Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I disagree 100% with the OP's claim that "cheap leads to overcrowding." Wrong. Expensive leads to overcrowding. The more expensive rent gets, the more people start packing bodies into houses and apartments just to make ends meet. Can't afford to live in a 1 bedroom apartment? Pack in 2, 3, or 4 bodies in a one-bedroom. Put 6-8 people in a 2-bed house. Expensive land, expensive rent is the #1 factor that creates overcrowding.
Nah ... San Francisco is a classic example. People do pack in with roomate situations to be able to afford to live there ...
BUT ... overall, the city has also been losing population for years now.
Just wait till the threadstarter says you're an uneducated, unskilled loser for not paying $5000/mo for a house and others say the state is better off without people like you. That's the treatment anyone gets who doesn't drink the California Kool-aid.
This is completely bogus and a totally unreasonable accusation. Bottom line: You're the one who paid too much for your house, not me.
Just because you made a really bad financial decision doesn't mean that everybody else who lives in California did. I did not overpay during the boom like you and other people did ... which is why I'm now able to take advantage of lower housing prices.
It's also the reason why I'm not totally bitter about this state like you are. But it's not the entire state of California's fault that you made a lousy financial decision.
So why don't you stick with the topic of thread instead of making wild accusations.
Vegaspilgrim does have a point, just look at NYC and SF and all the people that share apartments to afford to live there. You can look on craiglist in NYC and you have people renting their COUCH out to people to live in an apartment and its not that cheap either just to live on a COUCH.
I think its just a different type of overcrowding. Cheap land and housing leads to lots of low density SPRAWL but not necessarily overcrowding. Look at Houston, I wouldn't say its overcrowded but just has a ton of sprawl. In a place like coastal CA where you can only keep expanding so far, unlike a flat metro region like Houston or Dallas, and that sprawl can lead to dense sprawl and overcrowding in that sense. The more expensive it gets the more developers try to cram people into the smallest space possible, which leads to overcrowding. So being cheap will encourage people to move there but if there is a lack of available land to build on then it gets more expensive AND more crowded. Seems like a viscous cycle that just feeds on itself.
Ironically, if you're moving to another state because of the expense and the illegals ... guess what, there's a good chance the illegals are moving with you. It makes sense since, obviously, these people aren't rich either.
It's possible, but we haven't noticed it very much so far. Over in the Chicago Suburbs threads, there are lots of comments about our town's comparative wealth and lack of racial diversity. It's not like we were looking for an all-white town or anything; my husband was offered a promotion here and it's pretty well known for our schools, low crime and nice amenities. Some people hate it, but for us it's a very nice place to raise a family. There are very wealthy parts of town, but we don't live there.
Neighborhoods near our old house had cars lining the streets: four, five or more cars per house. Unkempt lawns, shopping carts abandoned on corners, trash in the gutters ... there were just some areas that were going downhill. Our neighborhood was starting to have trouble with occasional graffiti, and my daughter's class size was something like 35. I haven't noticed any of those problems here--quite the opposite.
So why aren't lower income families moving here and cramming into houses, since it's so great? Well, it is expensive, at least regionally. There are other towns around here that are cheaper, such as Aurora. The mortgage industry isn't doing those no-doc loans anymore, so it's harder for multiple families of undocumented workers to get a mortgage and move in together. And maybe the whiteness of our city deters some people. I haven't noticed a lack of other races, but since I'm white, I'm sure it's a lot easier for me not to notice. I don't care one way or the other. I just care about my property values, the quality of my kids' schools, and whether we can live a safe, comfortable life in peace and quiet.
Actually, I disagree 100% with the OP's claim that "cheap leads to overcrowding." Wrong. Expensive leads to overcrowding. The more expensive rent gets, the more people start packing bodies into houses and apartments just to make ends meet. Can't afford to live in a 1 bedroom apartment? Pack in 2, 3, or 4 bodies in a one-bedroom. Put 6-8 people in a 2-bed house. Expensive land, expensive rent is the #1 factor that creates overcrowding.
Actually, I disagree 100% with the OP's claim that "cheap leads to overcrowding." Wrong. Expensive leads to overcrowding. The more expensive rent gets, the more people start packing bodies into houses and apartments just to make ends meet. Can't afford to live in a 1 bedroom apartment? Pack in 2, 3, or 4 bodies in a one-bedroom. Put 6-8 people in a 2-bed house. Expensive land, expensive rent is the #1 factor that creates overcrowding.
I also see your point here but ... take this as an example. I used to live in San Francisco so, I get the overcrowded roommate situation.
But then I moved to SoCal where I had a much bigger house and lot but, I also had to fight traffic every day so ... I was hit with overcrowding there but not at home.
Now I live on the Central Coast where I have both room and don't have to fight traffic but I also don't have access to things like ample shopping so ...
Real estate has nothing to do with the overcrowding in CA. However, it is definitely a symptom brought on by other economic factors. The reason CA is so crowded is because of its economy. CA has been a land of opportunity since the gold rush in the 19th century. Since then, the economy has continued to prosper and grow, whether it be from the dust bowl migration, oil boom, or birth of hollywood. Then, once the word about our fantastic weather got to the frigid regions of our country, even more people decided to come. Let's not forget we also have the nation's largest port, which is also one of the largest in the world. People flock to places where there are jobs to pay them so they can feed their families. If our jobs dried up, so would the population and real estate prices. However, if we miraculously come out of this recession with and even stronger demand for workers, CA will become even more crowded and expensive.
Not until recently has the CA economy really been in that bad of shape. My guess is that the politicos just took it for granted that the CA would remain the land of milk and honey perpetually. Now we are facing the consequences of the bad decisions made over the years (prop 13 included). At one time, Detroit also used to be a prosperous city. Hopefully the leaders of this great state can keep us from going the way of the rust belt. It's really a catch 22, do we want jobs, a growing economy, and overcrowding, or do we want a terrible economy, no jobs to speak of, but plenty of room on the freeways for us to drive on. I'll take the former.
The biggest problem with the overcrowding issues is land use and development patterns. Many places here build car oriented suburban style housing with densities that rival urban areas elsewhere, it just doesn't work. We have the densest suburbs in the nation and density and automobiles do NOT mix very well. Density works elsewhere but not really so well in CA b/c we keep trying to build a style of development that is not conducive to our land restrictions. We need more density where its appropriate and less density where its not, such as far flung exurbs.
Other places can handle growth and density with similar constrained land availability better than CA b/c our planning and development process is so screwed up and backwards here.
Housing prices are set on the margin. Housing costs are high in California, because the housing market in California is highly regulated and because of prop 13.
If you compare California and say Texas, in both places people expect to have local schools, libraries, police and fire departments. But California has prop 13 which limits the growth of property taxes to less than the rate of inflation. In general in California, housing doesn't pay for itself. The services required by new residents are not paid for by the property taxes on those new residents. In Texas which has higher property taxes and no prop 13, not only do new developments pay for themselves. In California the incentive is to not approve new development.
Now if housing prices shoot up high enough in California, then even with a much lower tax rate, the cost of new development will start to cover the cost of providing new government services to that development. This is part of the reason California has housing price booms and busts. For local governments to approve new developments housing prices have to get high enough where it makes sense to approve new developments. In Texas, property taxes are such that local governments will approve new developments willy nilly.
In California there is usually a shortage of buildable lots, local governments are reluctant to rezone land from agricultural uses to housing. Ag land in California sells for 10k an acre. In California they are putting up to 11 homes per acre. But when that land is rezoned from ag to housing, its not selling for less than a 1k per acre because there is an artificial shortage of buildable lots. In Texas, ag land is a bit cheaper, but residential lots are lot cheaper because local governments rezone land from ag to housing based upon demand.
When interest rates were lowered nationally, California experienced the the housing boom much more as a price spike than in Texas where the housing boom there was experienced more as a construction boom.
Before prop 13, California had fairly affordible housing. If this region wants more affordible housing it should just repeal prop 13.
But new growth need not lead to high housing costs and expensive housing. Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are among the fastest growing regions in the country yet they have also managed to retain very affordible housing.
High housing costs in California are the results of bad housing policies in California. If you fix them, you can make housing more affordible here as well.
Really good post. Not sure if I totally understand it (Can't agree or disagree either) but it allows additional questions and research. Sure seems to makes sense though.
Because the cheaper a place gets and more overcrowded it gets. People want their cake and eat it too ... they want cheap but they don't want all of the traffic and crowds that go with it.
But that's the Catch 22. As people move to cheaper places they'll inevitably be dealing with the same problems that California has ... as other people flock to those cheaper places also.
Cheap inevitably leads to overcrowding ... it's just a question of when.
Who knows ... maybe the 100,000 or so people who move out each year is a good thing. It might even help solve the illegal problem.
Here's an article that talks about how even migrant farm workers are moving back to Mexico or cheaper states like Arizona because of the high cost of living here.
2) Therefore, only the taxpaying / income generating families (one does not necessarily follow the other in CA) who cannot afford the increased cost of living will leave.
Therefore, California will wind up as a Mexico-like dichotomy of ultra-rich people who can afford the high cost of living and a very large group of welfare class citizens or ultra-poor. Only a very small group of middle class who supports the ultra-rich will remain.
Ironically, as welfare is the sacred cow in CA, the more they spend on it, the greater the tax bill will be, and the higher cost of living occurs in CA. Thus, the widening gap in the rich and poor in CA occurs from this policy and eventually will turn CA into a third world county.
Third world country, you laugh? Open your eyes and see just how many companies are leaving, reducing, or closing it's doors in CA right now! I mean companies of ALL classes, from retail, biotech, tech, etc. CA cannot survive by just doing service related industries. Money has to come INTO the state for it to be stable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
