CA Counties by Feb 2020 Median Home Price; OC nears $1M, San Mateo nears $2M

[Pedestrian]

Housing contrast in today's SF Chronicle:

The $800,000 CA home: In SF, a condo with 3 bedrooms consisting of one floor of a converted Victorian and in Lemoore (Central Valley) the house on the right:


https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...y-16040349.php

[TWAK]

Out here that's at least 20+ acres

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

So all we have to do is tear down the homes of 7 million people and rebuild at two-three times the density? What a practical and realistic solution!

All I see are a bunch of radicals with big ideas about how things should work, usually involving some top-down big government "solution" to the problems of the free market.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

So all we have to do is tear down the homes of 7 million people and rebuild at two-three times the density? What a practical and realistic solution!

This is literally how every big city on earth developed at some point.

[sloppy toppy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is literally how every big city on earth developed at some point.

Name one city on earth that has torn down millions of perfectly habitable postwar houses.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

What percentage of California homeowners owned homes or bought homes before Prop 13 and/or before home ownership became unattainable? I remember thinking a 2 bedroom 1 bath house going for $400,000 in the City of Orange in 2004 was absurd...

You don't have to be one of those lucky people with boomer parents who bought in the 70s for like $25k. If you bought just ten years ago during the last dip, you'd be sitting pretty right about now. Prices have gone up 2-3x since then in some areas. I remember decent starter homes in LA county going for $350-400k back then.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

Name one city on earth that has torn down millions of perfectly habitable postwar houses.

If this is your response then you don't get the point, lol.

[jd3189]

To simplify what I have gathered in this thread: People feel that they are entitled to buy affordable property in coastal CA and those who already own property there feel that they don’t have to compromise on the worth of their property in order to let new buyers in.

It’s similar enough to the ideas of “ finders keepers, losers weepers” and “work harder and you’ll be able to make it”.

I still think re-zoning certain core neighborhoods in LA or SF without destroying any of the land marked stuff is important as well as TOD developments in the metros.

However, I’m starting to accept the fact that most average wage Americans will not be able to afford most properties in Coastal California. And that’s fine, according to the way our capitalist system works. Most of us on a regular wage wouldn’t be able to afford a Manhattan penthouse either.

If anyone wants a house in CA that’s relatively affordable, nothing on the coast or main metros ( LA or Bay Area) will be a cakewalk. Either set yourself up to be close to a millionaire or just move to a more affordable part of the country. Or live below your means and rent (Like I’m doing now).

[sloppy toppy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If this is your response then you don't get the point, lol.

Enlighten me then. What’s the point?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I still think re-zoning certain core neighborhoods in LA or SF without destroying any of the land marked stuff is important as well as TOD developments in the metros.

Yeah, what's lost in this whole discussion is that there is a huge building boom happening in many areas of CA right now. Tons of 3-5 story multifamily infill going up all over LA right now. Tens of thousands of new units coming online every year, and yet, it's not good enough for the radical housing activist-warriors. It's not happening fast enough. They won't be happy until the entire coast looks like a giant wall of balconies.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

Enlighten me then. What’s the point?

Well, first, there are plenty of examples in the postwar era of city governments tearing down SFHs for urban renewal projects under eminent domain, so this isn't exactly a radical socialist concept.

If you own a house in a location that would be reasonably attractive for higher density development, then the price of your house should reflect that. And you should be able to sell it based on that fact. This is what much of the zoning in California prevents now.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by jd3189

To simplify what I have gathered in this thread: People feel that they are entitled to buy affordable property in coastal CA and those who already own property there feel that they don’t have to compromise on the worth of their property in order to let new buyers in.

It’s similar enough to the ideas of “ finders keepers, losers weepers” and “work harder and you’ll be able to make it”.

I still think re-zoning certain core neighborhoods in LA or SF without destroying any of the land marked stuff is important as well as TOD developments in the metros.

However, I’m starting to accept the fact that most average wage Americans will not be able to afford most properties in Coastal California. And that’s fine, according to the way our capitalist system works. Most of us on a regular wage wouldn’t be able to afford a Manhattan penthouse either.

If anyone wants a house in CA that’s relatively affordable, nothing on the coast or main metros ( LA or Bay Area) will be a cakewalk. Either set yourself up to be close to a millionaire or just move to a more affordable part of the country. Or live below your means and rent (Like I’m doing now).

I'm not sure it's that people feel entitled to live on the coast for cheap. I lived far enough inland in Orange County where prices were still pretty outrageous. When areas like inland/eastern LA, Riverside and San Bernardino counties become unaffordable and/or unattainable, that's a problem. My concern, as an ex-Californian and current Arizonan, is that it's starting to spill over into places Arizona, Colorado and other states where speculation drives up the cost and we treat home ownership as more of a moneymaking operation than as a place for someone to live.

Maybe I'm an outlier and I know I'm simplifying the problem and that it sounds like whining to certain people, but what I'm seeing is that we've commodified home ownership so much that it becomes more about property values and resale value than a personal investment in a place to live. I can see why Midwesterners are confused by this but it's becoming a pretty big, and pretty unsustainable problem throughout the West Coast and Mountain West, and beyond the usual cities/metros that were already pretty expensive to begin with.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I'm not sure it's that people feel entitled to live on the coast for cheap. I lived far enough inland in Orange County where prices were still pretty outrageous. When areas like inland/eastern LA, Riverside and San Bernardino counties become unaffordable and/or unattainable, that's a problem. My concern, as an ex-Californian and current Arizonan, is that it's starting to spill over into places Arizona, Colorado and other states where speculation drives up the cost and we treat home ownership as more of a moneymaking operation than as a place for someone to live.

You're thinking more of condo markets like Vancouver and Hong Kong, where half the units sit empty as long term investment properties. Basically urban land banking. Now those are truly distorted and manipulated real estate markets. That's not what's happening in CA, or AZ or CO though. People actually do live in their homes. Demand is high, supply is limited and vacancies are low. At least the rest of the sunbelt can build their way to affordability. Not so easy in highly desirable fully built out coastal CA.

[TWAK]

California was kinda built on speculation, especially California City!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

So all we have to do is tear down the homes of 7 million people and rebuild at two-three times the density? What a practical and realistic solution!

No, this can be done slowly. But then again, it will never be enough. Our roads are too large and take up way too much land.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

All I see are a bunch of radicals with big ideas about how things should work, usually involving some top-down big government "solution" to the problems of the free market.

What is your solution? Does some community "activist" group build a massive amount of housing? Or what...?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah, what's lost in this whole discussion is that there is a huge building boom happening in many areas of CA right now. Tons of 3-5 story multifamily infill going up all over LA right now. Tens of thousands of new units coming online every year, and yet, it's not good enough for the radical housing activist-warriors. It's not happening fast enough. They won't be happy until the entire coast looks like a giant wall of balconies.

The data shows its not enough, you don't have to be "radical" to understand that.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

The data shows its not enough, you don't have to be "radical" to understand that.

Why are you so upset about it though, is the question? It's not like it's our fault property values go up beyond inflation. That must suck to live in an area where you got a house for 80k in the 80's and it's only worth 120k now .

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Why are you so upset about it though, is the question? It's not like it's our fault property values go up beyond inflation. That must suck to live in an area where you got a house for 80k in the 80's and it's only worth 120k now .

Why am I upset? What a silly question.

1. I think all people that work hard should at least have the opportunity to dream about homeownership eventually.

2. Governments and NIMBYs are artificially creating these issues.

3. The development that has taken shape in California and in most of the US is not environmentally sustainable nor are they good for city budgets.

4. The type of developments that rob communities of density are the exact same that rob people of opportunities that don't include a car. This impacts the poor, children, and the very old the most. The very people whom policy should be geared towards.

5. Any place where homes are going for around 1 million as the median price has an obvious problem. Period. I don't care how high average incomes are, people work in these places who don't make those incomes. Should we just forget about those people?


And it is YOUR fault (your= if you support the status quo) that this is happening.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Maybe I'm an outlier and I know I'm simplifying the problem and that it sounds like whining to certain people, but what I'm seeing is that we've commodified home ownership so much that it becomes more about property values and resale value than a personal investment in a place to live. I can see why Midwesterners are confused by this but it's becoming a pretty big, and pretty unsustainable problem throughout the West Coast and Mountain West, and beyond the usual cities/metros that were already pretty expensive to begin with.

I don't think you're an outlier... I think you bring up a great point. It's definitely a difference between gateway city real estate and real estate in the non-gateway cities... and it absolutely exacerbates the unaffordability issue (though it isn't the only reason). You also bring up another great point of how it's spreading to non-gateway cities like Denver. Where does this trend lead us to in 50 or 100 years?