Report-Regional-Housing-Study

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bullishgurl aka FLU]I think we definitely need more housing for population growth. Population growth *is good* for San Diego.[/quote]Well, flu, it appears that your neck of the woods is FULL of NIMBY activists extraordinaire! They’ve been working OVERTIME for well over a year to keep density OUT! What say you?

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/21/one-paseo-carmel-valley-city-council/

Um … but there are still 608 residential units proposed for mid-town CV … on top of and adjacent to multiple retail outlets, of course. That’s quite a lot for fairly small CV (clarification: the “other CV”). You guys have managed to dump Big D back to square one … for now. But we both know that the “fat lady” hasn’t even entered the stage yet. Good work so far to your numerous relentless activists! I’m marginally impressed at what they’ve been able to accomplish so far. As least your neighbors weren’t asleep at the switch like AN’s “old timers” were.

flu, why don’t you get more involved in your community in your “spare” time? That is … all the time you waste on this forum in attempt to troll after me. You might be surprised at what you can learn and accomplish just by going door-to-door in your ‘hood with a clipboard! OR you can shadow one of your most experienced activists down at city hall during a biz day where you will just play hooky, anyway. Who knows? You might even gain valuable knowledge of how the world really works :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Low growth nimbyism means less jobs and lower wages for the vast majority of the local population. . . [/quote]In SD County, actually the reverse is true. Historically, we have had too many qualified people chasing after too few good jobs. And this was long before the MR Act was adopted here and the first CFDs were formed causing a firestorm of subdivision (and thus, population) explosion.

Even in the old days (when SD Co had <800K pop), workers who had FT jobs with benefits in this city stayed in them until retirement. Yes, even if the working conditions were poor (i.e. Navy, DOD and gubment positions) and their workplaces were political hotbeds. They just learned to adapt and stuck it out because the alternative was never being able to obtain another FT job (with a living wage) in SD, causing their families to possibly have to relocate.

Now it is so much worse due to our (essentially) open border. SD workers who live on the other side don't need to make as much money so they will work for less, thereby undercutting (and getting hired over) a qualified job applicant who lives in SD County and has bigger bills to pay.

[millennial]

[quote=scotinob]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]

I saw this graphic article in the WSJ which displays the change regarding where the rich and poor live within cities between the 70’s, 90’s and 2014 based on income.

http://graphics.wsj.com/urban-income-polarization/

Basically it verifies the new thought of where the rich and well-off want to live given their choices and uses Philadelphia, Chicago and Baltimore as examples after the shrinking of the middle-class. Yes, as noted many still like living in surburbia, but many rich are now choosing to live in the city.

Regarding being priced out of the market, San Diego’s economy kind of reminds me of when I lived in Hawaii, or Santa Barbara. The jobs here are not as plentiful or as well paying as those in LA or OC, and although housing prices is slightly less, the disparity in income makes it more burdensome for the average person/family. I’ve heard it called sunshine tax before, but it basically affects beautiful places where people want to live (creating high demand from outsiders from US and other countries) but not enough high paying jobs to allow people to stay. I know a lot of people from Hawaii in this same predicament.

[mixxalot]

+1 and also a lot of developments in El Cajon, La Mesa, Santee, and Lakeside. I can only imagine the hellish commute becoming Dante’s Inferno in the future on the 8 and 52!

[mixxalot]

Correct, I work for a bay area company and based as telecommute employee. Fortunately, I get a bay area salary and have lower living costs here in San Diego than the bay area. I have San Diego tech firms all the time trying to lowball me for jobs. Pay here sucks compared to what bay area firms pay. And the commute would be hell.

I wonder how engineers afford to buy a home here? A 100k salary does not compute into even a tiny 2-3 condo down payment and mortgage payment.

[Coronita]

[quote=mixxalot]Correct, I work for a bay area company and based as telecommute employee. Fortunately, I get a bay area salary and have lower living costs here in San Diego than the bay area. I have San Diego tech firms all the time trying to lowball me for jobs. Pay here sucks compared to what bay area firms pay. And the commute would be hell.

I wonder how engineers afford to buy a home here? A 100k salary does not compute into even a tiny 2-3 condo down payment and mortgage payment.[/quote]

Actually, for me, there’s not that much of a pay difference between my employer in SD and in the Bay Area. it’s only off by about 7%-10%.. But the cost of living is considerably less than up there. I’m wondering how people who don’t hit the stock option jackpot up there can afford to buy a home up there. Milipitas starts around $900k. Santa Clara starts around $1.3million for a 1700sqft SFH. Cupertino, which probably would be equivalent to CarmelV starts around $2million. Plus, once you hit a higher AGI, your tax rate is much more, and a lot of things start to get phased out wrto itemized deductions. Between LA, SF, SD, with the exception of stock grants, I don’t see significant difference with salary, especially after taxes take a bite out of both.

QC engineers are pretty well compensated here. Once upon a time there were layoffs, but I’m told that they have an attrition issue, and so for some, there’s something called retention bonuses.

I guess it depends specifically on what skills/focus area your career is in. The biggest problem I see for tech workers in any other areas outside of Bay Area is lack of stock grants, which really is the only thing that can propel you to a financial level that is significantly different from simply a salaried employee.

Once upon of time, that was QC, that was Intuit, that was Broadcom, that was Illumina. But while stock grants is still a significant part of one’s compensation in the Bay Area, other parts outside of Bay Area seemed to have slimed down on that, especially for newer employees that are just starting out. Older employees get grandfathered in and with lateral moves, usually there is some matching grant just to fish you over. In part of my negotiations with prospect employers, I have been in situations in which they offered me a comparable salary close enough to the bay area. But when it came to equity, it was different. And then even when I tried to negotiate less salary more equity, there was a limit on how much that was possible. At least that was the case for me. In fairness, I’m not really good at these negotiations. I just do it to the level that I try not to get screwed.

There are a couple of other tidbit difference between working remotely and working from a local office, because I’ve done similar things in the past. Working remotely, one’s compensation typical starts higher, but over time, it about evens out. Working remotely, I was the last to get promoted, and there was very limited opportunity for leadership and career growth. When i switched over to a local office for the same company, promotions came faster and so did increased responsibilities. Also, from a safety net perspective, layoffs typically happened first to those that worked remotely versus those that were based out of a home office, unless you just happen to be that much better. So in all, over the long period of time, I found that it pretty much evens out. I was paid more initially when I worked remotely for a bay area group, but then when I switched over to the group down here in the same company, i moved up much faster, and so comp ended up about the same..

[Myriad]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Myriad]
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]
…
Rent-controlled tenants have more stringent protections than do market-rate tenants under their municipal code.
…
There is no other place on earth just like it and certainly no other city compares to it in the US.
…
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.
…
OTOH, San Franciscans, like longtime residents of many other CA coastal communities, don’t want more density in their districts.
…
The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units.
[/quote]

Well not surprisingly, BG provides a close-minded, negative, and unnecessarily verbose answer.

On rent control – Actually I have no idea where your response came from. I wasn’t saying that existing renters with rent-controlled apartments will get kicked out. But now that you brought it up, the problem of rent-controlled is that it artificially reduces supply (basic supply/demand economics) and is biased against new residents (also may impact individual economic mobility for existing rent-controlled residents).

On SF being unique in the world – That’s obvious, but also completely pointless. The same thing can be said about any tier 1 city (HK, London, Paris, NYC, etc).
SF permitting – I’ll take your word on the details. But the permit process is why housing is so expensive in SF.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-novel-move-to-expand-housing-in-san-francisco-1469578675
“Grappling with a housing shortage that has sent rents soaring 50% since the recession, city officials on Tuesday passed legislation allowing landlords to carve fresh apartments out of underutilized spaces, including storage areas and utility rooms.”

On Asia – I didn’t specify China. Have you actually traveled to any major Asian city in the last 5 years? Ever?
I’m not going to talk about the air/water/land quality in China. What the topic discussed was the integration of commerical/residential/mass transit. People don’t drive cars everywhere and are able to live peacefully though in a more dense population. Not every country is blessed with the wealth, space, and resources of the US. But, the urban planning is something that should be studied and the parts that work, we in the US should learn from.

The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units.
LOL, nothing in SF is too steep and narrow. Look at anything on Hong Kong Island.
BG, I encourage you to visit Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and even Shanghai to gain some perspective.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Myriad]
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]
…
Rent-controlled tenants have more stringent protections than do market-rate tenants under their municipal code.
…
There is no other place on earth just like it and certainly no other city compares to it in the US.
…
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.
…
OTOH, San Franciscans, like longtime residents of many other CA coastal communities, don’t want more density in their districts.
…
The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units.
[/quote]

Well not surprisingly, BG provides a close-minded, negative, and unnecessarily verbose answer.

On rent control – Actually I have no idea where your response came from. I wasn’t saying that existing renters with rent-controlled apartments will get kicked out. But now that you brought it up, the problem of rent-controlled is that it artificially reduces supply (basic supply/demand economics) and is biased against new residents (also may impact individual economic mobility for existing rent-controlled residents).

On SF being unique in the world – That’s obvious, but also completely pointless. The same thing can be said about any tier 1 city (HK, London, Paris, NYC, etc).
SF permitting – I’ll take your word on the details. But the permit process is why housing is so expensive in SF.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-novel-move-to-expand-housing-in-san-francisco-1469578675
“Grappling with a housing shortage that has sent rents soaring 50% since the recession, city officials on Tuesday passed legislation allowing landlords to carve fresh apartments out of underutilized spaces, including storage areas and utility rooms.”

On Asia – I didn’t specify China. Have you actually traveled to any major Asian city in the last 5 years? Ever?
I’m not going to talk about the air/water/land quality in China. What the topic discussed was the integration of commerical/residential/mass transit. People don’t drive cars everywhere and are able to live peacefully though in a more dense population. Not every country is blessed with the wealth, space, and resources of the US. But, the urban planning is something that should be studied and the parts that work, we in the US should learn from.

The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units.
LOL, nothing in SF is too steep and narrow. Look at anything on Hong Kong Island.
BG, I encourage you to visit Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and even Shanghai to gain some perspective.[/quote]Myriad, here is my reply to your verbose reply to my post.

SF already has plenty of different kinds of public transportation. When I was riding it there 2 years ago, it cost only $2.50 per day to ride every type in any direction all day. Yes, SF traffic IS terrible (I’ve driven in it many times) but its residents don’t care. SF has the cheapest and most varied public transportation in the nation. Residents don’t need to own a vehicle. Street parking there can be a hassle and most residents don’t have garages. And public parking lots and parking garages are very expensive.

SF is earthquake prone. They will not allow the 40+ story high rises that exist in Asia. SF’s new code creating apartments out of unused space would likely be ground floor units created from remodeled 1 or 2 car (tandem) garages which a lot of LL’s seem to use for storage. Some of the bldgs with 8-12 units were also built with boiler rooms, either on the ground floor or partly underground on a sloping lot. If the HVAC in the bldg has been upgraded over the years, the former boiler room might be able to be converted into an apt.

Rent control in SF is not going away. Those who are lucky enough to have it don’t care about mobility. They will live there until they die and by the time they become frail, they will have moved in one or more relatives to assist them and have them put on the lease so that when they pass on, their relatives will have permanent rent control . . . which follows the UNIT in SF, not the tenant.

Whether SF has a population of 300K or 900K (about its max capacity), life will go on and it will be okay (barring a major earthquake). It doesn’t matter whether ANY CA coastal counties approve even one more subdivision or infill project. They will all be okay just like they are. Their economies won’t crater just because they stopped building due to reaching their capacity in population (to ensure a good quality for life for their existing residents and the cities/counties’ ability to properly service their populations). Coastal county dwellers will move out of their homes (just like they do today) and replacement people will move in to take their places. The replacement people might move in from out of county or from a dwelling just down the street but this won’t cause the population to change. SF doesn’t owe newcomers a particular kind of housing at an “affordable” price (whatever “affordable” means to each of them).

The CA coast and its natural resources should be preserved. There is only ONE in our country and it was never meant to house everyone who wants to live there but at present, newcomers still can find housing, even if every coastal county ceases to approve any more subdivision or infill permits today. Newcomers must take the available housing that is on offer and there will always be people moving, thereby creating vacant living units. We don’t owe them anything else.

Why do you think Americans should live as dense as Asians do in the cities you mentioned above? I don’t need any “perspective.” I’ve seen more than I cared to just from “armchair surfing.” I have no desire to see it (and breathe it) up close and personal. I don’t believe that level of density offers any kind of quality of life to its inhabitants. Witness Chinese workers wearing masks all or part of every workday they spend in the city … and every day if they live there. That environment can’t be good for anyone and US cities should NOT aspire to follow Asia’s lead in creating “density” as it wasn’t smart. It was stupid and short sighted and their citizens pay the price every single day.

The land mass of the US is only 1% larger than that of China’s yet they have 373 people per square mile and we have 90.6 people per square mile. Go figure. How is this America’s problem? The US preserved its National, state and county parkland into perpetuity. The fact that China grossly OVERbuilt their large cities and left entire streets of high rises and factories half built and unfinished, rusting in the elements and decimated their environments in their big cities by polluting the h@ll out of them is also not our problem. They had the open space but their leaders effed it up by overbuilding hundreds of behemoth unneeded structures. They obviously didn’t have any building codes and little, if any zoning laws, they didn’t plan properly and their cities with heavy industry turned into stinking h@llholes in just 15-20 years. Why do you think so many Chinese citizens want to come to the US and buy residential real estate?

And yes, I’ve been to the Philippines, Guam, the NMI and the Carolines but that was nearly 30 years ago. The islands I was on were for the most part more rural than any Pacific coast towns or cities I’ve been to in the US, including HI. Except for one small village on Guam (Tumon, which had a handful of low-rise hotels), they were bucolic, low density paradises because they DIDN’T build and ruin their environments.

As it should be.

All the Piggs who want to see “Asian-style” density in the US are welcome to move to the Asian city of their choice. I won’t try to stop you :=]

[Myriad]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Myriad, here is my reply to your verbose reply to my post.
…
SF is earthquake prone. They will not allow the 40+ story high rises that exist in Asia.
…
Rent control in SF is not going away. Those who are lucky enough to have it don’t care about mobility.
…
Newcomers must take the available housing that is on offer and there will always be people moving, thereby creating vacant living units. We don’t owe them anything else.
…
Why do you think Americans should live as dense as Asians do in the cities you mentioned above? I don’t need any “perspective.”
…
Witness Chinese workers wearing masks all or part of every workday they spend in the city … and every day if they live there.
…
The land mass of the US is only 1% larger than that of China’s yet they have 373 people per square mile and we have 90.6 people per square mile.
…
[/quote]

BG, my reply is long b/c my original post was 14 lines, yours was 54. 2nd post 35 lines, yours was 81. This one is 27 (technically 25)

SF Earthquake prone – You mean like Tokyo, where they are building 50+ story high rises?
Economic Mobility – well rent control creates a psychological reason to stay put. But it might not be in the renter’s best interest if there is a better job or career.

Newcomers & oweing stuff – Who said anything about that? If you think there will be 0 new development in SF or any other city, you’re sorely mistaken.

Americans & dense cities – Not surprised by your response – I’m not advocating it – it’s happening in many places in the US.

Chinese workers & masks – Density is not the cause of the bad pollution. Bad environment policy for factories, power, and cars is. Mass transit and dense living actually improves environmental efficiency (imagine if everyone uses energy like the US).

China & geography – If you did some research, China has a fraction of the arable land compared to the US, that’s why everyone is concentrated in a few areas. Yes, there’s been lots of bad policies in the past 200 years. But China has caught up 50 years in the last 10 (now they are in the 1960’s/1970’s compared to the US. They’ve also brought 400M people out of poverty in 25 years. There’s actually a lot of places in China that are not developed and a lot less polluted (most of that is away from the major cities). Also, what about other countries like S.Korea or Japan? You only singled out China.

You’re comparing a bunch of islands with a country with 1.2B people?
Not advocating that we turn the US into Asia – just that we have smart planned growth. Your plan is to do nothing thinking it’s all going to be good.

[FlyerInHi]

New housing and growth in Los Angeles. Build it in the backyard

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/07/why-building-a-home-on-your-own-land-has-become-so-controversial/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_grannyflats-855pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[an]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-valley-live-vehicles/
This is another reason why we should build higher density unit. If we don’t and continue to build out, we’ll be like LA. If we don’t build, we’ll be like Bay Area. I hope SD learn from these two areas and don’t be like them. I feel sad for those who make $60k and can’t even afford a 1/1 rent.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-valley-live-vehicles/
This is another reason why we should build higher density unit. If we don’t and continue to build out, we’ll be like LA. If we don’t build, we’ll be like Bay Area. I hope SD learn from these two areas and don’t be like them. I feel sad for those who make $60k and can’t even afford a 1/1 rent.[/quote]

Agree AN. But i don’t think people will learn. The community groups who oppose higher density have no incentives to think more broadly. All they care about is traffic to their stripmalls. And when their kids can’t afford housing, they’ll blame immigrants or whoever.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Agree AN. But i don’t think people will learn. The community groups who oppose higher density have no incentives to think more broadly. All they care about is traffic to their stripmalls. And when their kids can’t afford housing, they’ll blame immigrants or whoever.[/quote]The funny party is, if you don’t build high density, you’ll have LA. Which mean the traffic to their strip malls will get worse and the traffic will happen 7 days a week instead of just Monday-Friday.

[FlyerInHi]

Again I agree, AN. More sprawl means more traffic getting anywhere beyond one’s own neighborhood. I drive the sandiego Vegas route and I can see the sprawl all the way to the Cajon pass.

Look at this container house. It would be awesome if people could put them in their backyards for parents or millennial kids.

[gzz]

OB is plenty affordable if you are willing to live small and throw away most of your junk. There is a 1-bed condo on Cape May 2 blocks from the ocean for sale for $300,000. You even get a pool and a parking spot!

Actually you don’t need to get rid of all your junk. My dorm room in school was 110 square feet. I did not feel especially crowded. The condo on Cape May is 640 sq ft.

[Author]

Posts