[jelliclesfarm]

I am not sure increasing housing supply is a good idea in California. Taxes are increasing as well as cost of utilities. We are in perpetual drought and there is now mandatory residential rationing of water to at least 15% lesser consumption(or into $500 fine). But with increased rates.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Schools are over crowded and Unions are becoming more and more demanding that state pension liabilities keep increasing without any improvement of quality of life. There are road diets and traffic jams on the highways to hell making multi hour commutes an economic drain. There are power cuts and wild fires.

We are 40 million. It’s time to consider drastically reducing population and housing. We need sustainable housing and better infrastructure for walkable high density cities. Perhaps when we have figured out infrastructure, they we can consider increasing housing stock.

We need public transport, a cut in wasteful spending, better schools and roads. Taxes must be diverted provide free utilities for all. And free internet. That should be a right. Instead of paying for pension liabilities of union employees of public sector , I would rather have our taxes go towards creating a better California and towards free utilities, healthcare and environmental protection/conservation and public transport.

I cannot support your startup and the sector is set up to fail and will be damaging to Californians in the long run.

My advice is for you to pivot. Self sustaining tech supported ‘villages’ within Dunbar numbers or anything that creates little townships away from the tyranny of Sacramento will be a better loftier goal, imo. Create homesteads with large farms that are businesses. Look into 3D printed structures and creating high density tech-eco cities.

Making housing better in California is useful. Increasing housing stock is like scratching a bleeding itch when there is no doctors or pharmacies around for miles. Please reconsider. I cannot wish you success…it sounds mean, but I am being honest..regretfully. But I wish success for you if you can make California better. Regards.

[sam_schneider]

Uh... do you want this (https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/whatistheline) ? There is a prince in Saudi Arabia who'll do it for you!

Interestingly, California is one of the lower direct carbon footprint per capita states. With drastically less heating and cooling in the Bay, LA and SD than national averages, and denser areas, it's a net positive to build more housing here than Phoenix, Austin, Houston, Dallas, etc.

[badbot5000]

This is an insane comment. how would reducing population not reduce revenue source for taxes for pensions and public transport? Crowded schools? Build more schools! Traffic on highways? Maybe reform your shitty environmental laws that cripple public transit project and have dense housing so people don't have to drive. Doesn't take a high IQ to solve these problems. Also California doesn't have a real drought. Water is being used for things like farming almonds which consume a lot of it.

[dang]

Could you please make your substantive points without name-calling and swipes? Posting like this is not only against the site guidelines, it has the opposite effect of what you presumably want, because it discredits the point of view you're arguing for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[jelliclesfarm]

shitty environmental laws? we should all suck in toxic fumes in california because everyone wants to come here? we are in the middle of a drought.

a couple buys a home in 6000 sq ft and takes on a 30 year mortgage. they expect to have two or three kids. property taxes go towards 24-36 years of public education, infrastructure and law and order/utilties management. and they expect to retire in a fully paid off home in their old age when they dont have any income.

maybe those who cant afford to move into a place, should work with the state to build infrastructure and well networked public transport instead. how many sardines can you keep stuffing into the same little tin can?

[iso1631]

A 6000 sq ft house seems ridiculously large, about 6 times the size of the average UK home, hardly a "little tin can"

[jelliclesfarm]

6000 sq ft lot. the house will likely be 1200-1800 sq ft. regardless, this is america. we can live in large homes.

california is 1.7 times bigger than the UK. we have 40 million vs 68 million population of UK. we are not the united kingdom.

[namdnay]

So there’s still lots of space then!

[jelliclesfarm]

The law applies to lots as small as 1200 sq.ft. And it can be upto fourplexes.

Perhaps the city needs more housing. My biggest problem ..amongst many others..is that the local zoning laws and cities have NO control over sb9 and sb10 build outs.

They entirely bypass local laws and voting processes and gives the power directly to developers.

California has slowly eroded local governance and increasingly passing the power to a few politicians in Sacramento leading to regional and state interference and governance..often railroading local government. It is absolutely appalling.

We saw this happen with the public school system and property taxes. When Jerry Brown brought in his super secret inscrutable tax redistribution formula, nobody could figure out what portion of our taxes is allocated where..this means that posh homes paying millions and millions of dollars in property taxes because immigrant parents who like suckers pick the best expensive school districts end up sending their kids to schools with no budget for swimming pools or infrastructure improvements or even new restrooms.

A home should not be treated as a speculative instrument. It is a recipe to destablise society. Everyone should have house secure and that’s not always about home ownership.

Home ownership is not a right. Affordable homes to live is a basic right. Having to keep splitting the pie into thinner and thinner slices will lead to more hungry people. Instead we should bake a bigger pie!

Whatever makes expensive zip codes desirable should be made available to all zip codes in California.

In California, we are slicing the pie into slivers until no one is going to be happy. It’s going to be disastrous! The only beneficiaries are developers and politicians. And now VCs and investors. Do.The.Math.

[sam_schneider]

Seems like a by your own logic comment here.

[jelliclesfarm]

No. Let me try again.

1. Increasing housing stock in already saturated markets stresses resources and creates a demand for more infrastructure.

2. When we have more land and more people, we can build where there is land with suitable infrastructure.

3. This means: don’t build if you don’t create infrastructure.

4. Example: a child climbs on a grown man’s shoulder. He is very strong. He runs around. Looks like fun. Another child jumps on the man. And another. And another. And another. Until he is flat on the ground with a pile of children on his back.

Solution: Find another shoulder to climb upon.

I hope this clarifies.

[panzagl]

I think 6000 sq ft is the lot size.

[iso1631]

That's more reasonable.

That said 3000 square feet is still 20ft x 150ft, 280 square metres, bigger than the plot of the 3 bed detached house I grew up in, bigger than the plot of my 4 bed semi I lived in recently - both of which above average prices for the region.

[ohyeshedid]

> It’s time to consider drastically reducing population and housing.

Ok, are you leaving or are you staying?