[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.

[jelliclesfarm]

How will it make housing affordable? Can you give me one example in California where housing has become affordable?

Affordable housing exists only because market rate housing developers pay affordable housing fees to subsidize them. This in turn makes market rate housing more expensive.

These split lot units are not affordable. New builds are market rates as the old home. They don’t pay affordable housing fees but they share the same resources that is becoming even more scarce per person.

It costs millions to build roads..one class room is about million dollars in CA. And there are more teachers and their pensions in the future.

It’s like what the Red Queen said..you have to keep running faster than stay in the same place. You have to keep taxing more $$ and taxing more people to maintain old infrastructure. Can you see what I mean?

These are not even high rises or multi family. It doesn’t cost less. I wrote a longer reply but didn’t post it. Their numbers and projections make no sense at all. I actually took the time look it to because I find this kind of number hunting relaxing.

3D printing multi family or high rise sustainable communities by expanding developed cities will solve housing affordability. It will also bring more equity to California by making every single county as desirable to live ..

It costs $800-1200 per sq ft in Bay Area and anywhere between $350-500 in cheaper parts of California. There should be small self contained village clusters and planned communities.

Basic utilities are water, sewage, power, electricity, trash, internet.

Services: post office, fire, police station, hospitals, city hall, library, down town, entertainment, public squares, open spaces, schools, law and order, office spaces, shopping, gas stations, places to congregate etc.

How many of these can be modernized? How many be remote or digital? How many can be electrified or made with renewable resources?

One reason 3D printed homes won’t take off in CA is because of construction unions. Imagine how much money can be saved if we adopted newer modern tech without tier 1 city prices.

Let me give a sample of some stuff I jotted down today. Large and dense cities are never affordable. Denser it gets, infrastructure will only get more expensive because the cost of doing business there also increases. Remember everything is trucked in..it’s expensive.

San Jose has a million population and 3 billion budget.

Oakland has 450k population and 1.7 billion budget

Fremont has 220k and has 340 million budget

Fresno has 545k people and 1.2 billion budget

Cupertino has 60k population and 90 million budget.

Palo Alto has 66k population and 210 million budget. (Palo alto and mtn view also serve populations of unincorporated cities like Los Altos hills, atherton, wood side etc and that adjustment is included in the budget. Also PA runs and manages its own infrastructure including schools, trash, power and water)

Los Angeles 4 million population and budget is 11.2 billion

I just want one example of housing becoming affordable after it became high density and population increased. One city in California. Just one.

I didn’t think so. Because I have looked.

[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.