California voters are probably totally fine with the housing supply being too low because it drives up the price of their houses.
http://www.derekchristensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...
http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
But they also want a barista to serve them a latte, it doesn't matter if the barista has an hour commute each way and shit benefits.
I'd say eat the rich, but this place hates that meme xD
With seriousness, a slogan that accomplishes nothing takes the teeth out of a protest. Tax the super wealthy at x% ans enforce minimum corporate taxes simply doesnt have a ring to it.
With seriousness.
Literally the words out of the mouth of a close friend of mine who sits on city council for a mid-size CA suburb
To get a National ID system done there should be an earnest effort to ensure that EVERYone gets one free of charge , at the fastest connivence and earnest effort and no future legislation can infringe on its obtainment and replacement. Anything lesser would be I adequate.
If you currently own a home and a law is passed that allows you to turn your upstairs into an apartment, then your home may now be worth more, and you actually can access the value stored in your home (by renting it out).
Similarly, if any home in your neighborhood can be turned into a fourplex or larger, and there's the demand to do so, then the supply of large single-family homes in your area shrinks. So your house price can increase as it becomes a rarer find.
But since the total supply of units is going up, rent goes down. And since rent goes down, you don't need pay people extra just to accommodate for crazy expensive housing. For the home owner, cost of living goes down, as every store and restaurant they go to gets cheaper.
Plus, it means that they pay less in taxes, or at least get more for the taxes they're already paying. Places like San Francisco are so inefficient with their tax bases because you need to pay every random bureaucrats $100k+ just to keep up with cost of living.
If you stop restricting the size of the pie, it grows and benefits everyone.
It's not a popular opinion here, but quality of life is important for many of us.
A neighborhood that's got a lot of 2/3/4 family homes feels about the same as a SFH neighborhood if those homes have one unit occupied by the owner.
I don't know of any SF voters who think "oh yeah, I need to fight this new development so the price of my house continues to rise".
It's more like "I like the way my neighborhood is and don't want it to change".
I suppose that SF residents probably liked what their city was in, say, 1985, and did not want any change. Has SF changed somehow by 2020? Was in to the better?
Look at Japan, for example, where houses lose their value after 40 years. I pay cheaper rent in Tokyo than I ever did in even mid-sized American cities.
The housing market boggles my mind how houses don’t appreciate at all there.
Legend has it people even have those outside of single family zoned regions in California!