Rolling Stone article admits government restrictions are causing the housing crisis

[Anti Federalist]

Way to much to copypasta, click through if you want to read the whole thing.

“You can’t build an apartment building in Atherton,” Shaw says. City code prohibits anything other than a single-unit building with a footprint that cannot exceed 18 percent of the land. In other words, everything but a single, detached home with a yard is verboten. “You have all of these cities in California where you can’t build anything but a luxury home,” Shaw says. “When you have zoning restrictions that prevent you from building the housing you need, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get in the situation we have.”

And of course, every bill that would relax those restrictions was shot down by the Super Majority of Bolsheviks in Sacramento.

“You have more moderate suburban Democrats who, on many issues, are progressive,” says Lane of Silicon Valley @ Home, “but when it comes to land use and zoning, [they want] local control — which means ‘Just leave us alone, we understand there is a housing crisis, but we’ll take care of it the way we want to take care of it’ — which might mean doing very little.”

No kidding...imagine $#@!ing that...$#@! progs who are all in favor of telling everybody what to do, until it effects them.

$#@! them, I hope they get Soviet style blockhouses of ten thousand Stack a Prole units right in their $#@!ing yards.

It’s unusual for the head of one committee to single-handedly spike a piece of legislation, especially if it’s the top priority of another committee head in your own party. To Lane and others, Portantino’s decision signified something more than Democrat-on-Democrat violence. It was emblematic of a kind of generational warfare that pits the “younger and more diverse population in California,” says Lane, “who have lots of student debt, are trying to rent an apartment, need to be in an urban environment near jobs, and are unable to find housing” against “an older generation of boomers who own their homes and resist multifamily housing, upzoning, and . . . are still a powerful force” in California politics.

Of course, it's racist.

SB50 was not the only legislation that disappointed advocates this year, only the most high-profile. In May, almost all the major housing bills proposed (there were more than 200 total) went up in flames. Two renter-protection bills were killed, and a third, to shield against egregious rent increases, passed only after it was effectively gutted. A tax credit benefiting the owners of historic or architecturally significant homes, “such as the craftsman, the California ranch, the mission revival & art deco building,” sailed through the chamber, however.

The best that Democrats are able to offer the homeless is the creation of more safe parking lots. AB891, one of a number of parking-lot bills still alive in the Legislature, would require every California city with a population greater than 330,000 to establish a parking program like the one in San Jose.

Hah Hah.

[shakey1]

What goes around...

[Anti Globalist]

You don't say...

[Swordsmyth]

Zippy had nothing to say about this?

[Brian4Liberty]

The entire article is a bunch of leftist drivel. Pure propaganda.

Start out with a story about a sympathetic, almost mythical family that works really hard and can’t find housing anywhere.

Truth: the vast majority of the homeless are mentally ill or addicts of some kind. There are young people who are petty criminals who have been kicked out of their parents house.

The city of San Jose opened the parking lot to homeless families after fielding hundreds of complaints from locals confounded by the increasing number of people they saw living out of their cars on city streets in the past two years. The lot’s first night of operation was last November, a couple of weeks after San Jose voters rejected a small property-tax increase that would have funded the construction of affordable housing.

Of course. There’s the solution. Increase taxes, give out free housing. To each according to his needs.

Truth: they have built housing and have given it for free to some of the chronically “homeless”. Guess what? Give out free stuff and promise an easy life to free loaders, and you get a whole new batch of them every year. You will never be able to house them all because they will keep coming, from all over the nation (and world). Word spreads in the “homeless” sub-culture.

Four years ago, Liccardo set a goal to create housing for all of San Jose’s 7,400 homeless. The city has just about hit that goal, sheltering 6,937 people this year. The problem, Liccardo explains, is “as quickly as we’re housing residents, we’re seeing three more getting pushed out into the street by the economy.”

They housed them, and more came. The “economy” didn’t push anyone into the street. Pure nonsense, meant to push a socialist solution.

At its heart, California’s housing problem is one of scarcity: According to one analysis, the state has 3.5 million fewer homes than it needs to house all the people who live there.

Yes, supply and demand. And what are they glaringly ignoring? Immigration. Lying by omission.

That gap was created over decades — largely as a result of the zoning policies of individual communities, under pressure from local residents. Randy Shaw, a longtime Bay Area housing advocate and author of the book Generation Priced Out, says the best way to describe the dynamics at play is to look at the city of Atherton. Thirty minutes from San Jose, Atherton is the most expensive city in the country: The median price of a home there is $8.1 million.

“You can’t build an apartment building in Atherton,” Shaw says. City code prohibits anything other than a single-unit building with a footprint that cannot exceed 18 percent of the land. In other words, everything but a single, detached home with a yard is verboten. “You have all of these cities in California where you can’t build anything but a luxury home,” Shaw says. “When you have zoning restrictions that prevent you from building the housing you need, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get in the situation we have.”

Blame it on the rich. It is all their fault. If they would pay more taxes and build homeless shelters in their backyards, the entire problem would be solved! Add universal basic income, and it’s a communist paradise.

First of all, Atherton is an exception. It is a wealthy residential community, but it’s not located where the jobs are. The other cities that are centrally located are building massively. Tons of new condos and apartments being built. Atherton is in no way an example or normal situation.

The problem is a rapidly increasing population via immigration. Period.

Add to that a limited amount of open space to build new housing. To build something new requires you to purchase something old, demolish it, and build something new. That is happening all over the Bay Area. But it takes time. Thus, the real problem is too much population growth via immigration.

[Swordsmyth]

The entire article is a bunch of leftist drivel. Pure propaganda.

Start out with a story about a sympathetic, almost mythical family that works really hard and can’t find housing anywhere.

Truth: the vast majority of the homeless are mentally ill or addicts of some kind. There are young people who are petty criminals who have been kicked out of their parents house.



Of course. There’s the solution. Increase taxes, give out free housing. To each according to his needs.

Truth: they have built housing and have given it for free to some of the chronically “homeless”. Guess what? Give out free stuff and promise an easy life to free loaders, and you get a whole new batch of them every year. You will never be able to house them all because they will keep coming, from all over the nation (and world). Word spreads in the “homeless” sub-culture.



They housed them, and more came. The “economy” didn’t push anyone into the street. Pure nonsense, meant to push a socialist solution.



Yes, supply and demand. And what are they glaringly ignoring? Immigration. Lying by omission.



Blame it on the rich. It is all their fault. If they would pay more taxes and build homeless shelters in their backyards, the entire problem would be solved! Add universal basic income, and it’s a communist paradise.

First of all, Atherton is an exception. It is a wealthy residential community, but it’s not located where the jobs are. The other cities that are centrally located are building massively. Tons of new condos and apartments being built. Atherton is in no way an example or normal situation.

The problem is a rapidly increasing population via immigration. Period.

Add to that a limited amount of open space to build new housing. To build something new requires you to purchase something old, demolish it, and build something new. That is happening all over the Bay Area. But it takes time. Thus, the real problem is too much population growth via immigration.

Rapid change is always destructive.

[Stratovarious]

Zippy had nothing to say about this?

preparingcharts:

[oyarde]

Is this article about third world california by any chance ?

[Pauls' Revere]

Santa Clara County MANDATES LANDLORDS to accept section 8.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/...ake-section-8/

Sorry I can't copy and paste the site had a stupid pop up.

Section 8 mandate for landlords in ... - The Mercury News
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/santa-clara...

Santa Clara County mandates landlords take Section 8 ... vouchers known as Section 8. Santa Clara County’s ordinance only affects properties in the rural areas and urban pockets outside cit

[devil21]

It was emblematic of a kind of generational warfare that pits the “younger and more diverse population in California,” says Lane, “who have lots of student debt, are trying to rent an apartment, need to be in an urban environment near jobs, and are unable to find housing” against “an older generation of boomers who own their homes and resist multifamily housing, upzoning, and . . . are still a powerful force” in California politics.

WE WANT OUR PERMANENT RENTER SLAVE SOCIETY AND WE WANT IT NOW!

It never ceases to amaze me how the hidden hand manages to keep everyone on the slave plantation no matter what. Never crosses anyone's mind that all of the choices being offered are BAD choices. Freedom of commerce and freedom of property never crosses their minds. Not even the "splinter in your mind". It's either 30 year interest bearing mortgages of money created out of nothing or permanent renter status, as they advocate for demolishing houses to build apartments on property that they could otherwise one day enjoy themselves.

[Brian4Liberty]

Way to much to copypasta, click through if you want to read the whole thing.

“You can’t build an apartment building in Atherton,” Shaw says. City code prohibits anything other than a single-unit building with a footprint that cannot exceed 18 percent of the land. In other words, everything but a single, detached home with a yard is verboten. “You have all of these cities in California where you can’t build anything but a luxury home,” Shaw says. “When you have zoning restrictions that prevent you from building the housing you need, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get in the situation we have.”

And of course, every bill that would relax those restrictions was shot down by the Super Majority of Bolsheviks in Sacramento.



No kidding...imagine $#@!ing that...$#@! progs who are all in favor of telling everybody what to do, until it effects them.

$#@! them, I hope they get Soviet style blockhouses of ten thousand Stack a Prole units right in their $#@!ing yards.

Of course, it's racist.

Hah Hah.

And now you know where this was going:

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course they would never apply this to New York. There is a lot of empty land near Manhattan that should be developed. Right in the middle there is a bunch of unused land, they call it a park, but it looks empty on Google maps. And look at Greenwich Village. The housing could be much denser there. They should build upwards. All over New York there are wasteful single family rows houses. Those should be torn down, and they can build residential skyscrapers.

Nope. We won’t hear any of that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is this article about third world california by any chance ?

Of course. It certainly isn’t about New York.

[oyarde]

Of course. It certainly isn’t about New York.

NY & DC are where the kremlin live . Off limits to any more peasants .

[Brian4Liberty]

NY & DC are where the kremlin live . Off limits to any more peasants .

So many DC suburbs where the homeless and poor people can be moved. Build some skyscrapers to hold them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Atherton. Typical example?

Steph Curry is using his five-year, $200 million contract -- and he's using it well -- to lay some new roots in Atherton.

It's a relatively small town, but the Warriors star will be surrounded by some big money in his new house.

Variety reported Friday that the Curry family purchased a three-level, $31 million estate in a place that's been described as the most affluent zip code in the Bay Area, but there aren't many photos to view. There are 3D renderings that give an overall view and feel of the exterior, however.

The 1.2-acre lot is located at the end of a little-known cul-de-sac in a gated area. Privacy certainly was a factor, too, as you can barely see the property from the road and it's covered in greenery.
...
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/wa...-san-francisco

Atherton is often named among the nation's most expensive zip codes in real estate reports and the town has become the place for some of the wealthiest members of the tech industry to live. Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt all call 94027 home. The median home value in Atherton is currently about $6 million, according to Zillow.
...
https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/ar...a-14437823.php

[Zippyjuan]

WE WANT OUR PERMANENT RENTER SLAVE SOCIETY AND WE WANT IT NOW!

It never ceases to amaze me how the hidden hand manages to keep everyone on the slave plantation no matter what. Never crosses anyone's mind that all of the choices being offered are BAD choices. Freedom of commerce and freedom of property never crosses their minds. Not even the "splinter in your mind". It's either 30 year interest bearing mortgages of money created out of nothing or permanent renter status, as they advocate for demolishing houses to build apartments on property that they could otherwise one day enjoy themselves.

Maybe we could restrict people buying up homes and renting them out so there would be more available for purchase- lowering that price so we can have more home ownership and end the "renter's slavery"?

I love the threads which pick the most expensive examples of housing to show how expensive homes are for the average person when the average person doesn't even live there (or anyplace similar).

[Brian4Liberty]

The “economy” didn’t push anyone into the street. Pure nonsense, meant to push a socialist solution.

Some insight into the thinking here. As I have repeatedly stated about the situation, to build new housing, something old usually needs to be torn down.

For example, an old apartment complex consisting of 10 two story apartment buildings with open spaces like grass, trees and pools will be torn down, and the entire property will be filled with 5 story apartment/condo buildings. The number of apartments increases dramatically, but only after it is completed. Thus, the leftists will call this “the economy is causing homelessness”, because the prior tenants have to leave.

And as a derogatory description, they call this “gentrification”. The entire problem is “gentrification”.

Sorry, you can’t win with the whining, anti-capitalist, SJW left. All problems are caused by rich capitalists, even when they increase the supply of housing.

The other benefit to the deranged left is that they can continue their cognitive dissonance. The real problem is caused by too rapid population growth entirely via immigration. But instead of acknowledging that they create the problem themselves, it is blamed on “gentrification” and “capitalism”.

[devil21]

A new wrinkle to the coming renter slave society, which I mentioned in this thread previously, was spotted in my Agenda 21 2030 development area. A large new subdivision of (poor quality construction) houses but none of them are available for purchase. All ~50 houses in the subdivision are rentals only, with the whole subdivision still under single ownership and control. I didn't see what the rental rates are but it's the first time I've seen that housing model. Sorta reminds me the 70s/80s trailer park but even the trailers are rented.

Sorry, you can’t win with the whining, anti-capitalist, SJW left. All problems are caused by rich capitalists, even when they increase the supply of housing.

Thing is, this isn't about "rich capitalists", at least to those of us that are informed on the topic and are living in the middle of all of what the article describes. It's A2030, coming down from the globalists in the UN. Same folks foisting Greta Thunberg on us all...
If it were organic capitalism (forgetting that there is no organic capitalism and hasn't been for a long time) based development it would be one thing. What I'm seeing is the exact opposite in the form of ignorant, paid off local politicians doing the bidding of developers pushing UN mandates with money received from Wall St debt and foreigners dumping their FRN holdings back into the country. To top it off, now everyone is crying about the lack of affordable housing due to the new apartments charging $3000/mo and the older, more affordable, houses having been razed to make way for them. So what is the local politician's solution? To put the affordable housing cost onto the backs of taxpayers in the form of MORE debt via bond issues and tax increases and hire the same developers to build the affordable housing! This is NOT capitalism by any measure I'm aware of. It sounds more like organized RICO violations than capitalism.

[Brian4Liberty]

A new wrinkle to the coming renter slave society, which I mentioned in this thread previously, was spotted in my Agenda 21 2030 development area. A large new subdivision of (poor quality construction) houses but none of them are available for purchase. All ~50 houses in the subdivision are rentals only, with the whole subdivision still under single ownership and control. I didn't see what the rental rates are but it's the first time I've seen that housing model. Sorta reminds me the 70s/80s trailer park but even the trailers are rented.

Sounds like residential REITs ran out of homes to purchase and are now building their own.

[devil21]

Sounds like residential REITs ran out of homes to purchase and are now building their own.

We have two properties in the area and one is in a particularly "hot" neighborhood. We receive a "We want to buy this house as is, cash, today!" postcard for that property at least once a week. They offer lowball prices, demo them and build tall, thin and long structures (can't really call them houses since they're multiple family structures, or at least will be used for that purpose soon) on ~.25 acre lots that take up nearly the entire lot. The price on the new things is $450k+ on a lot that recently had a $140k house on it. The latest trend is to knock down the same affordable 60's era houses and shoehorn 4 and 5 floor monstrosities onto that .25 acre lot. It's really bizarre to see a street of standard 60's 2br/2ba houses interspersed with 4 and 5 floor structures. Local officials and media are already floating the idea of banning single-family-home zoning going forward. The claimed reason? SFHs are racist, of course.

eta: Another new tactic is these developers are setting up fake home sales websites for you to "list" your house on. Then an "interested buyer" pops up immediately to make the lowball offer.