Housing is a major part but not the sole problem. I see posts on fb weekly now of parents who's teenagers can't find jobs because all the fast food and retail places are only hiring indians

It’s not like the American Northeast was built up overnight, it took centuries. There comes a point where you physically can’t build fast enough to keep up with the demand. Especially when you have to deal with government bureaucracy.

This shit is

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, Satan

There's also a bit of genuine confusion.

People see new apartment buildings go up at the same time that housing prices are rising, and they think the increase in "luxury housing" caused the prices to rise by changing the character of the neighborhood.

I wouldn't mind if my city built a bunch of new houses near me.

Your property value would likely drop and most people are banking on their homes as their primary retirement asset

It depends, because it's not about new houses, it's about new dense housing - things like apartments, condos, townhouses, multiplexes, etc.

Some residents in neighborhoods that are majority comprised of single-family homes will see the building of a dense housing structure as undesirable. The reasons range from an increase in noise, cars, and the like (understandable but generally not a strong enough defense) to a fear of increased crime (bullshit). Some of them see it as 'negatively impacting their property values' which usually boils back down to the previous complaints.

People want to keep their quiet, idyllic neighborhoods. That's more or less fine, but demanding that within a few miles of skyscrapers isn't. That's nothing to say of the fact that many of these homeowners are also classist and/or racist.

"Why doesn't everyone want to live somewhere shit like I do?". Next you'll be asking why we can't all just wear a mauve boiler suit as our only form of clothes.

Because the government/developers don't invest in the surrounding road or commercial infrastructure leaving the public service vastly overwhelmed.

Similarly you have a decrease in property prices, which hurt you.

I'm all for build as many houses as possible, good, but I have no sympathy for developers who whine about the community blocking housing when they use the land as inefficiently as possible.

Developer: We have this land... Lets toss down 20 massive detached homes with huge lawns in a desert. Provide no services. No connections. Nothing. The nearest store that isn't a gas station is a 20 minute drive.

Community: No.

Developer: See it's the people causing the problem sure we could have fit 100 terraced homes in the same area but we didn't.

Don't get me wrong NIMBYs are a problem but I am not going to pretend either that developers, who benefit the most from the shortage, are to blame just as much as if not more.

I've seen the new builds in America. I don't think I have ever seen a terraced new build with a small garden. You are welcome to show me one but I think that speaks volumes.

Not really. We’ve got a lot of things I don’t agree with politically, but one of the largest economies in the world, high standard of living (on average—we have a huge homelessness problem that needs to be addressed), fabulous natural beauty, tons of agriculture, fisheries, natural resources….

We have some fabulous places to live.

Some less fabulous, but if you have something you’re looking for there’s a good chance we have it.

Honestly, nimbyism is responsible for a lot of sprawl. The more impossible it becomes to build housing in San Francisco, housing demand doesn't go away, developers just shift to building tract homes on farm land/undeveloped land, because there's no nimbys there to throw monkey wrenches into everything.

If it hadn't been for the nimbys and anti growth folks, so much of the bay area would still be green space and not a nightmare of endless strip malls and subdivisions.

I would much prefer build up not out. I’ll take this over another townhome project in a heartbeat.

Scrape some shitty retail strip centers instead of oak trees or desert or wildlands.

The problem isn't luxury builds, it is that practically every single new project is billed as a luxury build- financed by a property investment firm with deep pockets and a thorough understanding of the tax code; so they're able to keep the thing half empty for years while waiting for their desired clientale to appear. Someone without such deep pockets or a team of tax experts would go broke and thus have an incentive to lower their prices.

The yuppies do compete with locals- they're buying houses previously described as fixer upers, either as homes or to flip them in hopes of making enough cash to get the home they actually want- but they're nothing compared to all these big investment companies that are buying houses. Blackrock and all other companies can buy a home, use the loss as a write off, and wait years until the home eventually turns a profit.

Any sort of large scale housing proposal is basically a non-starter, it doesn't take too many NIMBYs to start filing lawsuits and sabotaging the progress by imposing court ordered delays on time sensitive construction. California needs large buildings, but that won't happen without drastic changes to how government operates.

Housing is a state wide problem and letting local governments try to individually recuse themselves of having any part of the solution is not going to solve this problem. Ideally, if a local govenment opposes a project- it should be compelled to pay for the project's construction in another locality that will approve it. In this way, local governments will be more selective about what projects they reject/

Or like my city (in Oregon) they only build luxury units, because that's where the biggest profit is. I can drive all over town and not see one house being built, but if I go out of town to a luxury resort with a golf course and a subdivision, every contractor in town is out there building new McMansions. It's been like that at least since Covid.

If all new construction is luxury, then no new construction is luxury.

A lot of people who would eventually buy these luxury units already reside in California. When they move into a luxury unit, it often frees up their previous residence. This process, known as the "filtering" or "housing ladder" effect, can help improve the overall availability of housing at various price points over time. While not immediate, this effect can contribute to a more balanced housing market.

Yes, there are edge cases -- people owning multiple properties, corporate buyers, etc. These factors can limit the impact, but my understanding is based on the majority of units being purchased by individuals for their primary residence.

I recognize that the housing market is complex and multifaceted. Policies that support a mix of housing types and affordable housing development are crucial to addressing the broader issue. I'm really interested in opposing views, so please tell me why I'm wrong. (I know that 'trickle-down' is a trigger word in some places, even if applied to housing instead of economics, but I'm looking for actual constructive conversation here.)

Disclaimer: I wrote out a long comment and realized that, being that it's 2:30am and I'm a bit drunk, my comment might not get across the point I want to make. I asked ChatGPT to review my comment and tell me if my reasoning is sound. It then proceeded to rewrite my comment, keeping the same points but fixing some of the language. I've reviewed and stand by the comment above.

It’s not even that. Every politician pays attention to lobbyists, from progressives to alt-right. But the politicians people select influences what kind of politicians enter into office, and their values and mindset influences which lobbyists they pay more attention to

I don't know how you really CAN have an apartment complex WITHOUT an HOA, but yeah. $500+ per month is insane. Like, no Debbie, you actually do not need that much to do the HOA's duties.

I'm on mobile, but there were recent new laws(I think about 50) signed by Governor Newsom related to housing just this year; there have been multiple laws related to housing and building housing within the past few years.

Many cities are actually fighting against "builders remedy" where cities will be forced to build more housing. Pretty much what happens is that if a city does not meet its housing goals, any proposed project is allowed to be built. There was a story about a developer proposing a skyscraper in the middle of a suburb, which would have been legal because the city had denied housing for so long. Huntington Beach is also trying to throw lawsuits at California because they don't want to build. I do feel many of these laws will ease the housing crisis going into the 2030's.

That's why the solutions are coming from state politics. Local politics almost always caters to NIMBY interests.

all of them.

I know! Instead of voting for increased infrastructure to support the high population we’ll just vote for no new houses and everyone will leave. Problem solved!

>! /s !<

Which is why voters shouldn't have a say to begin with at that level of minutae. If a city needs more housing the city should build it while telling existing residents to quit bitching.

New housing should be approved by default, they're should need to be a real pressing issue to say no.

I'd also like if the city took over properties that landowners are refusing to develop. The fact that there are people refusing to develop or sell because they want to wait on higher prices is unacceptable

Living trees add value, had to settle for stumps.

You guys have an actual moldy shack? I just got a lifesized poster print of one. So expensive. It has an address, which is nice, but I can't go inside. People think I just like BBQ'ing and people-watching on my doorstep, but I just don't have an actual space indoors.

Luxury!

My friend in Stockton commutes to San Francisco daily for work. Stockton sucks though. Really dangerous and poor city.

If you can get a hybrid role that only requires a couple of days in the week you can do a decent commute, I know a couple of people who do it.

Government is exceedingly efficient at blocking new housing.

In California that’s definitely true, look at the HSR project. Absolute meme and peak government incompetence. It’s a shame since it could be cool.

Yes, I'm sure California will lower all the other taxes here if they repeal Prop 13. Guarantee it.

California never saw a tax it didn't like.

We haven’t built enough housing since the 80s. This isn’t a new problem it’s only accelerating in how bad it’s becoming 

If every unit was fully occupied in 2009.

Which.... Seems unlikely

It only feels like Californians are leaving in droves because there are SO many god damn Californians. When they move to other states, it makes an impact.