Least affordable places to live in the US

[Metuo Accipiter]

Yet, you cannot name a single "stifling regulatory" item that is unique to these areas, which is NOT cause by an infrastructure-related problem. Earthquake regs, water piping and pressure, sewer lines, extra roads and freeways, VERY limited footprints to expand ANY of those facilities into - those are ALL problems that are basically not solvable by any sane change in 'regulations'.

It's mainly supply and demand, and too many people want to live there. Accept it. Quoting random studies that bundle all "regulations" together and ignore many of the unique issues in these areas is simply nonsensical. You look completely foolish arguing "it's parking regulations", when someone else points out those are worse elsewhere and yet the properties are cheaper. Those cities have real estate and land to expand outwards; MOST of the CA communities no longer have this option, which creates an entirely different dynamic.

And this is going to play out all over the world with rising populations - only it won't necessarily be 'land', it will be 'water' or 'energy access' or 'roads' that are limiting factors. Our 20th century economy in the US has been almost entirely based on 'build/expand', 'build/expand'. That works, so long as you still have adequate resources (e.g. land) to expand into, or ample water resources, or places to run sewers and treatment facilities. As soon as ANY of those become bottlenecks, you will have the exact same response as what you seen in these coastal areas.

Sooner or later, you reach a limit on what an area is capable of renewably sustaining, and in SF, LA, SD, they are reaching those limits on land values and usable land and infrastructure.

People in America do not want our major cities to all be like Tokyo or Hong Kong or Shanghai. Apparently, you think those are great places to live with billions of other people on top of one another...

DERP

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

He's just never going to get this.

His "libertarian brain" can only focus on the word "regulations".

DERP

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...sing-crisis-fueled-by-greed-study-6883161.php

“CEQA has been singled out as one of the key causes of runaway housing prices and as a major reason California has fallen far behind other states in creating, retaining and on-shoring the middle-class manufacturing jobs that have helped create a manufacturing renaissance in other states,” said Jennifer Hernandez, head of the law firm’s West Coast Land Use and Environment Group and lead author of the study.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...d_the_california_housing_shortage_102078.html

While the root cause is the severe housing supply-demand mismatch, this doesn't explain how localities have allowed the housing market to reach this precipice. Enter the residentialist-NIMBY movement. Using misinformation, political pressure, and California's most onerous public policy intimidation tool - the California Environmental Quality Act, a.k.a. CEQA - communities up and down the Golden State have successfully prevented countless new development projects....

...If the Bay Area’s housing crunch is a byproduct of overzealous use of environmental law fueled by no-growth supporters, it’s the responsibility of the local and state elected officials to change that, even if means adopting measures to rein in state environmental laws, which were passed to preserve our environment, not bar the door to all new growth.

http://sfist.com/2016/05/23/gov_jerry_brown_declares_war_on_nim.php

 

[Joes Place]

...If the Bay Area’s housing crunch is a byproduct of overzealous use of environmental law fueled by no-growth supporters, it’s the responsibility of the local and state elected officials to change that, even if means adopting measures to rein in state environmental laws, which were passed to preserve our environment, not bar the door to all new growth.

You don't understand speculative statements when you read them?
Holy crap!

 

[Joes Place]

This issue is clearly well beyond your level of cognitive comprehension....

DERP

Yep.
/thread

 

[Joes Place]

DERP

LOL....so....THAT is your "example" of a regulation causing the out of control prices.

That's just priceless!

 

[Pepperman]

This is the worst thread I've ever seen. Whichever one of you (I don't even know who "you" are in this case) quits first wins.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

This is the worst thread I've ever seen. Whichever one of you (I don't even know who "you" are in this case) quits first wins.

Yes, it has been painful. I now truly understand the meaning of the quote "Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[ThorneStockton]

Yes, it has been painful. I now truly understand the meaning of the quote "Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Is it really arguing if you just copy and paste the top 20 results from your google search?

I acknowledge that a discussion with joe can be taxing due to his style he uses when he's going against someone similarly stubborn.

You and Belem seemed to have had some decent discussion.

I'd give you points for effort and that certain regulations certainly create an additional burden. It seems obvious that they are not the primary reason of high costs in these areas which was your original argument.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Is it really arguing if you just copy and paste the top 20 results from your google search?

I acknowledge that a discussion with joe can be taxing due to his style he uses when he's going against someone similarly stubborn.

You and Belem seemed to have had some decent discussion.

I'd give you points for effort and that certain regulations certainly create an additional burden. It seems obvious that they are not the primary reason of high costs in these areas which was your original argument.

I didn't just copy and paste - I took excerpts, highlighted extensively, summarized, etc. until I got tired of trying to explain things to Joe.

And my argument is that excessively burdensome regulation is the primary difference between California and other high-demand areas in the US. There are many high demand/growth areas that have managed growth more efficiently than California. I've never said California doesn't have other factors attributing to cost. I shouldn't have to - it's obvious. And of course there are going to be unique situations and other anecdotal evidence that shows no rule is absolute.

But as the research I've posted has shown - California has a regulatory problem. The governor admits this - as do many civic leaders - think tanks, etc. So I don't get why it's such a point of contention. And the list I provided that started this whole thing was about affordability- not just cost. High cost housing is fine in high income areas. Clearly the state is out of whack with regard to what housing should cost in comparison to incomes. And the key contributor to this out of whack situation, that's been identified countless times in the articles and studies I've posted, is the regulatory structure that allows too many projects to be blocked and drives up costs. Too many cities and neighborhoods are able to use regulation to enforce their NIMBY agenda.

 

[BelemNole]

Oh, high cost cousing is fine in high income areas? Tell me again where in CA the high cost housing areas are? Look at the MEDIAN incomes for those areas.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I didn't just copy and paste - I took excerpts, highlighted extensively, summarized, etc. until I got tired of trying to explain things to Joe.

And my argument is that excessively burdensome regulation is the primary difference between California and other high-demand areas in the US. There are many high demand/growth areas that have managed growth more efficiently than California. I've never said California doesn't have other factors attributing to cost. I shouldn't have to - it's obvious. And of course there are going to be unique situations and other anecdotal evidence that shows no rule is absolute.

But as the research I've posted has shown - California has a regulatory problem. The governor admits this - as do many civic leaders - think tanks, etc. So I don't get why it's such a point of contention. And the list I provided that started this whole thing was about affordability- not just cost. High cost housing is fine in high income areas. Clearly the state is out of whack with regard to what housing should cost in comparison to incomes. And the key contributor to this out of whack situation, that's been identified countless times in the articles and studies I've posted, is the regulatory structure that allows too many projects to be blocked and drives up costs. Too many cities and neighborhoods are able to use regulation to enforce their NIMBY agenda.

I can acknowledge that 90% of that could be true and still realize your premise as false due to your use of "primarily".

You were mocked and lampooned because you compared San Fran to Dallas and Houston.

Everyone would largely agree if your whole message was something along the lines of these cities should really be weighing the benefits of maintaining historical neighborhoods and the cities charm with the need for more and higher density housing to meet all the demand that there is for these desirable cities.
Instead it read like anti regulation dogma.

No consultant or researcher is going to harp on SF's geography or popularity because the geography isn't an actionable item and they wouldn't really want to reduce the desirableness of the city. So they talk about regulations, which are valid discussions, but don't mean they are the primary factor.

There was plenty of middle ground if you were willing to back off your claim on the degree of the costs of "regulations"

 

[Pepperman]

Congrats to Joes Place for winning (meaning he didn't post again).

Don't let me down and make me call for a re-count, ok?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

I can acknowledge that 90% of that could be true and still realize your premise as false due to your use of "primarily".

You were mocked and lampooned because you compared San Fran to Dallas and Houston.

Everyone would largely agree if your whole message was something along the lines of these cities should really be weighing the benefits of maintaining historical neighborhoods and the cities charm with the need for more and higher density housing to meet all the demand that there is for these desirable cities.
Instead it read like anti regulation dogma.

No consultant or researcher is going to harp on SF's geography or popularity because the geography isn't an actionable item and they wouldn't really want to reduce the desirableness of the city. So they talk about regulations, which are valid discussions, but don't mean they are the primary factor.

There was plenty of middle ground if you were willing to back off your claim on the degree of the costs of "regulations"

I repeatedly and specifically pointed out there are unique and different challenges in California than other places. (By the way, a number of those studies I posted do beat up on San Fran and the Bay Area for poor land use utilization)

The point is the land use restrictions are much more oppressive in California compared to other areas. And that exacerbates the already severe supply and demand issues California has. This regularity roadblock is worse in California than any other state. That in no way means I am saying that high price/demand areas are only high cost because of regulation. That's never been the argument. That's obviously not true and shouldn't have to be assumed by anyone. (Even though I had to explain it to Joesplace - who has repeatedly misstated my argument).

As for Dallas vs San Francisco. Did you know the ave price of a home in San Francisco is over 6 times more expensive than the ave home in Dallas? It's also close to 4 times more than Chicago, twice as expensive as Boston, 1.8 times more than Seattle, and 1.6 times more than New York City. Crazy.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Oh, high cost cousing is fine in high income areas? Tell me again where in CA the high cost housing areas are? Look at the MEDIAN incomes for those areas.

Did you not notice the first post in this entire thread?

 

[BelemNole]

I did. Did you not notice Mr Stockton is correct. All that you've proven is that in some cities zoning, etc can exacerbate already tight markets. That is not a revelation.
As someone who works on CEQA/NEPA projects every week I think the stated effects on unit costs are exaggerated in some of your links - unless you're trying to build a subdivision on a protected wetland or something.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

All that you've proven is that in some cities zoning, etc can exacerbate already tight markets. That is not a revelation.

Hallelujah!

 

[BelemNole]

When was that ever disputed? The only thing in dispute was that it explained why CA had 15 of the top 20. It does not. It's not unique to those cities or to CA.