I don’t think the private industry will fund development to such a degree as to intentionally tank housing prices. It’s too invested in it not failing.
The construction/rental unit industry? Hundreds of billions in funding doesn’t come from the void
Agreed. And I think they should be allowed to do so. I also think the locals should eat shit over their property values, and be forced to eat it.
It’d be amazing for the non elite of California. Funding comes from the elite though.
That is not in line with reality. Building happens all over California. The mortgage company I worked at a couple years ago personally funded dozens of CA fresh builds.
But goddamn did the sticker shock give me nightmares.
Don’t take that attitude now. I’ve been with you the whole time in making the local voters eat shit. 100% not being sarcastic. Hand to god.
Absolutely. Do you wonder why prices were skyrocketing when development was allowed?
Fwiw, development is still allowed in the vast majority of California, if we’re looking at landmass.
There will be when the general supply and demand of investment tapers off with decreasing prices.
Assuming production can ever reach the speed it would need to bring prices down to a reasonable level.
I would assume telling them to vote against skyscrapers and industrialization of their neighborhoods. No way these locals could just not want to become the next NYC (since it didn’t help their cost of living any).
I could see some level of federal intervention pushing those policies out. As of now, I"m not sure where the motivation comes from. If rich people stood to make out like bandits, the pols they own wouldn’t have signed off on the restrictions.
There’s no GOP in these areas. These are all very liberal areas. This doesn’t have to be a party division, there is a big problem which no local leaders in the area have even come close to solving.
Nobody cares. That’s the real problem. Everybody just wants these people to go away. It’s not a party problem its a cast issue.
Homeless bad, put them where they are no so visible.
The problem is the folks who run these areas. They are greedy dickheads who want to make people disappear. If they wanted to help they could have. Instead they let this shit fester, but it got out of control faster than they can make things go away.
While it’s true that there are no encampments, it’s also worth noting that NYC has an extremely large subterranean homeless population. I think that qualifies as an encampment
To be clear, I don’t particularly have a problem with someone crashing in the subway, on a bench or wherever they can find that doesn’t bother other people. People can end up in bad circumstances for a variety of reasons and its not like I’m expecting all of these people to go get engineering degrees tomorrow.
I no longer give cash to anyone panhandling on the street, but I will give supplies away like food and warm clothing, since I always keep a cold weather emergency bag in my truck. Last winter I refused bar entry to a man who reeked of shit and clearly had mental issues, but we hooked him up with a big bag of bar food and a few customers got him a cab so he could get down to the shelter and hopefully shower up and get warm.
This won’t guarantee a good outcome. Nothing will unless that guy decides to get help and walk a different path. That’s the real crux of the problem. Individual choices matter more than anything.
Several years ago I had a young homeless couple reach out to a cragislist ad I had posted, wondering if I would let them crash in my basement they saw pictured in the item I was looking to sell. They offered work in exchange. I didn’t accept that offer, but I met up with them to hook them up with a full tank of gas, some old camping and cold weather gear I didn’t use, a few MRE’s, and some paper and sanitation products. I took them out to dinner to learn more about their situation.
Nothing I heard surprised me. A couple of young lovers who decided to hit the road and get away from the crappy and abusive situation they were in. The boyfriend struck me as a likely drug user, the female did not. I couldn’t say for sure, but I’ve been around more than enough addicts to recognize the signs. I stayed in touch with the girlfriend via email, who later wrote me to let me know that she left the guy and was living with a relative, working on getting her life in order. The guy, it seems, had sold his car and most other possessions for drug money and was on the street somewhere.
One made good choices, the other did not. Neither outcome was in my control, but theirs.
Going further back, many of my childhood friends became hard-core heroin addicts in the 90’s. Some did end up on the streets. Some ended up dead. If we lived in a place like LA and not Indiana, I can only imagine how many would have gravitated to the street lifestyle. After all, they hated getting hassled by me, their family members, the police and everyone else who didn’t approve of their behavior. The ones who got clean only did so after multiple jail trips, which wouldn’t have happened if their behaviors weren’t prosecuted. They got clean because their only viable option seemed to be begging friends and relatives to let them stay at home.
Would they have gotten clean if a life of vagrancy was as convenient of an option as it is in LA?
I can’t say, but it doesn’t seem like it would have helped. Some are still hooked and in-and-out of jail. The drug consumes their thoughts and becomes the #1 priority. Making decisions we all consider to be good and productive quickly becomes a very distant priority, and circumstances can quickly develop to make it seem impossibly out-of-reach.
I think most people who end up homeless should be able to treat it like a temporary situation and I’m all for helping these people with both private and even public funds. I do expect these people to behave like we are all expected to behave. We are all people and we should expect this from each other. It seems like LA and other cities have given up on even these most basic standards of human conduct.
I have a problem when people start to make life measurably worse for everyone else around them because a combination of policies both allow and encourage it to happen. If the situation in LA isn’t seen as the breaking point where policy change is imperative, what is? Will other locations with similar policies and outcomes do nothing until more disease outbreaks take place too?
Wholeheartedly agreed. Which is why there’s no way in hell I’d want to fund the hundreds of billions required to tank the local housing market to possibly fix a problem. Least not in my back yard.
Seems unusually harsh to levy that against the city. There seem to be millions upon millions that have the basic standards down pat.
I’m still foggy on the policy changes you want to see. Is there something new and innovative you’ve seen work elsewhere that they won’t try in CA? Do you have knowledge of whether or not the current policies are creating the largest decline speed?
This is where you lose me. This isn’t something that needs to be publicly funded. Plenty of investors would assume that risk, if they had the freedom to do so. Development is how you increase the value of your piece of property. It is also how many more housing units are created on the existing property in high-demand locations.
Of course many locals will protest if neighboring properties get replaced with multi-unit housing. That’s why they put their local policies in place to begin with. They want their little slice of heaven to remain as it is.
Fine, but it seems self-evident to me that those polices have a direct hand in creating housing shortages at all levels of the market. It seems that the voters will try virtually any measure on their NIMBY conditions, but it also seems self-evident that these policies are producing dramatic levels of inequality. How else do you have people living in typhus conditions blocks away from millionaires?
As it is in most places. Like you pointed out about the problem at large, it boils down to priorities. Is sanitation a public priority or not? Is enforcing low level property crime a priority or not? What about low-level violent crime? Is it okay to be out of your mind on drugs in public, or not? Do people have a right to occupy public spaces unconditionally? Should we allow public spaces to become sewage-free hellscapes where disease and despair fester?
The answers are evident in the policies.
I find it unsurprising that a series of polices that allow these conditions to take shape have resulted in conditions that cannot be managed. I find it unsurprising that the local leadership seems unable to act. Their political livelihood depends on winning the progressive race, where the superficial intent of a policy is much more powerful than its effects.
Let’s take the most basic measure I’d expect from my government if I lived in the area. Eliminate the public health threat of typhus conditions in the camps. This cannot be allowed. Our public places must be sanitary.
How many policies are in place right now that prevent that most basic measure of government from taking place?
It seems self-evident that the current policies are producing conditions that are increasingly worse. I’ve suggested a series of policy changes already. I realize they are a political impossibility in a state like California, where the existing policies are so deeply entrenched and politicians are so easily demonized if they stray from the prevailing ideology.
That’s a big problem, and one ultimately up to the voters to solve.
It seems especially incongruous to declare your state a “sanctuary” state in the midst of a housing shortage, but that’s California wisdom in action.
And standard development creates what happened in NYC. The highest cost of living anywhere in the country.
If you want to tank property values to make them affordable, it needs to be done IN SPITE of the free market. The free market has no incentive to ruin its own investment.
I think they just don’t want to be the next NYC. I don’t blame them tbh.
In a heroine epidemic in one of the highest gang traffic areas in the country? I’d hope it’s not high priority.
I have no idea. I’d assume a lot is happening locally to stop it. With how worried you are, imagine the immediate locals.
NYC level infrastructure in public sanitation places would help. The time I was in NYC you couldn’t go 2 blocks without a public bathroom. I’ve been in LA twice now, where you just stop at McDonald’s.
The subway system probably does wonders.
Is that compared with the old policies, that were also increasingly worse?
Do you think the cost of living would be lower today if development was frozen by zoning laws in 1876? What about if we decided things were perfect in 1934? I struggle to understand your reasoning here. Of course NYC has a high cost of living. You have a huge demand of people willing to pay high rent to live there, and property owners willing to charge what people will agree to pay. That’s how it works everywhere.
Of course not, which is why no sane investor would. If I have a home in Malibu that’s valued at the average of 1.2 million dollars, which includes the property it sits on, I should be free to invest the money to build a multi-unit home and profit off of the rent I would collect from tenants. Right now, I’m not. Local policy prohibit this.
This would increase the value of my property, because of its income potential and more developed structure. This would likely decrease the value of my neighbor’s 1.2 million dollar house, whose value is contingent on the shortage of housing in that desirable neighborhood. I was an asshole and ruined his view, bringing the value down even more. Well, that’s my neighbor’s problem, not mine.
Of course, given enough time, the value will probably go up. As neighboring properties become more developed and profitable, the investment potential of the neighboring 1.2 million dollar home goes up because we are actually allowing investment.
Let’s say I turn that property into an 8 unit condominium that manages to under-cut the average rent of $2,600 in the area significantly. Let’s say I can offer 8 units at $1,800 per month. That property is now a 14,400/month income stream, in addition to its market value being much higher than the previous 1.2 million dollars. If my place is nice and new I could probably get much more than that, but even on that assumption it still seems like a very profitable venture. Real estate development in high-demand areas often is.
Is it still expensive to live there? Of course. The point is that it is now much less expensive, and more developers offering these options will continue to drive the price down by, get this, increasing the supply.
You seem to be asserting that developing property is a losing bet in California for some reason. I don’t understand how this could be. Please explain why the only solution to housing shortages, which is constructing new housing, is somehow infeasible in a high-demand market.
Fair enough, but let’s not pretend that the people who say NIMBY to development aren’t exacerbating the homeless crisis and the broader housing shortage.
Fair enough, let’s let property crime slide. Should we also simultaneously let everything else I listed slide? The policies say so, so we are. And now we have this situation.
It was listening to their concerns and seeing the video footage that brought this to my attention. If you think I’m concerned about this, listen to them.
It seems self-evident that a typhus outbreak is indicative of worsening conditions. But the numbers are bearing this out in dramatic fashion. Homelessness is up both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population, and it is FAR outpacing population growth.
Since 2010 homelessness has gone up 36 percent. The total population has increased by approximately 1 percent in the same time. From 2018 to 2019 homelessness went up 12 percent.
I think that’s a clear indication that the “worse-ness” has, indeed, sped up.
Absolutely without a doubt. Without the industrialization of NYC, the population wouldn’t have been able to scale to a level that could support that cost of living/prices. You need massive output of the local economy to support the record breaking cost of living NYC provides.
I can see why CA would be terrified. The example you propose they copy created an unsustainable cost of living environment, with prices that can’t be seen anywhere else in the country.
I’m aware. I don’t think the price increases with standard development would be anywhere near NYC level, as they’re starting at such a high point.
Why is it that this development wasn’t happening for the past 20 years? Demand has been high even longer than that. There’s been an affordable housing shortage for at least 10-15.
This isn’t how rent prices shake out in the real world. You should speak to a single rental investor anywhere in the country a single time.
Why didn’t this work in NYC?
Sure they are, but let’s not pretend like it shouldn’t be there fuckin problem what happens to the local enclave of homeless losers, and people should be responsible for themselves.
You could always move out there and solve the crime problem. That way cops can get back to busting homeless people for shit.
Thinking as a cop, I struggle to hell and back with your logic. 10x worse shit (lol) happening all over the city, and we need to bust the homeless people?
So the local policies are pulling in additional people to a specific area, where they were spread before? I’d wager a gamble the rest of the state is much happier that we’re consolidating the shit, as it were.
2010 and beyond was showing a decline up til 2016, then a massive spike in CA. Since 2010, CA seems to be up 6500 warm bodies. Doesn’t seem horrible with almost 40M in the state.
This one is interesting. Where they lay partial blame for the recent spike on gentrification of the surrounding area.
That’s where we are in this country. We look to ideologies for solutions rather than common sense or simply putting a priority on finding the best solution. In the liberal or conservative handbooks is there a chapter on the homeless? It’s like religion; it doesn’t have all of the answers.That’s why God gave us brains.
If the left has a solution that will work, the right will find something socialist about it and that’s a no go, regardless of how effective it will be. We need to focus on values more than ideologies. If we agree that there is something wrong about our fellow citizens living under those conditions, then we just fix it. If someone calls it socialism, respond with calling it Christian.
@Mufasa I was wondering when you’d pop in and lament the perceived partisanship. I’ve spent the bulk of my words addressing specific policies and outcomes that I find problematic and preventable. I’d find them equally problematic if they were implemented by Republicans or Democrats.
@zecarlo As usual, you come to split hairs and speak in vague generalities without taking any specific position. You speak of values and ideology, I speak of policy.
@pfury After all of our back-and-forth, I’m not sure what to make of your thoughts. It seems you suggest that there are no economically viable means of developing real estate in California. It seems you don’t believe local policies have a hand in creating a housing shortage in the face of tremendous demand for new housing, going back over a decade now. It seems you don’t agree that a combination of policies that legally allow the specific behaviors I’ve listed have had a hand in encouraging more of that behavior. You even seem to be making the bizarre argument that NYC would be better off today with California style zoning laws in place decades ago.
In short, you seem to be arguing that people don’t respond to market forces or even incentives created by government policy, but to other forces.
And what will that policy be guided by. Not yours necessarily, but the government’s? It won’t be guided by values but politics. We can all agree that homelessness sucks and that the homeless are often victims of circumstances beyond their control. We can agree that we should approach the issue with a sense of humanity and empathy. But we all know that once the politicians start to address the issue it will come down to ideological rants and well, money.
I would say we need to spend more on mental health and rehab. We need to provide affordable housing while also making sure that the neighborhoods with said housing are kept as drug and crime free as possible. Provide job and career training. Basically help people get back on their feet and while doing so giving them a roof over their heads and a safe neighborhood for their kids. If possible, once people get back on their feet, maybe deduct something from their pay to give back to the system that helped them.
But this will cost money, not money that we don’t have, but money we would rather spend somewhere else (or politicians would rather see end up in someone else’s pockets). It sounds like socialism and looks too far ahead to get a return on the investment. We still haven’t managed to fix the cycle of violence and poverty in the inner cities so I’m not optimistic.
Mental health has been called I know about 30 years ago a national health emergency in the USA, and it has been for decades earlier. I know there are homeless issues here in Canada and that Toronto at least used to in recent memory had cardboard box cities in parks.
What are the funding models in the States for at least second generation anti psychotic medications? Are there community agencies that aren’t just soup kitchens with a roof to hang out in that give the affected people tasks to do during the day to hone their level of function? Do they if they exist have programs that eventually transition these people into part-time/temporary jobs with community/corporate partners? Such income increases the subject person’s overall ability to live someplace, contribute to the economy while possibly clawing back some social service costs for their support (they would report pay statements and there would be a clawback calculation made such that they are better off and feel less like handout bums)?
I think what might have been missed is exactly what I’m advocating. You can argue about whether this policy or that would be better, but the general argument I’m making is that it seems like the presence of an entire array of policies is what is inhibiting our ability to take meaningful action. I’m advocating that these polices be considered more closely, specifically the outcomes they seem to be generating. People everywhere need to be able to separate a policy’s intent from its outcome, but given the disease conditions we see in LA, it seems particularly urgent.
How far away are SF, Portland and Seattle from disease conditions? I’m not sure, but I think it may be wise to reconsider their policies before a disease outbreak takes place.
Again, I’m not an expert on any local or even state level west coast politics but the following seems self-evident to me.
Zoning laws aside, new construction has far too many regulations around it. I’m not saying scrap them all and let people die in earthquakes, I’m saying a better examination is needed on a policy-by-policy level. It boggles the mind to hear stories about a permit process measured in several years to turn abandoned property into apartments, let alone the incremental business costs of government compliance. It seems like some fat can be trimmed to tremendous collective benefit.
People respond to incentives, and it seems obvious to conclude that polices that allow for behaviors will result in more of that behavior.
Shit in public? No problem. No need to clean it up. We understand if you prefer to wallow in it.
High on meth? Come hang out in our public spaces.
Bothering everyone you come into contact with? That’s your right.
Schizophrenic with a fixation on rolling your shit into little balls? We’ll make sure you have a public space for your activities.
This gets to a very basic question of government’s purpose. Does it control public spaces, or not?
More urgent than a wall? Abortion? Student debt? Universal healthcare? Trans bathroom rights? It’s just not as sexy or, more importantly, as divisive as those other issues. We can all agree shit in the streets and the plague are not good things.
It’s absolutely economical. It’s just not reasonable to expect massive price drops like you seek without first OVERWHELMING the demand. Otherwise you get another NYC.
I’ve acknowledged multiple times the policies restrict building, which creates a natural shortage.
I just also acknowledge I’d do the exact same thing.
I have no idea if itd be “better” long term.
I certainly wouldn’t want to live in NYC myself, and wouldnt encourage policies that push me in that direction.
I’m arguing you don’t understand how those market forces work in a very basic sense.
Are you able to provide any example in American history of a very high demand living area seeing NYC style industrialization, to see prices actually decrease?
Not really. You keep taking basic economic principles as political stances. They’re nothing of the sort.
All the while, multiple times, I’ve acknowledged these zoning laws don’t serve the greater good, and should be removed if the goal is the greater good, giving the voter in the region the finger. But I’m a greater good kinda guy, so it’s a super easy pill.
None of that changes how the price shift doesn’t work that way when demand is that high.
What you post is much more than “perceived”, @twojarslave.
Because all-too often you try to mask your partisanship with long post; a lot of “I’ve posted the facts…I am just trying to understand”…and a lot of “I was merely pointing out”… while clearly pushing the narrative that it’s all the left’s fault…
You bet Liberal policies have a large share of the blame…
And the Right’s “answer” to it all? “It’s all the Left’s fault!”…as if in all of the year’s of our Republic’s and of the State’s existence; we have been ruled and Governed by some lopsided, single-focused Philosophy…or that the Right doesn’t feed at the Governmental trough (which they do); they don’t watch Hollywood movies (which they do); don’t have abortions (which they do); or don’t have Gay people in their ranks…the list goes on and on…
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I see it coming…"I don’t care about what individuals do…it’s the policy I care about!..which deserves another name…“The Trumpian Cop-Out/Excuse”…
