Right. But what's a "housing crisis" for society at large is a huge money source for local home owners, who are the demographic setting the local policies.
Don't expect them to vote away their source of riches.
Opposition to density is about protecting a specific lifestyle, not money.
And it definitely doesn't make rents go down, which if you're a landowner in the bay area is a huge source of revenue.
Yes it does.
If I live in suburbia surrounded by suburbia, my house is worth X, because it's a house in a quiet area. I have to drive to SF to have fun, which sucks because it's far, traffic sucks, and parking sucks.
If I live in suburbia but am surrounded by islands of new mixed-use buildings (housing on top, retail on the bottom), then my house is worth X + Y, because a) it's still a house in a quiet area, but b) it's now also close to walkable outdoor spaces with chic shops and restaurants, at least one of which is likely to become a popular upscale haunt.
I now have the luxury of being able to quickly drive there in my car to hang out, and then quickly go back home to my (large, quiet) house when I'm done. I get convenient use of the new space, without the inconvenience of living in an overpriced shoebox above a nightclub.
It's literally having your cake and eating it too.
But if this is a critique on low density suburbs, then I don't really buy the argument. These new developments are mostly replacing run down commercial areas that are already well separated from suburbanites and their valuable property. They're mostly near transit and other commercial areas, but when they do come near residential zoning, it's almost always older apartments rather than houses.
Even when they do end up on the border of a nice-house-suburb, the sprawl means that relatively few suburbanites live near the border, while relatively many do not, but still enjoy convenient access by car.
People like living close to shopping and restaurants.
The situation you describe is applicable to the apartment complexes and new developments being built along El Camino Real on the peninsula, but you are ignoring the issue of single family home zoning. There is a ton of opposition to upzoning in pretty much all neighborhoods on the peninsula. No body wants a duplex next to their single-family home, so they prevent any zoning changes.
And why do you think this? A home is one of the least liquid assets one can own. It’s not a huge money source. It’s not even a money source home owners at all.
Further, any countering increase in property taxes is dampened by Prop 13. So there is very little reason to sell and cash-in vs just holding on for longer as the problem worsens.
When you are a homeowner with an expensive house, you don't want more homes built. That will increase supply and lower price.
The only visible effect of increasing home prices in my neighborhood is a slight increase in my tax bill every year. It's arguably unfair that Prop 13 means my tax bill doesn't go up more proportionally, and that people who bought 20 years ago pay a tiny fraction of what I pay, but that's a topic for a different thread.
I don't even know how much my house is worth anymore. I don't care. It doesn't affect my life at all. I'd oppose a 100 unit high-rise apartment being built next door to me not because of housing prices, but because there'd be 100 more cars on my street which is made for far fewer. There'd be 100 more noisy neighbors partying at all hours. There'd be 100 more kids in my daughter's already overcrowded school. I'm not a real estate investor. I don't care about supply and demand and market prices and all that crap.
Most people buy a larger house while raising a family, then sell it for a smaller one after the kids grow up. The increase in price funds much of their retirement. (This is basically a pyramid scheme, but when the population actually looked more like a pyramid than it does now, it mostly worked. This is now breaking down but a lot of people haven't accepted that yet.)
Moreover, even while you continue to live in your house, having more equity allows you to take out a home equity loan to e.g. send your kids to college.
> I'd oppose a 100 unit high-rise apartment being built next door to me not because of housing prices, but because there'd be 100 more cars on my street which is made for far fewer. There'd be 100 more noisy neighbors partying at all hours. There'd be 100 more kids in my daughter's already overcrowded school. I'm not a real estate investor. I don't care about supply and demand and market prices and all that crap.
Nobody is saying that there shouldn't exist single family homes. The problem is that the landscape is covered in them and we need to convert some percentage of that land into higher density housing. You may not like that to be your house, but take consolation in the fact that if it is, the value of your land will increase significantly (because someone will want to buy it and put up a high rise), and then you can take the money and buy a different single family home in an area still zoned for lower density. And have hundreds of thousands of dollars left over to use for whatever you want as compensation for your trouble, because a single family home in the area still zoned for lower density won't cost you as much as you got for your existing one which is now zoned for higher density.
What increase in price? Your “profits” were simply transferred to the other home owners profits. To extract real benefit you need to move out of state which is not what a lot of people want to do.
The increase in the value of the land when it's rezoned.
Suppose you have a house currently worth $500K because it's only zoned for single family homes. Rezone that area for higher density and developers could be willing to pay you $700K or more for the land so that they can build a dozen condos on it, sell them for $300K each and get back $3.6M. It's worth more after the rezoning because they weren't allowed to do that with the land before.
Then you take your $700K, buy a $500K home similar to your original one in an area still zoned for single family homes and have $200K left over for whatever you like. Or maybe you have $300K left over because you only have to pay $400K for that single family home once there is less housing scarcity because there are now lots of new condos ten miles down the road where you used to live.
That’s the point I’m trying to make. A home’s value is NOT liquid. You can’t extract any portion of it until you move. And you have to move AWAY to get that value.
The best you get is a relatively low interest HELOC but that’s hardly a money maker.
In fact a lot of people are stuck in their homes for that reason. Any move would be a 5x or 10x change in property tax bill.
When your home is appreciating faster than the interest rate combined with property tax rate, it definitely can be a money maker.
What you've perhaps missed, I think, is that property tax rates in CA don't scale with appreciation.
Nope. Prop 13 allows moves in the same county with no change as long as the new places is of equal or lesser value.
...At insanely favorable rates. A person in SF could build quite the nest egg by doing a cash-out refi every year and investing the proceeds.
IF you're from around here and didn't notice this pattern then you need to be paying a little more attention.