Report-Regional-Housing-Study

[Escoguy]

http://www.sdchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LG-Report-Regional-Housing-Study-7-15-16.pdf

 If we anticipated single-family demand by using the existing housing stock as our best
measure of historical preferences (63% single-family), an estimated 214,515 single-family
homes would be demanded. However, the aggregation reveals that local planning efforts
only accommodate 65,756 single-family homes, a ratio of 3 out of 10. Based on these
assumptions, only 30% of all future residents who wish to purchase a new, single-family
home will be able to do so. The other 70% would be accommodated in multifamily units.

see page 29
There has indeed been a shift in the composition of housing growth. The most recent 2015 permit
distribution for single-family was 66.3% below the 2003 peak. This has put significant pressure
on single-family home prices because the market is now delivering approximately 2,600 singlefamily
homes per year compared to 7,800 per year during the last real estate cycle.

[The-Shoveler]

What you have to understand is the largest generation in history is just now coming into the household formation age and we are building like there was a declining population bust for the last 25 years..

[sdsurfer]

Thanks for posting! I’ll have to read through the whole thing, but skimmed through a bit and there is a ton of data in there relating to demand. It’s interesting what they say about all the job creation in North County without new homes for those people to live in which might lead to longer commutes for some or they’ll have to live in multifamily, but then there seems to be a bit of doubt as to if the multifamily units will actually get built too.

[bearishgurl]

I quickly read thru pages 1-6 of the report and I really don’t see the same problems coming to fruition that the report talks about. “Newcomers” (or any prospective buyer/renter, for that matter) aren’t “entitled” to live in new construction. Especially in CA coastal counties. It warns that SD companies will pack up and leave if their prospective employees can’t find “affordable” housing. Well, the truth is that SD’s “sunshine tax” will no longer prevail and SD companies will finally be forced to pay their employees a living wage if they want to retain them for any length of time (or retain them at all). It’s about time.

“Affordable” neighborhoods will always be present in SD County, yes even within 20 miles of job centers. Yes, most of these areas have available housing which is 50 to 90 years old and people accepting jobs here will be forced to accept older housing in these “affordable” established areas if they want to move here and those areas are all they can afford. That’s the way its been in SF, SM and SC Counties (on the SF peninsula) for over 15 years now.

The report goes on to say that “boomers” are “hoarding” houses in SD County. Well boomers, seniors AS WELL AS their younger “heirs” all over the state have every right to “hoard” as many houses as their families own. I personally know boomers and seniors who own between 4 and 44 (yeah, I said 44) SFR’s in San Diego County, the vast majority of them rentals. Perhaps most of these (older) houses might not suit the “sensibilities” of entitled millenials and beyond who are attempting a job transfer here from their mcmansion situated on a man-made lake on a prairie in the middle of TX but that’s just too bad. Again, San Diegans don’t owe newcomers a damn thing. Just like the available housing in tiny Milbrae and Burlingame (SM County), SD’s available housing inventory is what it is. I don’t understand why the report is accusing longtime SD residents of “aging in place” as if that is somehow a crime. The current crop of first-time buyers don’t want these boomers’ and seniors’ houses. They don’t even want to rent them! What exactly is the problem, here?

As long as Props 13, 58 and 193 remain on CA’s books as the law of the land, ALL GENERATIONS will continue to “hoard” houses in CA (ESP along the pricey coast) into perpetuity. And why wouldn’t they? A repeal of these laws are the only events that will change the behavior of longtime CA homeowners in this regard.

The report is a lot of fluff and bluster and nothing will ever be done to house these hundreds of thousands of “newcomers” which are “expected” to move here. The (over)building party is over so now prospective buyers/renters have to actually face reality if they wish to move here and remain here. It’s as it should be.

If “newcomers” can’t find housing in SD County that they can afford AND are willing to accept, they won’t move here. It’s that simple (active-duty military personnel excepted). Why is it so hard for so many to envision SD County NOT growing, or growing only a tiny bit (<1%)? What is so wrong with that?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdsurfer]Thanks for posting! I’ll have to read through the whole thing, but skimmed through a bit and there is a ton of data in there relating to demand. It’s interesting what they say about all the job creation in North County without new homes for those people to live in which might lead to longer commutes for some or they’ll have to live in multifamily, but then there seems to be a bit of doubt as to if the multifamily units will actually get built too.[/quote]In cities, any permitted multifamily projects will likely be properly zoned infill (meaning a bldg will have to be demolished to build the project on the same lot).

If an area is already zoned residential for SFRs, I don’t see multifamily projects getting built in that area/subdivision, unless it was permitted long ago and the land was reserved for this use.

No single family homeowner in CA (especially one whose residence is in a coastal county) is going to vote to approve a multifamily project in their immediate neighborhood/subdivision. Nor should they. That’s not what they signed up for when they bought their SFR in an area zoned SFR only. They will all revolt and waste the developer’s and bureaucrats’ time in hearing after hearing and the developer will walk away hundreds of thousands of dollars poorer with his/her tail between their legs. That’s the way the laws are set up in this regard. It’s never going to change …. nor should it.

We’re all wasting our time here lamenting over the end of the “Build ’em and they will come era,” and we need to seriously just get over it. Big Development’s glory days are now over in SD County, folks. Life will go on even if its population drastically shrinks. And this will only happen if there are ever mass deportations of “unauthorized immigrants.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]What you have to understand is the largest generation in history is just now coming into the household formation age and we are building like there was a declining population bust for the last 25 years..[/quote]READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.

It has nothing to do with the size of the “upcoming generation” (or anything else, for that matter).

It is not in SD County’s best interest to keep building like there is no tomorrow … even with infill … (assuming permits could be acquired). We don’t have the water, infrastructure or adequate city and county staffs to serve the population we currently have. Due to gross overbuilding, longtime San Diegans’ quality of life has gone down the tubes since the mid-eighties, IMO.

If there is no room here for incoming millenials to accept jobs, they will take a job in another city. Although, I suspect there will always be room for them but the available housing won’t always be to their liking. That’s just too damn bad.

And it is really okay if SD County doesn’t grow (appreciably) going forward.

[Myriad]

[quote=bearishgurl]READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.
[/quote]
Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.

[an]

[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.
[/quote]
Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.[/quote]Except those are in the plans for decades already. There’s no new land to create another Mira Mesa, Carmel Valley, etc. There are infill projects like Stone Bridge in Mira Mesa and Civita in Mission Valley, but they’re dense multi-use projects. I don’t see another Del Sur or 4S Ranch popping up anytime soon.

[scottinob]

You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that “If you don’t build it, they won’t come” is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn’t stop coming.)

I am a millennial that was born and raised in San Diego, and most of my family lives here. I would like to be able to stay here, close to my extended family. Housing costs have been increasing at alarming rate. This year my rent was jacked up $250/mo. My wife and I will have to make some hard choices if more housing supply isn’t added to the region, if you had your way I would be forced to move away from my family.

Please also think about the others around you in this city who are also just trying to get by. You’re weren’t the first one in San Diego, you’re not the only one, and despite your strongest desires: you won’t be the last one.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]And it is really okay if SD County doesn’t grow (appreciably) going forward.[/quote]Why do you care? You’ll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we’ll have a lot more development going forward.

[FlyerInHi]

Bearishgurl, my quality of life has been going up on San Diego since the 80s when I was in my teens. For one thing, the food choices keep on getting better. We used to be such a third rate city in terms of restaurants. We are now second rate, but new immigrants have brought much more diversity.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scottinob]You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that “If you don’t build it, they won’t come” is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn’t stop coming.)

I am a millennial that was born and raised in San Diego, and most of my family lives here. I would like to be able to stay here, close to my extended family. Housing costs have been increasing at alarming rate. This year my rent was jacked up $250/mo. My wife and I will have to make some hard choices if more housing supply isn’t added to the region, if you had your way I would be forced to move away from my family.

Please also think about the others around you in this city who are also just trying to get by. You’re weren’t the first one in San Diego, you’re not the only one, and despite your strongest desires: you won’t be the last one.[/quote]Scott, are you currently living in the immediate vicinity of your extended family now? Do you think you could purchase a home in the immediate vicinity of your extended family in the coming years? What about with family help? If you want to settle near them and you presently don’t live around there, why not? Millenials around me that grew up around here get help from relatives to buy a home nearby. One millenial/Gen X just “inherited” a home from her grandmother.

If builders in SD County were still out building subdivisions en masse in lizardland (assuming SD County had any buildable lizardland left), how is that going to better help you rent or buy in the immediate vicinity of your extended family?

You say your rent has gone up $250 month recently. You must be living in an area of the county where the rental market will bear such an increase. Rents don’t go up that much around here.

Real estate is all local … as in “micro area.” If you really want to live near your extended family and it is doable for someone your age (a reasonably priced area), then you should. If your extended family lives in an upscale, “luxury,” coastal (OB??) and/or $1M+ area, then you can’t … and the fact that SD County does or doesn’t have any new construction SFR tracts out in lizardland for millenial buyers to choose from isn’t going to fix this particular problem for you. Your parents and other relatives who may be living in areas of the city/county you can’t currently afford to live in very likely didn’t buy their 1st, 2nd or even 3rd house anywhere near there. They had to start somewhere and it simply isn’t your turn yet to live there on your own. The vast majority of young people have never been able to buy a house/area comparable to their parents straight out (or a few years out) of college. They have to rent/buy where they can afford as I’m sure you are well aware.

As a SD Native, you are not a “newcomer” to SD and thus don’t fall into the category of people I was discussing here (who have no desire to drop down several notches in the type of house/area they will accept in SD due to having owned move-up and luxury homes in much cheaper markets in the US). For this newcomer group (mostly from “flyover country”), they are probably better off not taking employment here and moving here, especially if they still have minor children to raise.

To avoid as many future rent hikes as possible, scott, I’m going to suggest that you should consider saving up a downpayment to buy a SD County home you can afford ASAP …. the closer to your peeps, the better. And again, whether the county grows (or not) in the future will have no bearing whatsoever on the price or availability of homes in the (already established) immediate area (or adjacent area) of your extended family that you will shop in. And Props 13, 58 and 193 most certainly will.

[flyer]

From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you’re for or against it won’t, imo, really matter.

Over the many decades our family has been investing in real estate in San Diego, we have never seen a time when fewer and fewer people can afford housing here, and the stats show it may only get worse as time goes on. Definitely a challenging situation for many.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]And it is really okay if SD County doesn’t grow (appreciably) going forward.[/quote]Why do you care? You’ll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we’ll have a lot more development going forward.[/quote]AN, I may or may not relocate. I haven’t made up my mind.

(SD) “City Hall” does not call the shots where developers can build. They’ve approved upcoming multifamily/mixed use projects on dry river-bottom land fka “Vulcan (rubber) Materials” in MM and on a sloping area just above the SD River which long housed underground gas tanks and gas lines through MV. Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn’t need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their “input” because there were no such residential parcels.

Those swaths of land have to be THE most undesirable land in the city! I would strongly advise anyone against buying a residence in either one of those (likely poorly-mitigated, if at all) environmental catastrophes in the making. We all know why City approved these doomed projects. They’re desperate for new property tax revenue … even in the short term (until such time as the HOAs of these projects sue the developers who summarily skipped town and nearly all the homeowners bail and eventually end up in foreclosure). SD has the bulk of the the most valuable residential parcels in the county within city limits but it is collecting very little property tax on most of it. Why? Because as the OP’s linked report by the county’s high-priced consultants state, these parcels (many of them “prized”) have been “hoarded” by boomers and senior citizens, then deeded to their children and grandchildren before or after their deaths. This practice has been going on for decades and will continue to go on into perpetuity and City of SD is suffering mightily for it.

County didn’t need to hire any “high-priced consultants” to tell them what I have repeated dozens of times here on this forum for “free.” And their “consultants” didn’t even explain why! That is that Props 13, 58 and 193 are the culprits. THEY are the reason for the dearth of inventory (more pronounced every year) causing sticky prices in established areas. If CA boomers and seniors had more perceived “mobility” (their residence was reassessed to market or adjusted to a new “mill levy formula” biennially, as it is in many other states), many of them would downsize and move to another (cheaper) county or state to have lower property taxes in retirement. But as it stands, longtime CA homeowners are not going to give up their ultra-low assessments, ever! “Ever” includes for their heirs … and their heirs … and so on. And why should they? Our shortsighted Legislature put the fix in for CA’s longtime homeowners through an ill thought-out statutory scheme in the mid-eighties which effectively allowed members of the same family to enjoy their ancestor’s ultra low assessments into perpetuity … regardless of age, ability to pay tax, ability to work, disability status, etc, etc. In doing so, it permanently screwed over the state budget and those of its cities and counties …. royally.

In sum, CA boomers and seniors were “trained” and “encouraged” to “hoard homes.” They came by that habit honestly and so we can’t blame them for doing it. That’s what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn’t need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their “input” because there were no such residential parcels.[/quote]Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here’s the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/carroll_canyon_master_plan_1994.pdf So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
[quote=bearishgurl]
In sum, CA boomers and seniors were “trained” and “encouraged” to “hoard homes.” They came by that habit honestly and so we can’t blame them for doing it. That’s what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.[/quote]Doesn’t matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it’s perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases. I want SD population to continue grow, which mean we need to continue to build new homes. City council agree with me.

[Author]

Posts