jeffwAfter decades of inaction, states are finally stepping up on housing
IdiosyncraticIdiotIf Newsom wanted to he could solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.
In Utah they have been constructing “tiny homes” instead of more “shelters”. I think it’s a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.
Feel free to explain how Newsom could solve the crises over night, and also why he hasn’t done it.
It’s called approving building permits, after the new homes are finished, they would house the people bidding up housing prices, decreasing the pressure on the market
Building permits are being issued more often and faster than before. He passed SB9 that allows a single property to be split into 2 properties, plus allowing an ADU on all properties meaning up to 4 houses per lot. But building even a small home takes multiple months, and it takes time for the trickle down of housing to get to the lowest levels. If you build a new house in Los Angeles, do you think the supply/demand curve instantly shifts? We have a transient population, so new people with money could come in to buy instead of an existing apartment renter being able to buy. A ton of existing home purchases in West Coast cities are going to corporations, investors, and foreign purchasers.
But nowhere near as fast as Texas, and it shows.
It’s almost like there’s a gigantic difference between building new housing in a city that has water on 2 sides, a mountain on the 3rd, is hilly as fuck, and looks like this: external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F…
Versus a completely flat city with open scrub-land on 4 sides that looks like this: external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%…
San Francisco has a density of 18,000 people per square mile, while Austin has a density of 3,000 per sqmi. There isn’t room to build new stuff, so they just convert old stuff into more expensive new stuff.
Don’t act like there’s no space in SF, I’m from there.
sfchronicle.com/…/housing-building-maps-17625366.…
They already found some space, but they would find a ton more if it there weren’t so many single family homes or areas with density limits or building height restrictions
Tokyo was able to redevelop most of its areas to use land better, why can’t SF?
A) That link is behind a paywall. I could only read the first two paragraphs.
B) The first two paragraphs are about how hard it is to find a place to put any new housing. It talks about converting existing spaces into housing, adding new units to existing apartment buildings, etc. And even then, it caps out at 60,000 POSSIBLE units while Austin is permitting over a thousand a month, many of which are single family homes that you are complaining about.
That said, Austin has done a great job of building a ton of apartment buildings. So much so that businesses are complaining that housing prices are going down. It’s easier for Austin to do that, since they have both more space overall and less space that is already developed; but it’s great that they have broken the lines of NIMBY and bureaucracy to actually do it.
Yes, but out of those tens of thousands of possible houses they permit very little.
Single family homes are not an issue in Austin because they have room for them. You are totally correct in that. But the big difference is being willing to change, SF voters are actually the home owners and they like their insane property prices