide, granting long-time homeowners huge windfalls while penalizing cities for allowing new dwellings”
Avoiding excessive taxation, to Mr. Durning, is perverse. Open boarders is something to take for granted as a necessary element. Any aspiring Socialist (or worse) would agree with him. Evil sticks together. I’ll bet the President of Venezuela and his staff probably sleep in the same gated compound these days. Because… it’s simpler.
daytrip’s rightist monologues are getting a bit old, like the old white guy on his porch yelling ‘get off my lawn’
how about some solutions from the looney right that don’t involve xenophobic rants?
Daytrip has contributed a ton of articles over the years, so I give him some room. He does apologize regularly, and tells me to delete his posts if I find them offensive. But I’m willing to consider all sides, even if I don’t always agree with them.
Other people are welcome to comment!
Classic chicken or egg argument.
There are so many factors that influence this topic that San Diego and desirable California cities will always be outpaced by these other factors.
Using exceptions to the rule are great, but they are simply that. Exceptions.
California’s layers of politics and interests at the state and city level have their pros and cons. This is an area where, at least in my lifetime, I dont think there will be a ‘win’ except for folks that can manage to acquire property and play the game.
This is an area where, at least in my lifetime, I don’t think there will be a ‘win’ except for folks that can manage to acquire property and play the game.
Thanks James D, and I agree.
After this last “crisis” where we saw bankers and feds conspire to change the rules to save themselves, why fight it?
We saw the Tan Man saying publicly that everything was fine, and at the same time he was selling $17,000,000 in stock every week! And today he is walking around free to play golf at all the finest clubs in the Valley!
The logical answer: Get your piece while you can.
Prop 13 only seems to benefit the long timers. The folks that bought their house in the 70’s and it’s now worth over a million dollars, yet they’re still paying a 1970’s tax rate.
While the house next door gets sold at today’s prices and the new owners pay property taxes at today’s property values. Yet receive the exact same services as their neighbor, who pays less in property tax.
When we lived in Phoenix, everyone’s tax rate was based on the real value of your property. You live in a more fancy place, you pay more, because it’s worth more. You live in a more affordable place, then you pay less. Because it’s worth less.
So, I do believe that prop 13 is contributing to the problem with higher home prices.
Prop 13 was a protection for fixed income folks to be protected from the high demand and appreciation of CA homes compared the rest of the county. It is still gonna be the same amount of payment whether you increase taxs and lower prices a bit…same amount just paying the government instead of the bank. Keep 13.
Lets get real here, we are not gonna triple the amount of housing in this area being built no matter what anybody says, its a pipe dream. The demand for housing, whether legal citizens or not is a reality and the more we build the more people will come..great weather, beach, many things to do..that is not gonna change.
One incentive would be to lower the capital gains tax on the sale of a PRIMARY residence to zero that could jump start supply.
You can complain all you want, but you are not going to stop the not in my neighborhood folks, too many ways to block a project, especially by lawsuit…and the planning department themselves, by the time you fight it out..its build the 1Mil plus homes to make a profit.
The simple choice as it has been all along with “to be or not to be”..at this current interest rate you would be insane not to lock in this for 15/30 years its the monthly payment that counts regardless of where we are at the top of the market, if we flatten, or go down a bit who cares if the rates return to normal..remember that’s 6% in a good year…that is 33% higher than the 4% you can get now. The best thing to do, is chose wisely, use Jim and not move every 5 years….15 years from now you house payment is going to be laughed at….its going to be nothing when inflation comes and its gonna come and the hard asset is gonna be a protector against it.
One incentive would be to lower the capital gains tax on the sale of a PRIMARY residence to zero that could jump start supply.
Heck, let’s just try it for a year or two and see if it spurs sales – I think it would!
The best thing to do, is chose wisely, use Jim and not move every 5 years….
Easy now – I think everyone should move every 6-12 months!!!!!!!
Thanks FJ!
James D:
“Using exceptions to the rule are great, but they are simply that. Exceptions.
California’s layers of politics and interests at the state and city level have their pros and cons. This is an area where, at least in my lifetime, I dont think there will be a ‘win’ except for folks that can manage to acquire property and play the game.”
The math of predatory lending is exponential. Most Americans don’t even know what that word means, and if they do, they can’t get ahold of how “slow” can move to “fast” before they know what’s hit ’em. This hallway of exponentialism is independent of the corridors of local politics, and economic “truth.” That is, anything powered by exponentials trumps agreed upon reason. Local sensibilities may reflect the sh*tshow, take advantage of it, but they aren’t the drive behind the sh*tshow.
Because financial exponentialism is de facto unsustainable, crying and gnashing of teeth are right ahead. It doesn’t matter if if bums you out. It doesn’t matter that it’s not fair. There’s a firehose gaining pressure, and it’s aiming at you. To this day, I ask myself, “why are people running around in the streets chasing a limited supply of Nazi’s, and not surrounding every branch of Wells Fargo?”
My only answer, I got from this guy, Issac Asimov. A successful author. He once said when he went to college, and he took a logic course. At the beginning of the course, he learned what a syllogism was. This excited him tremendously. He figured, thanks to the discipline of the syllogism, he could clearly figure out not only the problems of mankind, but also how to effectively remedy each problem. He said he worked for months, applying every syllogism he could to every problem he could, and finally came up with the defining problem which explained every historic mishap in the past, and for the future: People are stupid, and there’s no remedy.
I also agree with his view on taxes. He said during a lecture, “I make a lot of money. A lot more money than you. I have to pay an amazingly high amount of taxes. Practically speaking, it’s for my good. That is, when I pay these extremely high taxes, I’m entering into an agreement. That agreement is, I pay this money, and you won’t, sometime in the future, be banging on my back door with a rifle-butt at three in the morning. I pay very high taxes, and I’m willing to pay them for that service, and I *STILL* make more money than you, you son’s of a bitches!”
I agree with many of you. I’m middle-aged, very lucky, and likely can weather most hell scenarios. And I mean dumb luck for me. But most Americans aren’t that lucky, and can’t take the beating that’s coming.
So I guess when I pipe up, it’s not for me, because I can’t be hurt much. I just think of not only aging boomer’s with little money in the bank, as well as their kids, who are really going to have hell to pay like they could never imagine, and also bizarrely enough, the mass influx of a new undocumented underclass, who, thanks to technology, are going to have less and less to do, in a welfare state running out of money.
I guess I don’t like a country with diverse people, tribing up, who will have their hands around each others throats, if history is any guide to human behavior.
I’m an sentimental old softy that way.
Daytrip is completely correct and it cracks me up that race is brought up in the response. Pretty typical for someone what cannot refute an opinion with logic and reason but rather emotions.