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

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by badrunner

So you're telling me unfettered market capitalism inevitably leads to socialism? Thank you Mr. Karl Marx.

Trying to pin oppressive government manipulation on “unfettered market capitalism.” A+ for creative verbal gymnastics.

This is a problem of hyper-localized government repeated on a large scale. Change that, and the market will (likely) operate closer to actual market capitalism.

[badrunner]

Oppressive government manipulation? A problem of hyper-localized government repeated on a large scale? What are you even talking about? You're gonna have to be more specific than that. Why would "the government" do any of these things? It sounds more like you're talking about NIMBYs. You know, private citizens self-organizing and acting in their economic self-interest (i.e. the free market).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If someone is so offended at families getting rich off property, most of the country has crap housing appreciation.

It's not so much about being offended as it is just having a very different perspective/worldview.

My own dad: "my job as a parent is to set you up so that you can go out into the world and earn your own success, not to just give you some of mine".

I do believe that something kinda special is lost when home ownership can't be achieved exclusively through one's own efforts.

But again, my midwesternness is showing. If it works for coastal californians, more power to 'em. I guess I just take a sort of perverse pride in living in a place with such crap housing appreciation that I didn't have to go asking for hand-outs to put a roof over my family.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I do believe that something kinda special is lost when home ownership can't be achieved exclusively through one's own efforts.

But again, my midwesternness is showing. If it works for coastal californians, more power to 'em.

It doesn't. The Crawfords of the world, god bless 'em, are not representative of the 40 million people who live in California.

[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...

[plinko]

^its not entirely unattainable nor do you necessarily need mom and dads equity help. In the dozen or so counties where you need a jumbo loan to afford anything the down payment is indeed a problem, but there are 40+ other counties you can buy in or choose to rent.

I got lucky in the fact that I owned a business and had a high salary at the bottom of the market in late 2011-2012. That being said, because I didn’t have 20% (no family equity to suck on and we are just 1 income) I still couldn’t afford to purchase in Santa Barbara, so we chose Ventura. My house has doubled in value in 9 years. Not complaining.

Interesting quirk though. 4 of my younger employees who are 2 income households and were able to use family equity were each able to buy in Santa Barbara in the last year. I could possibly afford to do that but I’d be getting a crappier smaller house for way more money than I pay now. Very hard to do on 1 income.

The point is, there are always ways, but I honestly have no clue how people who make $60k a year do it.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

So you're telling me unfettered market capitalism inevitably leads to socialism? Thank you Mr. Karl Marx.

Yes Badrunner, the home prices in California has NOTHING to do with government LOL

Unfettered capitalism would mean all of Marin County would be developed with suburban syle hoods.


And Crawford, so it seems in some parts of California only the people with wealth can buy in (either their cash or their parents). You always make the argument that high home prices aren't an issue, and you have a point. But your point always leaves out a majority of people. That is why I said this type of crap brings on socialist ideas. It's the simple "fix" in some people's minds because they see a dire situation where they could never imagine buying a home.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sloppy toppy

I think geography is a bigger reason than local government.



There's literally nowhere to build.

That's a part, but how many people would live in the bay area if they built as dense as the Japanese?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by craigs

It doesn't. The Crawfords of the world, god bless 'em, are not representative of the 40 million people who live in California.

My views are representative of enough Californians to not change the status quo, however.

Note that this doesn't mean I don't think there are issues with high housing appreciation. I support taxpayer funded workforce housing, zoning changes near transit, removal of IRS tax free 500k property gains and the like. But just saying "Rezone Malibu to allow 100 floor towers so Coastal CA will be cheap" is dumb. The solution isn't to destroy the coast, and turn CA into FL West.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

And Crawford, so it seems in some parts of California only the people with wealth can buy in (either their cash or their parents). You always make the argument that high home prices aren't an issue, and you have a point. But your point always leaves out a majority of people.

You're right. A majority of Californians can't afford to buy along the coast. And the boomers who bought way back when have received a huge windfall.

But why is this a problem? Is there some Constitutional right to some of the best RE on the planet? If someone is hellbent on living near the Pacific in CA they can move to Eureka or something, but why would it be public policy to ensure housing affordability in places like Laguna Beach, La Jolla, Montecito and the like? Yeah, they're exclusionary places. So what?

Note that this doesn't mean people are excluded from the beach. The beach is almost always publicly accessible and free (maybe parking fees, but beach access is free). Why is it a crime if a non-wealthy person can only afford 10 miles from the coast?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're right. A majority of Californians can't afford to buy along the coast. And the boomers who bought way back when have received a huge windfall.

But why is this a problem? Is there some Constitutional right to some of the best RE on the planet? If someone is hellbent on living near the Pacific in CA they can move to Eureka or something, but why would it be public policy to ensure housing affordability in places like Laguna Beach, La Jolla, Montecito and the like? Yeah, they're exclusionary places. So what?

Note that this doesn't mean people are excluded from the beach. The beach is almost always publicly accessible and free (maybe parking fees, but beach access is free). Why is it a crime if a non-wealthy person can only afford 10 miles from the coast?

I am not talking about exclusive enclaves or beachfront property. Living 10 miles from the beach isn't beachfront, but it is priced like Florida beachfront property.


The main point I am making is that this is created a generation of disgruntled people who may turn to extremes because of their dispossession. Also, radical changes to land use could remedy these issues.


I am not talking about 100 story condo buildings on the beach (but I'm also not not talking about that), but real changes to how our urban areas work:

Allow ADUs, decrease minimum street width, plant trees everywhere, decrease lot mins, eliminate parking requirements, invest in quality public transit (which should come first before the other changes), invest in high-quality biking infrastructure with a connected network (most cities in America fail in this horribly, they might have some nice segment here or there, but its disconnected or ends abruptly), allow duplexes and triplexes where SFH are only allowed today, stop separating uses so strictly, lower speed limits, traffic calming everywhere, speed cameras....and the list goes on.

But we are told to listen to the "community" non-stop. In my planning classes, this is stressedconstantly. Of course, my school is SJW-oriented, so they almost always mean low-income minority community, but nevertheless, the community doesn't know what's best for them in many cases (white or minority), we need to show them the right way forward.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That's a part, but how many people would live in the bay area if they built as dense as the Japanese?

And that's the thing, a lot of it is restrictions. Its self imposed restrictions. They could rezone the crap out of the area, and make it friendlier for developers to build and they would.

The demand is clearly there its just they restrict the hell out of it. Hence a lot of it has to do with the local government.

California's housing crisis is the problem with many of our urban areas. Restrictions. We could build as dense as say Japan, but we choose not too.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

[

The main point I am making is that this is created a generation of disgruntled people who may turn to extremes because of their dispossession. Also, radical changes to land use could remedy these issues.


I am not talking about 100 story condo buildings on the beach (but I'm also not not talking about that), but real changes to how our urban areas work:

Allow ADUs, decrease minimum street width, plant trees everywhere, decrease lot mins, eliminate parking requirements, invest in quality public transit (which should come first before the other changes), invest in high-quality biking infrastructure with a connected network (most cities in America fail in this horribly, they might have some nice segment here or there, but its disconnected or ends abruptly), allow duplexes and triplexes where SFH are only allowed today, stop separating uses so strictly, lower speed limits, traffic calming everywhere, speed cameras....and the list goes on.

But we are told to listen to the "community" non-stop. In my planning classes, this is stressedconstantly. Of course, my school is SJW-oriented, so they almost always mean low-income minority community, but nevertheless, the community doesn't know what's best for them in many cases (white or minority), we need to show them the right way forward.

Eventually the housing crisis and prices needs to be looked at. Because it shouldn't have to reach rock bottom before change occurs. Some places aren't forward thinking. They do not look 15...20...30 years down the line. And it will hurt them in the long run if they turn certain places into gated communities or even metro areas. People leaving for other metros is a boon in the long run.

And I agree, it will turn people into the extremes.

A lot of what the community thinks is for self-interest only. They do not care about the future for others but only themselves. Their home prices rising and so on. Its to the core selfish. That's why the NIMBY issue is so rampant. The state and local governments need to squash that mentality. Or it should be forced, for the collective advancement of the localized population.

People not being able to afford areas is a bad thing. Yeah the population will rise, but it will start to slow down and possibly go stagnant in the long run. Will start to increase the wealth divide even further. It all acts as numerous catalysts for other issues.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That's a part, but how many people would live in the bay area if they built as dense as the Japanese?

Well, if we could get the SF-Oakland Urban Area(523 sq miles) to the same density as the City itself, the population would be 10,022,000---of course that would require we gathered up all the NIMBYS and well, killed them.

If we got the combined SF-Oakland and SJ UAs to SF proper's density level, that's 15.4 million people in just 800 sq miles. Not bad imo. Never gonna happen tho,.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Well, if we could get the SF-Oakland Urban Area(523 sq miles) to the same density as the City itself, the population would be 10,022,000---of course that would require we gathered up all the NIMBYS and well, killed them.

If we got the combined SF-Oakland and SJ UAs to SF proper's density level, that's 15.4 million people in just 800 sq miles. Not bad imo. Never gonna happen tho,.

They could add another half a million people in Oakland alone and it still wouldn't be as densely populated as San Francisco. Since the city is already gridded to support a large urban population, that would seem like a good place to start.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They could add another half a million people in Oakland alone and it still wouldn't be as densely populated as San Francisco. Since the city is already gridded to support a large urban population, that would seem like a good place to start.

Totally agree.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Well, if we could get the SF-Oakland Urban Area(523 sq miles) to the same density as the City itself, the population would be 10,022,000---of course that would require we gathered up all the NIMBYS and well, killed them.

I don't think outsiders realize how much power NIMBYs have, one old lady can stop an entire development by lawsuits. There's also the issue of undeveloped land being actually owned by somebody, so the state or developers have to purchase it. Y'all see how much some of the farms cost right outside of town? Millions...

If we got the combined SF-Oakland and SJ UAs to SF proper's density level, that's 15.4 million people in just 800 sq miles. Not bad imo. Never gonna happen tho,.

They are building out in the eastbay on the delta, but it's that ugly suburban crap.

[sloppy toppy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That's a part, but how many people would live in the bay area if they built as dense as the Japanese?

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!

[Crawford]

Isn't a lot of Oakland in the hills? I mean, yeah, the flats areas could theoretically be densified, but I don't think you could get high density in those upscale SFH neighborhoods up in the hills. Places that look like Piedmont, but are in Oakland.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Isn't a lot of Oakland in the hills? I mean, yeah, the flats areas could theoretically be densified, but I don't think you could get high density in those upscale SFH neighborhoods up in the hills. Places that look like Piedmont, but are in Oakland.

Like the Piedmont NIMBYs would allow it....