Man, this housing thing is going to get REALLY ugly

[highland145]

You know the almost criminal part about that? It’s that about 89% of the COVID funding that was authorized for rental assistance has NOT been spent/given out.

Almost seems like there’s something going on behind the scenes keeping that money out of the hands of the people who could benefit from it…tenets and landlords.

This and I don't know why. The tenant has to apply but is seems like a no brainer. Wonder if the process is intentionally/unintentionally a pita.

SC Housing

schousing.com

And SC is fixing to lose most of it.

SC residents will soon lose access to millions in rental and utility assistance

South Carolina residents will soon lose access to millions of dollars in housing assistance if they don’t apply for it by the end of the month. Residents only have 23 days left to access the South Carolina Stay Plus program funding for rent and utility assistance. The program was put in place by...

wpde.com

 

[jpiniero]

I do think there needs to be more dense housing in the urban core. You can build condos in the burbs but it needs burb type stuff (ie: parking).

"The dirty little secret which nearly every municipal government in America must grapple with is that single-family homes are usually a money loser from the local government’s point of view.

That I doubt. Public schools OTOH are a big money sink and people associate the burbs with having kids. Sort of a double whammy if you build dense housing in the burbs - additional traffic plus the low income households with kids will blow up the public school budget with little additional property tax revenue.

 

[Brainonska511]

I do think there needs to be more dense housing in the urban core. You can build condos in the burbs but it needs burb type stuff (ie: parking).

Built smartly in a good location, and you might find that you don't need as much parking, since people might be able to get by with 0 or 1 cars instead of 2 or more.

That I doubt. Public schools OTOH are a big money sink. Sort of a double whammy if you build dense housing in the burbs - additional traffic plus the low income households with kids will blow up the public school budget with little additional property tax revenue.

Higher density doesn't necessarily mean incredibly poor. And density isn't a zero sum game - municipalities save in other ways when housing is denser (eg, lower costs of services per capita). If towns think it will blow up public school budgets, perhaps we need to change how we fund public schools.

 

[jpiniero]

Should add that the housing price surge is due to Fed policy. I believe their motive is solely to pump up the stock market but the Hedge Funds are also using the money 'given' to them from the Fed to buy up tons of real estate.

 

[Captante]

You know the almost criminal part about that? It’s that about 89% of the COVID funding that was authorized for rental assistance has NOT been spent/given out.

Almost seems like there’s something going on behind the scenes keeping that money out of the hands of the people who could benefit from it…tenets and landlords.

I'm NOT behind on my rent because I paid my landlord with 80% of the pandemic benefit cash I received and the rest paid off my car rather than blowing it like a lot of folks.

So when I applied for a grant to help pay rent till I'm back to work full-time and selected "not in arrears" my priority level was lowered.

Not saying I don't think families with kids who are already evicted shouldn't get first dibs for example but being penalized for being responsible really sucks.

 

[Muse]

That soul you're referring to smells like the shit of the homeless.

I live 10 miles away but haven't been there since before the pandemic. I haven't smelled it with my own nose, but I see the news, have seen homelessness there (some trashy streets passing through in the back seat of a car) a few years ago. I see news stories about the rash of vehicle break-ins, the lack of enforcement for shop break-ins and shop lifting. It's a pretty city but has big problems. The mayor is NOT in denial. They do have a hugely successful pandemic record, they are highly vaxxed. Conventions are just starting up again, so the tourism is about to make a recovery. And dang! The Giants have the best record in baseball last I heard (they were not expected to compete). Saw a brief story on the news last night in which a numbers guy figures that the Giants have a 76% chance of winning the division.

 

[brianmanahan]

i'm thinking about buying a little crappy house and living in there for the rest of my life, or until prices come down

there are a number of them nearby for 120-150$k. not a lot of space, definitely not what i saw myself living in someday. but it would work.

 

[MrSquished]

i'm thinking about buying a little crappy house and living in there for the rest of my life, or until prices come down

there are a number of them nearby for 120-150$k. not a lot of space, definitely not what i saw myself living in someday. but it would work.

Buy and upgrade it yourself if you are going to stay there for a long time then you won't be beholden to swings in the market.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Prices are only going to keep going up so the longer you wait the more you're going to pay. It's why I bought my 40 acre plot as soon as I could even though I have so many projects going on at my main house that I probably won't do much with the land for a while. At least I secured it. Though I do want to try to expedite building at least a small cabin. It's my backup plan if I lose my job. Sell the house and go live there while I try to figure out a source of income, but at least I won't have as many bills so I'll be able to live off the money from selling the house for a while.

 

[MrSquished]

Newsom signs bill that can significantly reduce single family zoning in California and also two other bills that will help bolster housing supply. What a positive development

Newsom signs housing bills that could reduce single-family zoning in California

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three housing-related bills into law Thursday that are likely to make multi-family housing projects easier to build and open up many single-family zones to development. &#8…

ktla.com

"Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three housing-related bills into law Thursday that are likely to make multi-family housing projects easier to build and open up many single-family zones to development.

“The housing affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream for families across the state, and threatens our long-term growth and prosperity,” Newsom said in a statement announcing that he’d signed a series of three bill targeting the housing shortage. “Making a meaningful impact on this crisis will take bold investments, strong collaboration across sectors and political courage from our leaders and communities to do the right thing and build housing for all.”

Newsom’s signatures come two days after he defeated an effort to recall him from office.

He signed the most prominent legislation despite nearly 250 cities objecting that it will, by design, undermine local planning and control.

One of the bills, SB 9, “facilitates the process for homeowners to build a duplex or split their current residential lot,” the release read.

In practice, the bill require cities to approve up to four housing units on what was a single-family lot. They would also have to approve splitting single-family lots so they could be sold separately....

....
Another bill signed by Newsom, SB 10, makes it easier for local governments to rezone areas near transit centers for multifamily housing of up to 10 units per parcel.

On Twitter, state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of SB 10, called Newsom’s signature a “big step in our fight for housing.”

...The last in the trio of bills, SB 8, extends until 2030 the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which “accelerates the approval process for housing projects, curtails local governments’ ability to downzone and limits fee increases on housing applications,” the statement read."





...Finally some progress on previously terrible housing policy backed up by NIMBY's that offer zero solutions and just spout alarmist gibberish, to at least start to tackle a massive problem facing many desirable areas to live, lack of housing inventory and affordable housing.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Didn't read all the posts but Texas and Florida and maybe a few other red states don't really have a big problem with rent being paid? Or they shouldn't have? Those two states are all back to work. There are no shutdowns or covid restrictions on businesses of any size there.

So if businesses are thriving in those two states then most everyone there is paying their rent, maybe. Or am I missing something like I guess an obvious one would be I didn't consider that in 2020 some businesses in those 2 state shut down for good and never reopened?

 

[IronWing]

Newsom signs bill that can significantly reduce single family zoning in California and also two other bills that will help bolster housing supply. What a positive development

Newsom signs housing bills that could reduce single-family zoning in California

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three housing-related bills into law Thursday that are likely to make multi-family housing projects easier to build and open up many single-family zones to development. &#8…

ktla.com

"Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three housing-related bills into law Thursday that are likely to make multi-family housing projects easier to build and open up many single-family zones to development.

“The housing affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream for families across the state, and threatens our long-term growth and prosperity,” Newsom said in a statement announcing that he’d signed a series of three bill targeting the housing shortage. “Making a meaningful impact on this crisis will take bold investments, strong collaboration across sectors and political courage from our leaders and communities to do the right thing and build housing for all.”

Newsom’s signatures come two days after he defeated an effort to recall him from office.

He signed the most prominent legislation despite nearly 250 cities objecting that it will, by design, undermine local planning and control.

One of the bills, SB 9, “facilitates the process for homeowners to build a duplex or split their current residential lot,” the release read.

In practice, the bill require cities to approve up to four housing units on what was a single-family lot. They would also have to approve splitting single-family lots so they could be sold separately....

....
Another bill signed by Newsom, SB 10, makes it easier for local governments to rezone areas near transit centers for multifamily housing of up to 10 units per parcel.

On Twitter, state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of SB 10, called Newsom’s signature a “big step in our fight for housing.”

...The last in the trio of bills, SB 8, extends until 2030 the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which “accelerates the approval process for housing projects, curtails local governments’ ability to downzone and limits fee increases on housing applications,” the statement read."





...Finally some progress on previously terrible housing policy backed up by NIMBY's that offer zero solutions and just spout alarmist gibberish, to at least start to tackle a massive problem facing many desirable areas to live, lack of housing inventory and affordable housing.

Let's see if it survives court challenges from the cities. I'm doubtful. I see why Newsom waited until he'd survived his recall vote before signing this. Up to 4x density increase with no infrastructure to support it, way to go champs.

 

[MrSquished]

Let's see if it survives court challenges from the cities. I'm doubtful. I see why Newsom waited until he'd survived his recall vote before signing this. Up to 4x density increase with no infrastructure to support it, way to go champs.

Hopefully it does and then regressive NIMBY's who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag about how mild and planned upzoning destroys neighborhoods can shut up and move somewhere else. It should hold up, local governments can have laws within reason - overly restrictive zoning should not be one of them.

This will help solve one of California's biggest crises, very high housing prices. All you have to do to deal with some planned upzoning in the right areas is build infrastructure as needed. I've seen it happen. All it takes is planning and commitment. I hope they do this with more of a European model. As evidenced by articles in this thread, you can build slighly more density while having even more thriving municipalities - more revenue, more jobs, more businesses can be supported. Just NIMBY's who can't counter that spout alarmist nonsense about how it isn't possible with zero evidence of anything.

 

[IronWing]

Hopefully it does and then regressive NIMBY's who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag about how mild and planned upzoning destroys neighborhoods can shut up and move somewhere else.

4x density increases with zero say on the part of local governments are “mild” now. Good thing that parking is already plentiful in San Francisco.

 

[jpiniero]

Higher density doesn't necessarily mean incredibly poor.

There are surely some areas where you might get childless roommates to live together in an apartment, and their HHI combined can be pretty high. But if you are talking about an family, an SFH is going to be what they want. Families who live in dense housing tend to be because they can't afford a SFH.

 

[Brainonska511]

Let's see if it survives court challenges from the cities. I'm doubtful. I see why Newsom waited until he'd survived his recall vote before signing this. Up to 4x density increase with no infrastructure to support it, way to go champs.

Cities are creatures of the state, and not sovereign entities with their own rights. A state can always pass a law that supercedes a local law, provided it isn't violating the state's constitution. So unless the latter is happening, I don't see how cities could win.

 

[Brainonska511]

There are surely some areas where you might get childless roommates to live together in an apartment, and their HHI combined can be pretty high. But if you are talking about an family, an SFH is going to be what they want. Families who live in dense housing tend to be because they can't afford a SFH.

I think you're way underestimating who lives in what kind of housing. Plenty of people in the last two modest density neighborhoods I lived in who were not just roommates pooling resources, but families with modest or better paying jobs. Some people like raising children in these areas because of the great aspects that come with higher density neighborhoods.

 

[MrSquished]

There are surely some areas where you might get childless roommates to live together in an apartment, and their HHI combined can be pretty high. But if you are talking about an family, an SFH is going to be what they want. Families who live in dense housing tend to be because they can't afford a SFH.

What exactly are you considering dense housing for this argument exactly? Anything over a SFH seems to be what you are implying as you say families that can't afford SFH are the only ones that don't live in SFH.

I can tell you there are a shitload of folks in markets I cover buying 2&3BR condos in mostly 2 or 3 unit buildings, as well as some other slightly more dense mid-rise buildings, in order to have kids or raise their kids. This might surprise you but SFH zoned suburbs are not for everyone. Some people enjoy the larger lot SFH suburbs, which is great, and there are a lot of people who like amenities that denser housing can bring - like way more art, culture, food, diversity, walkability, etc....

Do you also think all the families in NYC with kids are poor and couldn't afford a SFH? That's pretty funny.

 

[MrSquished]

4x density increases with zero say on the part of local governments are “mild” now. Good thing that parking is already plentiful in San Francisco.

You aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. It says 'up to'. So it will be maybe duplexes, and maybe in some cases up to a 4 unit building. It will vary based upon what the area can handle. This is called planning, something you continually show to be oblivious to as you refuse to counter points consistently in this thread and just cover your ears and yell the same things at the sky.

I don't think you really get much. If neighborhoods now that used to be just SFZ can now build a duplex or even a triplex or quadplex, which will vary by neighborhood, it's a looong slow gradual process all things being considered. Plenty of time for infrastructure to be built up, if needed. There will still be rules about what you can build. And most people don't want to move. They aren't just going to sell their property the first chance they get. I encounter this all the time in highly desirable neighborhoods that are exploding in desirability.

Developers are only going to pay up to X dollars for a property to either gut or knock down and build on. After X dollars it just doesn't make economic sense. On top of all the people that just don't want to move, no matter what their property is worth, a lot of people's homes will be too valuable for developers to buy - either they are in great shape already, renovated too recently to be within the developer's price points, and really can only be sold to another consumer. I see it all the time. For example in one market I cover developers are paying 500-600K cash for a property to knock down and build on. This area has been zoned for up to 2 unit buildings on any standard sized lot, so they can take a single family and make it 2 units. One of the reasons this area is limited to 2 units is for parking. Again, planning. Btw there are plenty of SFZ towns where a few places becoming 2-4 families will affect parking exactly zero.

So in this one market I speak of, a nice single family home is easily over 600K, so the developers ain't buying those to convert. That's over the 500-600K developer price point. They will just stay there for quite some time. It's not like instantly the whole neighborhood gets knocked down and everybody builds quadplexes. I mean I don't know what you are smoking but you certainly have a wacky imagination. Of course to say Central Park will be razed for housing means one does not exist in the realm of reality. Then you got another yahoo saying they like rocks and trees, like all of a sudden nature is going to be razed down. There will still be rules about lot size coverage, height, you can't build on parks, etc...

And for people who can now add to their property or split their lots, again, a lot simply won't want to do that, for various reasons. They don't want to be landlords, they don't want to live in a construction zone for any amount of time, they don't want to share their space or they are simply happy as is. Even in the article I posted on Minneapolis for a bet you are too scared to take, they even said they expect this to maybe net in the hundreds of additional units in the somewhat near future. It's a really slow process, but one that needs to start.

Your alarmist bullshit is really not thought out at all, which is quite evident because you have zero argument except to say, IT'S GONNA BE BAD!

 

[Captante]

NIMBY = Not in my backyard. And its pretty much the way most folks that have benefited substantially from the status-quo will react to anything like this.

And that "my" can apply to anyone.

 

[IronWing]

You aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. It says 'up to'. So it will be maybe duplexes, and maybe in some cases up to a 4 unit building. It will vary based upon what the area can handle. This is called planning, something you continually show to be oblivious to as you refuse to counter points consistently in this thread and just cover your ears and yell the same things at the sky.

I don't think you really get much. If neighborhoods now that used to be just SFZ can now build a duplex or even a triplex or quadplex, which will vary by neighborhood, it's a looong slow gradual process all things being considered. Plenty of time for infrastructure to be built up, if needed. There will still be rules about what you can build. And most people don't want to move. They aren't just going to sell their property the first chance they get. I encounter this all the time in highly desirable neighborhoods that are exploding in desirability.

Developers are only going to pay up to X dollars for a property to either gut or knock down and build on. After X dollars it just doesn't make economic sense. On top of all the people that just don't want to move, no matter what their property is worth, a lot of people's homes will be too valuable for developers to buy - either they are in great shape already, renovated too recently to be within the developer's price points, and really can only be sold to another consumer. I see it all the time. For example in one market I cover developers are paying 500-600K cash for a property to knock down and build on. This area has been zoned for up to 2 unit buildings on any standard sized lot, so they can take a single family and make it 2 units. One of the reasons this area is limited to 2 units is for parking. Again, planning. Btw there are plenty of SFZ towns where a few places becoming 2-4 families will affect parking exactly zero.

So in this one market I speak of, a nice single family home is easily over 600K, so the developers ain't buying those to convert. That's over the 500-600K developer price point. They will just stay there for quite some time. It's not like instantly the whole neighborhood gets knocked down and everybody builds quadplexes. I mean I don't know what you are smoking but you certainly have a wacky imagination. Of course to say Central Park will be razed for housing means one does not exist in the realm of reality. Then you got another yahoo saying they like rocks and trees, like all of a sudden nature is going to be razed down. There will still be rules about lot size coverage, height, you can't build on parks, etc...

And for people who can now add to their property or split their lots, again, a lot simply won't want to do that, for various reasons. They don't want to be landlords, they don't want to live in a construction zone for any amount of time, they don't want to share their space or they are simply happy as is. Even in the article I posted on Minneapolis for a bet you are too scared to take, they even said they expect this to maybe net in the hundreds of additional units in the somewhat near future. It's a really slow process, but one that needs to start.

Your alarmist bullshit is really not thought out at all, which is quite evident because you have zero argument except to say, IT'S GONNA BE BAD!

Are you a real estate agent?

 

[jpiniero]

What exactly are you considering dense housing for this argument exactly? Anything over a SFH seems to be what you are implying as you say families that can't afford SFH are the only ones that don't live in SFH.

Anything above a SFH. Condos, apartments, duplexes, you name it.

Do you also think all the families in NYC with kids are poor and couldn't afford a SFH?

There's plenty of NYC that is SFH. NYC is not just Manhattan you know. I'd think not poor families would stick to there or something like Jersey or SE CT or maybe even LI.

 

[IronWing]

NIMBY = Not in my backyard. And its pretty much the way most folks that have benefited substantially from the status-quo will react to anything like this.

And that "my" can apply to anyone.

The thing about NIBMYs is that their position is totally rational which makes it hard to argue with them.

 

[MrSquished]

Anything above a SFH. Condos, apartments, duplexes, you name it.



There's plenty of NYC that is SFH. NYC is not just Manhattan you know. I'd think not poor families would stick to there or something like Jersey or SE CT or maybe even LI.

The whole point is that the priciest real estate is in Manhattan, and people pay to live there and raise kids, money that could buy a huge SFH further out in Long Island, NY State and NJ or Connecticut, and some do exactly that, but many stay. Do you think there are no schools in the nice areas of Manhattan?

I work real estate in NJ. People are paying plenty of money for 2 and 3BR condos in multi unit buildings specifically so they can have a family there, whether 1 or 2 kids. I'm talking 600K minimum and higher, money that would easily buy them a single family home further west in the burbs, like where I grew up. You are just wrong. Like I said, some people place value just on space, and some people place value on other things that I mentioned.

 

[IronWing]

I work real estate

Okay, now I see where you are coming from. Churn is everything. More units to push = more money for you.