[jelliclesfarm]

the problem with this business model is the lack of understanding of mass psychology. in san jose, if someone has a SFH lot/home, they are not hurting for cash. people who can afford homes want their backyards.

and if an ADU is renting 40% above market..isnt this exactly why housing is becoming unaffordable in california.

plus: where is the water for the dense housing? right now, bay area gets water from hetch hetchy aka little yosemite..which was completely razed down for our water needs. how many new schools are being built? how many new teachers will be needed? how much road infrastructure? how will law enforcement increase to provide safe neighbourhoods? fire stations? power loads? traffic woes? and how much more will the state's tax liabilities increase? are we going to keep exporting our trash to poor countries?

we dont need to increase housing stock. we dont need to increase california population over the current 40 million. we need to take care of californians who have paid taxes for decades and decades..and are losing quality of life that is fast becoming unaffordable.

[analyte123]

Where even are teachers, construction workers, and firefighters going to live if nobody ever builds any homes? This list of common, basic public services that you keep listing out like they are some impossible tasks, somehow other cities can grow their population rapidly and still maintain them. If Californian cities with flat populations have trouble with them, maybe it's because nobody who does those things can afford to live there.

[jelliclesfarm]

Where do you think they are living now?

Are all Apple employees living in Cupertino?

The solution is efficient public transport. Not increasing housing stock.

[chrisseaton]

Have you heard of public transport?

[itake]

What about the "californian's who have paid taxes for decade"'s kids? Where do they live? Their parent's attic?

[jelliclesfarm]

are you saying tax benefits should be inherited? are they disabled? why pay for schools for all if the kids still want to live behind their retired parents resources meant for their old age. children already inherit their parents homes without paying market rate tax rate. even though that isnt relevant to my point. driving out californians who have build cities by creating more and more unaffordable housing is a ponzi scheme.

perhaps if housing stock is increased for those who dont use public utilities and said homes are fully sustainable for utilities and trash, power(solar), water...and they submit to using roads only 2-3 days/week..well..then it would make sense. but thats not possible.

people who live in homes need utilities/services. infrastructure has to be scaled along with population increase. children need to go to school. schools need teachers. housing stock increase without a proper plan for utilities and infrastructure just seems like a plan that is set up to fail. and the only ones who lose are the tax payers.

[woah]

I feel like you're about to make a "modest proposal"[1] for a possible solution to this terrible problem

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

[woah]

Are you saying we need to "build the wall" around California? To protect those saintly old timers paying property taxes for an assessed value of $100k on a house worth $2m?