[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.

[c1ccccc1]

Agree that developers should have to pay the cost for creating infrastructure to support the housing they build. But in general, infrastructure in dense areas will be cheaper per capita to build and maintain than infrastructure in sparse areas. So even if we make them pay the cost, the result will be massive densification, which I'd say would be a good thing, since it would make housing more affordable.

[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.