[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The reason the owned/rented ratio for residential properties has gone down so much is because of Prop 13[/quote]
Sorry but I have to call BS on that made up statement. Here’s the data from the Census: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html Data doesn’t show any such correlation.[/quote]
Those numbers in your chart mute the real effects of Prop 13 on the owner-occupied/rental housing ratio, particularly in desirable areas with older housing stock (which is where the benefits of Prop 13 are the greatest). The fact so much of California’s newer housing developments were built in “lizard land”– making it more affordable for younger buyers — is what has kept the *statewide* owner-occupied numbers fairly stable. In the desirable areas and job centers with homes built before Prop 13, the owner-occupied rates have fallen dramatically.
You’ll note that California is one of 11 states that has a lower percentage of owner-occupied housing in 2000 than it did in 1960 and/or 1970. Even in other “expensive” states, most of them managed to increase the percentage of owner-occupied housing over the 1960-2000 period noted in the table you’ve linked.
…………..
“Los Angeles’ Low Homeownership Rate
A.
The “American Dream” of homeownership is difficult to attain in Los Angeles, which
has the second lowest percentage in the nation (New York City has the lowest rate). The
1990 Census showed that only 39% of households living in the City of Los Angeles were
homeowners; preliminary Census 2000 data shows no change. The after effects of
predatory lending can result in even lower home ownership rates and damage the
neighborhood stability that homeownership can bring to a community. (H&CD Hearing
2/21/02, p.6, lines 13-15.)”
…
Here, they note the decrease in owner-occupied housing, but blame it on predatory lending. I blame it largely on Prop 13. -CAR
D.
From 1980 to 1990 [Census figures] there was a dramatic decrease in owner
occupancy in South Los Angeles. There are many reasons for that, but predatory lending
may have had something to do with that [decrease]. (Testimony of Sally Richman,
H&CD Hearing, 2/21/02, p. 7, lines 3-7.)”
