To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
nytimes.comFrom friends who'd grown up, or watched their children grow up, in California, and then discovered that they simply could not afford to remain there --- with family, friends, neighbourhoods, and landscapes they'd grown up and identified with --- this isn't just about providing housing for new arrivals. It's about housing the population that is there already. Likewise those who've retired and would like to remain in the state, preferably not too long a drive from friends and family (or medical services and at least some urban amenities). Or those who've found themselves burned out of homes an unable to find replacement housing.
California's forty-year "just say no" anti-housing campaign simply cannot be sustained while retaining functional cities, towns, and a state as a whole.
Or to put a twist on the tired argument: propertyowners and banks have no right to an ever-accellerating rate of asset inflation if it renders both society and economy unsustainable.
(That housing is now a crisis across the US, and in numerous other countries, doesn't diminish this argument at all.)
The society and economy in California have become unsustainable because the people who have been priced out would prefer to not have too long of a drive? How is this a credible argument?
Per the article: there are 100,000 homeless in the state.
The median home price is $800,000, over 10x the median income of $75,235 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA)
This isn't 100,000 people, an entire city's worth of people, who would prefer a shorter commute. It's 100,000 people, an entire city's worth, 40,000 families, a generation of children, who need a roof over their head, a bathroom, a kitchen, places to study and rest.
Your comment utterly ignores and misrepresents the reality.
So they all have a right to the most desirable locations? What about the rights of the people who worked hard and sacrificed to live in an area with single family homes? I don’t want to live in a multi-story egg carton.
I understand that there is a huge worker shortage in the US, and that the bus leaves twice a day.
When my wife and I were getting started, we moved to a city with a lower cost of living. We renovated 2 fixer upper houses over almost 15 years. I did most of the work myself. Two years ago we finally had enough equity to get the house we really wanted. We paid $850k for a house on the east coast in a nice area. We don’t have ivy degrees or come from privilege. We worked really hard for a long time. There were times when it was really really hard. I’ve been on unemployment. I’ve been a single parent of two toddlers for months on end, multiple times, while my wife was away for work. I’ve worked shifts and barely saw my wife for months. I’ve had to grit my teeth and stay in a job for years with an abusive boss, who suffered from a personality disorder, because there were no other options to pay the bills…
My response to all those who have been priced out is: what have you done to move yourself forward? What have you tried? What have you sacrificed? Because if I can do it, it’s possible. And I don’t feel bad about opposing zoning changes so others can just coast in on what I had to earn.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You're arguing against points I've not made, in inflamatory language, using highly uncharitable (and unlikely) interpretations.
Please don't.
They might be better off banning short term rentals such as AirBnB, and banning investment and foreign SFH ownership.
This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no noble cause here. It’s plain corruption.
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use.
Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
All your points may or may not be true, but they don’t invalidate the corrupt motivation behind this legislation.
suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas. higher density only benefits developers who can now get revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.
> suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas.
What?