What's being done to fix the housing crisis in California? (new home, neighborhoods)

[AnythingOutdoors]

There is indeed a housing shortage. California has somewhere around 172,000 unsheltered homeless, i.e. people without homes.

Exporting urban sprawl to the lower socioeconomic regions of the Central Valley is incongruent with California's stated progressive values. High speed rail, if it's ever built and connected to coastal cities, will be costly to operate and will still mean crushing commutes. There's plenty of space in SF and the wider Bay Area without sprawling into open space. Just build higher. Replace single family homes with four-plexes and mid-rise apartment buildings. And yes, urban infill on empty/underutilized lots. Convert derelict malls/shopping centers into housing. It can be done. People of all income levels should be able to live, work, and play within a relatively small area if they so choose. It's good for the folks of affluent neighborhoods to rub elbows with apartment dwellers. And this is far more green than moving people over long distances daily.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

There is indeed a housing shortage. California has somewhere around 172,000 unsheltered homeless, i.e. people without homes.

Exporting urban sprawl to the lower socioeconomic regions of the Central Valley is incongruent with California's stated progressive values. High speed rail, if it's ever built and connected to coastal cities, will be costly to operate and will still mean crushing commutes. There's plenty of space in SF and the wider Bay Area without sprawling into open space. Just build higher. Replace single family homes with four-plexes and mid-rise apartment buildings. And yes, urban infill on empty/underutilized lots. Convert derelict malls/shopping centers into housing. It can be done. People of all income levels should be able to live, work, and play within a relatively small area if they so choose. It's good for the folks of affluent neighborhoods to rub elbows with apartment dwellers. And this is far more green than moving people over long distances daily.

Your post reads like subterfuge from an expatriate bent on revenge.

If you think that many of the unsheltered homeless could buy market rate homes, or even partially subsidized new construction, you know exactly zip about homelessness.

Furthermore:
One estimate from the California Association of Realtors suggests as many as 1.2 million units, apartments and single-family homes, now sit vacant around California. https://www.chicoer.com/2022/07/27/t...ifornia-focus/
… which ^^^ pretty much covers the 172,000 unsheltered homeless, no?

And you still haven’t answered the question: *why is more better*? How does more population add to any QOL?

[NORTY FLATZ]

"More population" adds to the deterioration of an orderly society.

Also, the vast majority LOVE being homeless. If it's a choice between a roof over their head vs. a drug induced stupor, the drug wins out the majority of the time. That's their mentality. Or, their mentality is screwed up from a chemical (natural) imbalance.

Either way, the answer to this problem (and many more) you'll find on post #19.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

People always claim this will happen. But Texas allows pretty much unlimited development and the suburbs aren't too dense or too far compared to socal.

In this case though, the difference between Texas and California is that Texas isn't actively trying to build itself out of a so-called "housing crisis". The impetus behind SB9 was to make existing SFHs more affordable by giving owners the option to subdivide and/or build multi-unit housing to generate rental income to offset the cost of the primary residence, with the intention of those rentals being themselves affordable to others. The modelling for that bill (Toni Atkin's baby) was based on what San Diego already had in place for a few years locally. These are *good* ideas, don't get me wrong. In fact, it would be totally hypocritical for us to denounce them seeing as we built an ADU a couple years ago. But we don't rent it. It was built it as a solution to housing for an ailing family member. If we did rent it though, it wouldn't be low cost (aka "affordable") housing unless we were feeling extra charitable, as market value still prevails... and rents are expensive here.


The point is, it would take a LOT of people doing the same thing in order to saturate the rental market enough for the prices to become competitive for people in the lower economic classes to rent. And even that's predicated on the idea that no new residents flock to these areas driving up competition for the housing because it suddenly became a buyer's market.



The reason Texas is cheaper isn't because zoning is looser nor for unlimited suburban development.

[joosoon]

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.

This much I agree with but the lack of existing infrastructure, particularly water, is another reason to discourage growth. And since we rely on allotments from sources shared with other neighboring states, especially water and power, it's not really helpful for anyone here to say "go move somewhere else". The problem isn't isolated to California, or even defined by state borders.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

"More population" adds to the deterioration of an orderly society.

Also, the vast majority LOVE being homeless. If it's a choice between a roof over their head vs. a drug induced stupor, the drug wins out the majority of the time. That's their mentality. Or, their mentality is screwed up from a chemical (natural) imbalance.

Either way, the answer to this problem (and many more) you'll find on post #19.

Your first sentence is accurate. Your assumption following about the homeless is not.

Almost no homeless LOVE being homeless … many, approximately 75%, find their way out of homelessness in less than 12 months. Of the chronics, who remain homeless on the streets, many have simply resigned themselves to their plight for lack of resources or support or health or personality traits necessary to move out of their situations. A lot of the dependencies present are exacerbated, and sometimes actually caused, by being homeless, not the other way around.

Virtually ALL homeless would love to have a room somewhere with a toilet, sink, shower, bunk and lock on the door. Many would not be willing to conform to social and/or religious prescriptions to get placements … but their reasons are mostly based in distrust and hopelessness, and the reality of the options offered being frankly unhealthy, downright dangerous and humiliating. If you aren’t well informed on the issues of homelessness, it is counterproductive to perpetuate myths about it.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by joosoon

This much I agree with but the lack of existing infrastructure, particularly water, is another reason to discourage growth. And since we rely on allotments from sources shared with other neighboring states, especially water and power, it's not really helpful for anyone here to say "go move somewhere else". The problem isn't isolated to California, or even defined by state borders.

California has the coast to build desalination

Arizona is actually considering a deal with Mexico to build a desalination plant there and take the water to Arizona

[Thekdog]

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?*

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/

I guess that's a philosophical question. If California wants to stop growing, it will also see less tax revenues and job growth. It can turn into more of a tourist destination

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by 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.

There is a lack of units. Measured per capita, the stock and the annual additions are pretty low compared to most other states

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by joosoon

In this case though, the difference between Texas and California is that Texas isn't actively trying to build itself out of a so-called "housing crisis". The impetus behind SB9 was to make existing SFHs more affordable by giving owners the option to subdivide and/or build multi-unit housing to generate rental income to offset the cost of the primary residence, with the intention of those rentals being themselves affordable to others. The modelling for that bill (Toni Atkin's baby) was based on what San Diego already had in place for a few years locally. These are *good* ideas, don't get me wrong. In fact, it would be totally hypocritical for us to denounce them seeing as we built an ADU a couple years ago. But we don't rent it. It was built it as a solution to housing for an ailing family member. If we did rent it though, it wouldn't be low cost (aka "affordable") housing unless we were feeling extra charitable, as market value still prevails... and rents are expensive here.


The point is, it would take a LOT of people doing the same thing in order to saturate the rental market enough for the prices to become competitive for people in the lower economic classes to rent. And even that's predicated on the idea that no new residents flock to these areas driving up competition for the housing because it suddenly became a buyer's market.



The reason Texas is cheaper isn't because zoning is looser nor for unlimited suburban development.

I agree it would take a lot more units to lower rents

Texas cities also make it pretty easy to permit new housing. Since they are primarily funded through property taxes, and they are higher in Texas, they tend to work with developers to build more.

Also Houston has no zoning, though neighborhoods can implement deed restrictions to keep the "character" of neighborhoods