- This topic has 59 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
gzz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 4, 2016 at 6:03 PM #800254August 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM #800256
Myriad
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family.
[end of rant][/quote]Scott’s quote said he “would like” to stay near family. No where does he say he expects or should.
I think Scott makes a valid point about SF. Just because no new housing is built doesn’t mean people don’t move in. Prices just go up for long time residents, locals, seniors, new residents, etc.
Then people want rent control which is entirely the wrong answer. The correct answer is to build more supply.
It probably won’t be SFR, but it makes sense to build more dense multi-family with good mass transit options. Just look at Asia, where many shopping areas, and restaurants, have residential mixed in.
The problem with not doing anything is that eventually prices become extremely expensive for both renters and owners, and traffic becomes terrible. So yeah, people that are still here have their homes, but the overall society is worse.August 4, 2016 at 7:18 PM #800261bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]
We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family.
[end of rant][/quote]Scott’s quote said he “would like” to stay near family. No where does he say he expects or should.
I think Scott makes a valid point about SF. Just because no new housing is built doesn’t mean people don’t move in. Prices just go up for long time residents, locals, seniors, new residents, etc.
Then people want rent control which is entirely the wrong answer. The correct answer is to build more supply.
It probably won’t be SFR, but it makes sense to build more dense multi-family with good mass transit options. Just look at Asia, where many shopping areas, and restaurants, have residential mixed in.
The problem with not doing anything is that eventually prices become extremely expensive for both renters and owners, and traffic becomes terrible. So yeah, people that are still here have their homes, but the overall society is worse.[/quote]Myriad, SF still has rent control in a handful of districts. Those affected tenants haven’t seen any significant rent increases (or any at all) in decades. Some for ~25 years. Only when a building is sold does the new owner have the option of retaining the rent control and retaining the existing tenants and is often tasked with the lengthy and laborious process of offering “buyouts” to existing holdout tenants to compel them to vacate if they want possession of all of the bldg for themselves (to convert to an SFR or remodel it for market-rate tenants and perhaps occupy one unit themselves). Rent-controlled tenants have more stringent protections than do market-rate tenants under their municipal code.SF isn’t meant to house the masses. It is an “exclusive collection of rocks” unto itself. There is no other place on earth just like it and certainly no other city compares to it in the US. Those who can’t afford to live there (or didn’t get in early under rent control and never moved) don’t typically move there.
Scott posted that SF was “growing.” It’s only grown marginally in the past few years due to high-rise multifamily projects built as infill in the low-lying districts which permitted them. Aside from those new projects which created a few thousand units, SF’s population has been stagnant and is not affected by ordinary replacements (move-ins to replace move-outs). Because SF’s dwellings are just 6″ to 4 feet apart in many districts, there are a LOT of homeowners and residents who must be informed if a small spec developer even wants to obtain permits to gut remodel ONE or TWO bldgs (on adjacent parcels). This time-consuming procedure of getting homeowner input and going through multiple public hearings to listen to community testimony could increase the permit time from 1.5 years to as much as 4 years for a typical 1-4 unit dwelling. Completing the permitting process for a high-rise residential project in SF could take up to 15 yrs, depending on the amount of surrounding neighbors, the district and what is proposed to be built.
Asia (China?) has many grossly OVERbuilt cities and its planning was virtually non-existent with horrific consequences … including fouling their own air to the point that city residents and workers wear face masks just to walk to/from work to the train and do their errands. Even today, there are many towers in Chinese cities which have only been framed in metal and are still sitting there unfinished after breaking ground over a dozen years ago. Cities in China, in particular are NOT good examples for US cities to follow. They have permanently ruined their own quality of life for their citizens in the name of creating massive industry … which they consider “progress.”
OTOH, San Franciscans, like longtime residents of many other CA coastal communities, don’t want more density in their districts. And rightly so. There is already limited street parking on a street full of typical 3-4 unit dwellings there. The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units. SF’s residents who have been living there for decades like it the way it is. There are good reasons why homeowners who own properties situated in higher-up districts have overhead easements to protect their views and thus mid-rise and high-rise buildings will never be allowed there.
I’m grateful to SF past and present leadership who have elected to preserve their districts and parkland in keeping with each of their unique architectural styles, local ambiance and open spaces. I don’t think we’ll see that city sell out to Big Development anytime soon … and very likely never.
As it should be.
August 4, 2016 at 8:26 PM #800262flyer
Participant“flyer, your kids grew up inside the covenant, no? Do they and their peers (who also may have grown up inside the covenant) feel that they must have a comparable home in a comparable area for their first home? You’ve posted several times in the past here that your kids’ HS friends and your friends and neighbors’ kids became highly disillusioned and depressed because they were unable to land a job in their fields in SD after graduating from college so I was just wondering if they expected that they would be able to have their first home inside the covenant”
Yes, BG our kids grew up in RSF, and we’ve now been here for over 20 years. Along with our other investment properties, we invested in homes in CV for them many years ago. One still lives there, and the other two have kept their homes as rentals, since their careers took them elsewhere in CA.
Since we were in a position to do so, we tried to give them an edge in the real estate market, and this planning worked out well for them, but they clearly realize they were not entitled to any of this, and are very appreciative of our efforts.
In most of the cases in which their friends have wanted to stay in San Diego to pursue their desired careers and buy homes, but were unable to do so, they and/or their parents were not able to take the steps we took, so, in order to make use of their very expensive degrees, they have had to relocate, and not by choice.
I don’t know if these young people expected to easily walk into a life similar to what their parents provided for them with little or no effort on their part, but it does appear that many of them may have, based upon their disillusionment.
August 4, 2016 at 8:43 PM #800264scottinob
Participant[/quote]I don’t believe the “scarcity of land in SAN” affects ALL millenials. Maybe a small fraction who are insisting on new construction for their first home.
We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family. Assuming arguendo that his screen name denotes his current area of residence (OB), this must have been the area where he posted he recently got a rent increase of $250 month. If OB (or nearby PL) is where he is from and his “extended family” resides, then naturally, he will not be able to afford to buy in there for his first home, unless he gets substantial help from family. He can shop for SFRs in nearby Linda Vista and Clairemont when he gets a downpayment saved up. The scarcity of land for new subdivisions in the “north 40 full of 1500 lb boulders to clear on a rugged, hilly swath of land east of Rainbow, 7 miles east of I-15 off Lilac Rd” does not affect this (native San Diegan) poster who may want to buy in OB! Whether or not the “suburbs of Valley Center” are ever even subdivided and developed … or not … is not going to affect the RE prices and rental prices in OB one iota.
Scott, please feel free to chime in, here. I’m just using your post for an example and the way I read it between the lines may or may not be accurate.
[/quote]I wasn’t talking about living in OB, I was talking about San Diego City and County as whole. Trust me I understand I can’t afford to buy at the beach. My point is that all areas are getting increasingly unaffordable due mostly to the lack of supply in San Diego city and county.
I’m looking to buy a house or condo. the rent increase was a wake-up call. I found this site while doing research into prices. I felt the need to join this forum and speak up after reading so many of your comments and anti-growth sentiment. I want you to understand that there are real people that affected by your anti-growth and anti-density mentality.
Density is good, and its the only reasonable solution. Look at the cities of europe and japan, they are much more dense, and quality of life is still good. We can be more like them if people are open to it.
August 4, 2016 at 9:07 PM #800265FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
The truth is, they don’t want it bad enough. They don’t want to do what it takes to get it. This generation appears to have adopted a “live for now” motto.
[end of rant][/quote]
Lots of things have changed. Accept it. Higher expectations is what increasing standards of living is all about.
Millennials are correct to expect better than previous generations. Remember we need young people more than they need us.
August 4, 2016 at 9:51 PM #800268Participant[quote=scottinob]I wasn’t talking about living in OB, I was talking about San Diego City and County as whole. Trust me I understand I can’t afford to buy at the beach. My point is that all areas are getting increasingly unaffordable due mostly to the lack of supply in San Diego city and county.
I’m looking to buy a house or condo. the rent increase was a wake-up call. I found this site while doing research into prices. I felt the need to join this forum and speak up after reading so many of your comments and anti-growth sentiment. I want you to understand that there are real people that affected by your anti-growth and anti-density mentality.
Density is good, and its the only reasonable solution. Look at the cities of europe and japan, they are much more dense, and quality of life is still good. We can be more like them if people are open to it.[/quote]
A few questions for you, Scott … for the Piggs understanding. In what area of the city/county did you just receive a $250 month rent increase? Did you get at least a one-year lease under your new rent amount?
Do you realize that $250 month rent increases are NOT the norm in most areas of the county? What size (sf) is your rental unit or house? What is your number of bdrms/baths/size of garage (if any) and what is your monthly rent?
It is entirely possible that your old rent (before the increase) was set too low for the area you are living in.
What areas of the city/county are you willing to shop in (as a prospective homebuyer) and what is the price range in which you are qualified to buy?
Not trying to pry, here. Your answers can be “generic.” But without the answers to these questions, no one can determine if there is really a problem, if you might not actually be quite ready to buy or if you are ready but really do have unrealistic expectations.
Thank you in advance of any info you can provide.
August 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM #800270ParticipantI think the market itself will determine the future of real estate in CA. There will always be those who can easily afford to buy what they want, and others will be shut out, regardless of what anyone says or does not say, or wants or does not want.
Case in point. A couple of older members of the family recently passed on, and we had more cash offers than we would ever have imagined, with
30-day escrows. Over ten families who also made offers on the homes were completely shut out because they did not come in with cash, and most mentioned this had been happening to them time after time. Pure supply and demand. Accept it.As far as having higher or lower expectations from a generational perspective. As a Boomer, I can only speak for myself, and probably most of my family and friends, but we wouldn’t trade our lifestyle for anything even close to the standards of living many are settling for today.
August 4, 2016 at 10:10 PM #800273Participant[quote=flyer] . . . As far as having higher or lower expectations from a generational perspective. As a Boomer, I can only speak for myself, and probably most of my family and friends, but we wouldn’t trade our lifestyle for anything even close to the standards of living younger generations are settling for today.[/quote]What about when you were in your 20’s, flyer? Did you get to buy the exact home you wanted where you wanted it? If so, did you have family help to do it? Or did you just “inherit” your first home?
August 4, 2016 at 10:16 PM #800274GuestSettling is not the same as expecting.
Yes some people can afford to buy what they want. BG’s kids had to move away for better opportunities. If SD had more jobs and housing, they could have stayed. She’s going to grow old and lonely. Her kids might visit a few times a year. Many twice or less if they live a few hours flight away. That’s happening to lots of SD families and it’s of their own doing.
August 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM #800276Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Settling is not the same as expecting.[/quote]Please elaborate what you mean here.
[quote=FlyerInHi]Yes some people can afford to buy what they want. BG’s kids had to move away for better opportunities. If SD had more jobs and housing, they could have stayed. She’s going to grow old and lonely. Her kids might visit a few times a year. Many twice or less if they live a few hours flight away. That’s happening to lots of SD families and it’s of their own doing.[/quote]How is the lack of living-wage jobs in SD County as well as SD employers’ longtime penchant for subscribing to the “Sunshine Tax” MY doing? You (and now Scott) are giving me waa-a-ay too much credit, here.
There are plenty of houses for my kids to buy … in their old “stomping grounds,” no less. The problem is if they lived here, they would barely be able to make enough to rent a place, let alone save for a downpayment on a house.
I bring up NIMBYism here because it is the law of the land in CA coastal counties. Accommodating NIMBYism is exactly how the “system” works here! It worked that way before I was born and works that way, today. I’ve never personally engaged in NIMBY activism but I DO believe in it. I’m in favor of landowner rights and clearly delineating multifamily areas from SFR areas from commercial areas (proper zoning). When one spends their life savings on a home with the expectation that their current surrounding zoning at the time of purchase will not change, then it shouldn’t.
“Population forecasts” are just a pie-in-the-sky fruitless exercise. A future population for a jurisdiction is whatever the leaders of that jurisdiction want it to be. They set their zoning, their codes, any building boundaries and moratoriums they voted in and set aside their designated open space with (hopefully) their constituencies best interests in mind.
If you don’t approve any building, they won’t come (except replacement people for move outs). Population size is entirely controllable (save for illegal immigrants living in the shadows within resident’s homes).
August 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM #800275ParticipantPer:
“Lots of things have changed. Accept it. Higher expectations is what increasing standards of living is all about.Millennials are correct to expect better than previous generations. Remember we need young people more than they need us.”
BG, my response that you quoted relates to the comments above. My point was that if the majority of Millennials supposedly have increasing standards of living, it must be taking place in their minds, because it certainly doesn’t seem to be evident in real life where it matters most. Edit.
And to answer your other question, BG. I was working in the family real estate investment business as a teenager, before I went to college and then into aviation, so, yes, I was able to acquire the primary home and other properties in my 20’s. Granted, it was and is a family business, but I did all of the work, including, with my brothers, a complete remodel, with many more after that.
In addition, I think BG is and will do just fine in retirement. She has tons of friends and family, as well as great kids who are not far away, as many of us do. Don’t worry, we’ll all be great.
August 4, 2016 at 11:01 PM #800278GuestMillennials are the most educated generation. They have high expectations but have to settle for less.
To me, good comfortable housing with AC at an affordable portion of income should be taken for granted and society should find ways to provide it. We have the building technologies we didn’t have before. The barriers we have are local artificial barriers.
Low growth nimbyism means less jobs and lower wages for the vast majority of the local population.
Your separation of SFRs from multi units, from shopping, office etc is just post war anachronism. A life at a standstill without any innovation in urban geography.
August 5, 2016 at 4:29 AM #800280flu
ParticipantI think we definitely need more housing for population growth. Population growth *is good* for San Diego.
August 5, 2016 at 6:11 AM #800281ParticipantWith so many different opinions, it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.