Hope California-Housing Edition


California finally passed the first law to overturn some residential zoning restrictions. The Wall Street Journal reported here.

From the California YIMBY press release,

“The end of California’s exclusivity and single unit division is a historic moment-we have taken a big step towards making California a more affordable, fairer, and more inclusive state.”

…SB 9 … It is legal to build a duplex house on a lot that is classified as a house across the state; the law also allows owners to divide their lot into two separate parcels. …SB 10 … Make it easier for the city to approve the zoning changes of small and medium-sized apartments in communities currently zoned as single-family houses.

Well, from the Wall Street Journal, it’s not the nirvana of liberals,

The law provides for the prevention of renters’ displacement and the protection of houses in historic districts and fire-prone areas.

Why are there only two? If you want density, what about the apartment? But sometimes silence is golden:

Affordable housing advocates also criticized the legislation for not including provisions requiring any new homes to be built to be affordable.

Well, this is just a small step. California has a large number of laws and regulations regarding reasonable housing and pushing up prices. (Leo Hanian Here is a good summary). But it is worth noting that California is a one-party progressive state. It is expected that there will be more and more restrictions to solve the “affordability crisis” through the demand for “affordable” housing, that is, a small number of ridiculously overvalued housing provided by the government, or imposing a small number of developments that are allowed to continue. Projects are then distributed to people on long waiting lists, not young people who want to switch to good jobs. The way to reduce housing costs is just… allow People build houses and sell houses, which is great here. Emphasis on permission, this is a new concept in California’s progressive narrative. It is not that “we”, the government, or the “me” governor “will build houses,” but allow people including businesses organized as “companies” and “developers” to build houses. This is indeed a major conceptual leap.

This incident provides a glimmer of hope for reforming this dysfunctional state. (I was looking for the dawn of hope this morning.) In a one-party country, issues are discussed within the party, and alliances are formed. Common sense may prevail. The problem is not necessarily affected by harmful partisanship. In the party, you can talk about housing rules without having to say the word “Trump.”

For example, one of the organizations behind this is YIMBY, California (in my backyard) group. They didn’t specify the political affiliation, but basically everyone in the California city is a Democrat. If you want to go anywhere, you have to resort to this sensitivity. They often use things like “affordable” and “fair.” Words such as “” and “inclusive”, their launch page says “no vote, no recall” to prevent this “attack on our democracy.” To me, they don’t sound too Republican. Well, that’s great. If they are, they will accomplish nothing.

Meanwhile, where are the California Republicans? One of the property rights, personal freedom? Screaming “It’s not enough! This is my property, I can build something I really want on it, and then sell it to anyone I want at any price we agree,” right? Do not. They objected.

(It’s commendable that they are Chanting reform California’s Environmental Quality Act, which is mainly abused to stop development anytime and anywhere, has little help to the environment, but has done a lot to increase emissions because people have to drive long distances instead of living near their workplaces. . )

at the same time, San Francisco is building a “little house” For the homeless in the parking lot, because it is cheaper than a tent space.

This complements a policy that enables “approximately US$800 million in funding for the homeless each year for the next two years”, that is, each homeless person receives US$330,000. New Yorker (A very good article) Come back when the budget is only half. “Officials are considering buying more properties for the homeless, placing people in vacant apartments around the city, and opening a safe RV site for 150 vehicles.” The word “incentive” remains on SF Lost.

Back when someone wanted to work in San Francisco, those small houses might be rented to skilled workers for $5,000 a month.

The local residents next door exploded with the usual anger of cognitive dissonance. We must stop this! We must protect the value of our property! But at the same time, what to do about the “affordability crisis”? Higher property value and…lower property value coexist in the same mind, while keeping people out, let us have more diversity, don’t let the house close to work, but protect the climate. The Light of Hope, one or two commenters, who are loyal progressives (I think, they live here after all), understand this:

(Note, yes, I don’t want an apartment building next to my house. The correct way to solve this problem is the air rights market. If you don’t want an apartment building next to the house, buy easements. It won’t happen soon, But I know that the argument “you don’t want the apartment next to the house” will appear in the comments.

In addition, we don’t have to worry too much. The profit maximization approach is usually wise. In a mansion in Palo Alto, the most profitable thing is to build a huge mansion, not a crowded 4plex. )



Source link