Not according to some on this forum...apparently it's like a 3rd world country...so they sayHasnt CA always had one of the top economies in the world?
Because at the local level, it's conservative self-interest that dominates, and there is this strain of progressivism that continues to fall for the trope that development drives gentrification when it's really the opposite (and also largely driven by lack of supply).Worse than that, you actively ban the construction of places for them to live.
It’s funny to me how people in California constantly complain about how expensive it is to live there but don’t spend any time considering if their favored policies contribute to that.
Because at the local level, it's conservative self-interest that dominates, and there is this strain of progressivism that continues to fall for the trope that development drives gentrification when it's really the opposite (and also largely driven by lack of supply).
I like how they think apartment buildings ruin the character of their neighborhood but mass homelessness doesn’t.This was quite stark in SF when I lived there. Conservative NIMBYs and radical leftists making common cause to prevent housing from getting built.
Also a part of the world where somebody will explain to you at length why a 6 floor apartment building across the street from 15, 9, and 7 floor 1920s Art Deco apartment towers is "out of context with the neighborhood".
I like how they think apartment buildings ruin the character of their neighborhood but mass homelessness doesn’t.
Forgive me if I missed something obvious. What was this in reference to? I'm curious.$1.5M of revenue per employee per quarter at the listed companies? So $500k / mo. What do the employees actually see of that? 1%/2% if they are lucky? This seems exploitative if employees can generate that sort of revenue but only see low digit %'s outside of a few outliers.
Because at the local level, it's conservative self-interest that dominates, and there is this strain of progressivism that continues to fall for the trope that development drives gentrification when it's really the opposite (and also largely driven by lack of supply).
That's only happened because there is such a deficit of housing. People of means are always going to be able to outbid people of lesser means. They can just as easily buy a shit place, gut it, and live there, as they could just buy into a new place.Indeed both sides are NIMBY's.
But I can tell you that development can definitely drive gentrification. I have watched it happen in parts of NJ near NYC where they have been dropping buildings down as fast as possible, adding thousands and thousands of new units in a dense manner, and rents have only climbed, and there has been virtually no affordable housing put up in the same time period.
I agree that there should be some mandate for affordability, but it should be a built-in mechanism in zoning, not this useless, corrupt political horse trading variance nonsense we currently have.You can't just change the zoning, you have to incentivize and mandate a chunk of the development is affordable.
I think we need to get past the idea that poor people are often going to be living in new housing. New housing will generally be luxury housing and the rents in new construction will be higher than the rents in older buildings. So sure, rich people move into the new houses but that means they are moving out of wherever they lived before, which creates new vacancies. Get enough vacancies and the rents drop, just like we saw in Manhattan during the pandemic.Indeed both sides are NIMBY's.
But I can tell you that development can definitely drive gentrification. I have watched it happen in parts of NJ near NYC where they have been dropping buildings down as fast as possible, adding thousands and thousands of new units in a dense manner, and rents have only climbed, and there has been virtually no affordable housing put up in the same time period.
You can't just change the zoning, you have to incentivize and mandate a chunk of the development is affordable.
Honestly there already is a mechanism called free market forces.I agree that there should be some mandate for affordability, but it should be a built-in mechanism in zoning, not this useless, corrupt political horse trading variance nonsense we currently have.
Honestly there already is a mechanism called free market forces.
Keep foreign investors out of hot markets and there would be fewer market pressures,
Foreign investors are the least of the problems for so-called hot markets. The primary focus should be on building substantially more housing of appropriate density.Honestly there already is a mechanism called free market forces.
Keep foreign investors out of hot markets and there would be fewer market pressures,
Indeed both sides are NIMBY's.
But I can tell you that development can definitely drive gentrification. I have watched it happen in parts of NJ near NYC where they have been dropping buildings down as fast as possible, adding thousands and thousands of new units in a dense manner, and rents have only climbed, and there has been virtually no affordable housing put up in the same time period.
You can't just change the zoning, you have to incentivize and mandate a chunk of the development is affordable.
Forgive me if I missed something obvious. What was this in reference to? I'm curious.
Quarterly revenue per employee of the publicly-traded companies based in the state climbed to an all-time high of $1.5 million in May
Things that happen when you encourage massive employment growth and don't plan basically at all for the humans who will work those jobs to have somewhere to live.
The problem with building more homes is having roads to drive on, water to drink, electricity that isn't shut off when it's windy, and sewage treatment to deal with all those turds.
The problem with building more homes is having roads to drive on, water to drink, electricity that isn't shut off when it's windy, and sewage treatment to deal with all those turds.
I'll try to dig it up, but multifamily homes use far less energy than SFHs. And denser communities mean you don't have to have as much driving to get around and do stuff. Modest density can pay dividends to the community and society at large.Build dense housing around transit. There is some real shitty land use around many BART stations for starters.
View attachment 45896
View attachment 45897
Urban dwellers are the most efficient consumers of energy and water that exist. So you want more of them and fewer tract subdivisions in the Central Valley.
I'll try to dig it up, but multifamily homes use far less energy than SFHs. And denser communities mean you don't have to have as much driving to get around and do stuff. Modest density can pay dividends to the community and society at large.
reminds me of austin.They simply assert that it is their god given right to freeze an entire neighborhood in amber at the moment of their arrival no matter the consequences. Even though they won't explicitly put it that way because it makes them look like shitty people. They also do hate the homeless and wish they'd disappear.
Indeed, but who wants to live in high density areas? It sucks. Lots of people want a home in the burbs because it's a nice way to live. Apartments are for people that can't afford a home.I'll try to dig it up, but multifamily homes use far less energy than SFHs. And denser communities mean you don't have to have as much driving to get around and do stuff. Modest density can pay dividends to the community and society at large.
reminds me of austin.
Indeed, but who wants to live in high density areas? It sucks. Lots of people want a home in the burbs because it's a nice way to live. Apartments are for people that can't afford a home.
Uhhh.... his statement directly contradicted yours.... So.... how exactly are you seeing eye to eye with him? lol.