What's being done to fix the housing crisis in California? (San Diego: apartments, rentals)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Why? What's the point in building desalination plants? Why not just not build more housing? And from where would the money come, since we're already getting hosed (no pun intended) by the high speed rail contractors, and now we have a budget deficit on top of that. More gimmes for contractors who laugh all the way to the bank at our expense? No thanks!

And with less housing we'd have less of a need for controlled burns, which release toxins into the air.

And isn't it generally better for the environment to not build, because in an urban environment it causes an increase in temperatures, ergo more AC use, and in less populated areas, it can displace wildlife and disrupt the ecosystems.

Yes.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Texas has grown from 26 million people to 30 million people in the past decade and no sign of slowing growth or limitations (except Austin which adopted California policies). In fact its growth is accelerating

Houston and Dallas median home price have gone up but still below $400k

Houston is so flat that it's much easier to develop land here vs.coastal California.....not to mention the amount of bare land in three directions radiating outward.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Houston is so flat that it's much easier to develop land here vs.coastal California.....not to mention the amount of bare land in three directions radiating outward.

Houston is also coastal (Galveston used to be bigger until it got destroyed by hurricanes)

It also is on 3 bayous and has flood plains it can't build on.

The LA metro area is actually 3x bigger in terms of square feet. It's massive and grows inland quite a bit. Practically connects to inland empire

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Why? What's the point in building desalination plants? Why not just not build more housing? And from where would the money come, since we're already getting hosed (no pun intended) by the high speed rail contractors, and now we have a budget deficit on top of that. More gimmes for contractors who laugh all the way to the bank at our expense? No thanks!

And with less housing we'd have less of a need for controlled burns, which release toxins into the air.

And isn't it generally better for the environment to not build, because in an urban environment it causes an increase in temperatures, ergo more AC use, and in less populated areas, it can displace wildlife and disrupt the ecosystems.

The point of building desalination plants is for water. We are facing steep cuts from our allotment of the Colorado river, so we have to do something.

Yes build more housing.

It's generally better for the environment to be richer, not poorer. Developing countries emit a lot more carbon.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I was going to ask why exactly we need to increase CA's population, but then saw this post, and I agree with all of it, so I'll just second it. I'm tired of hearing about a shortage of water, and in L.A. they want us to take 2 minute showers and to never wash our cars or water or lawns, but in concert, builders are building as much as they can get away with, to the chagrin of many of us long time Los Angeles residents. And furthermore, what's in it for us? If I'm in an averaged sized office building elevator with two other people, and the elevator stops at some particular floor and twenty more people want to pile in, that's perhaps a better deal for them than walking up a dozen flights of stairs, but for those of us already in the elevator, we'd preferred that the elevator had never stopped in the first place. CA is full -- please go homestead in one of the other less populated states.

Don't worry, builders aren't building much. California has the fewest housing units per Capita among states

[luv4horses]

What has caused the so-called housing crisis in California? Too many people. New arrivals? Some come from elsewhere in the US. Some from outside of the US. Those that are of child bearing age are having many more than the 2.3 average 50 years ago that was thought to maintain stable replacement numbers.

Adding so many people means more residences. But where? You can build farther out in less hospitable areas, which requires more infrastructure and expensive utilities. So of course it starts to cost more.

And some people come without planning for a residence that will harbor them. They can camp out in public spaces until they get a job that can support them?

California is also pushed via media as a dream location. But is it? Some places still have the beauty and stability of past years. But it’s becoming increasingly crowded by those seeking an easy life.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Houston is also coastal (Galveston used to be bigger until it got destroyed by hurricanes)

It also is on 3 bayous and has flood plains it can't build on.

The LA metro area is actually 3x bigger in terms of square feet. It's massive and grows inland quite a bit. Practically connects to inland empire

Originally Posted by Thekdog

The point of building desalination plants is for water. We are facing steep cuts from our allotment of the Colorado river, so we have to do something.

Yes build more housing.

It's generally better for the environment to be richer, not poorer. Developing countries emit a lot more carbon.

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Don't worry, builders aren't building much. California has the fewest housing units per Capita among states

You still don’t answer the foundational question: why is *more people* better?
Or the second question: *when is enough too much?*

The fact that a person (Joey Chestnut) can consume 76 hot dogs (with buns) … doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.
https://nathansfranks.sfdbrands.com/...ating-contest/

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You still don’t answer the foundational question: why is *more people* better?
Or the second question: *when is enough too much?*

Why do you think these questions are relevant to housing? People have to live somewhere, and they don't simply vanish into thin air if we don't build housing. Conversely, building housing doesn't cause people to magically appear. In fact, studies suggest that higher density results in lower birth rates.

We should build housing where it makes the most sense. In cities, near jobs, where people can work and play without having to travel long distances. California has an ideal climate, especially along the coast, which means we can house more people there more efficiently with lower energy expenditures on heating/cooling.

[tstieber]

The interesting thing about California's housing 'shortage' is that there isn't a lack of housing units but a lack of affordable housing units. With virtually zero population growth and everyone living somewhere, we've got everyone covered, but unless we have a certain amount of overbuilding to increase vacancies and drive down prices, we'll always be at an expensive equilibrium. The question is, is it good to have excess housing inventory to bring down prices artificially like that? Is it better to build just affordable rental housing for those who can't afford to buy, and then offer more downpayment assistance programs for first time homebuyers? Who knows.

The most important thing is that we don't just indefinitely increase sprawl in areas that would destroy our state's beautiful natural resources. Now along I-5 in the Central Valley, maybe those are good places to build lower-priced market-rate neighborhoods where people can commute to the Bay Area on the future high-speed rail (i'm assuming that's why they've kept the project going), and that would be an option. But we don't want to see places like the Napa Valley turn into big cities, for example. Houston is one of those areas that's all flat and monotonous, but here in California, the scenery and nature around us is a big part of what makes living here so attractive. So we can certainly densify our cities, as there are many underdeveloped parts of most of our urban centers, where an old strip mall or warehouse would be better served by housing. That way, everyone's close to transit and infrastructure, and we reduce car trips.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Why do you think these questions are relevant to housing? People have to live somewhere, and they don't simply vanish into thin air if we don't build housing. Conversely, building housing doesn't cause people to magically appear. In fact, studies suggest that higher density results in lower birth rates.

We should build housing where it makes the most sense. In cities, near jobs, where people can work and play without having to travel long distances. California has an ideal climate, especially along the coast, which means we can house more people there more efficiently with lower energy expenditures on heating/cooling.

As tstieber pointed out in the post following yours, we don’t really have a housing shortage. Particularly if you subscribe to the *exodus* theory, it won’t be worsening, either.

Have you not heard the old adage: “build it and they will come” … seriously? Build more affordable housing and *they* WILL come to the promised land … and jam cram it all up. It’s already near unbearable.

Your goal is to “ house more people there more efficiently with lower energy expenditures on heating/cooling?” Really? Seriously? The *goal* is simply *MOAR!*? MORE MORE MORE.

If I recall correctly, you moved out of state? Easy for you to propose, eh?

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.”