Nutty California

[mac]

As usual, Techno ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his paranoia. He also ignores the fact that the housing game in California entrenches wealth in those that have it, and discriminates against the poor and those of color. As it has since covenants and redlining first restricted selling your house to an African American.

In the United States, the tax code allows people to deduct interest from their taxes. This directly subsidizes those who are wealthy enough to scrape up a down payment and qualify for a loan. The benefits of this deduction currently go primarily (76.3%) to those making over $100,000. For 2017, that represented a subsidy of $66.4 billion, with 3/4 of it going to those of substantial means. Using Fox parlance, that is socialism for the rich. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46429.pdf

The subsidies don't end there. There are measures, most significantly trusts, that allow you to transfer this wealth from generation to generation without paying any taxes. In California, you can sell your house and not pay taxes on a significant portion of the capital gain. Is this a great country or what, the haves stay haves because of the tax code.

There is an edge of structural racism to this subsidy. Homeownership is far from equitably distributed, with about 73% of white households owning homes, compared to about 42% of black households. But let's not teach our children anything about these structures that perpetuate poverty.

Proposition 13 similarly skews the benefits to the haves--and to corporations. Half of the benefits--which don't kid yourself are subsidies--go to people making over $120,000 a year. https://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3497 Even with the benefits of Proposition 13, properties still turn over and are re-assessed every 7 years on average. But not commercial properties, so their share of costs have gone down every year.

No doubt Techno will ignore these facts. There is a word for those with means who cling to their subsidies yet scream that investing in infrastructure or paying their fair share of taxes is socialism. Greedy.

[boggsman1]

I just think its amusing that Techno is so interested in the Golden State...I know its boring in NC, I've been many times, but c'mon man...

[coboardhead]

Boggsman

While I don't live in CA, I do observe some of what California does. The saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" is valid in a lot of ways.

This law seems like a really bad idea on the face value. I work in and around planning for residential development...residential construction...in a number of different communities as a structural engineer. I also design houses (architectural design) in a couple of jurisdictions.

What concerns me is that arbitrary laws like this do not take into account many aspects that we deal with in residential development such as traffic, utility capacity, storm drainage, snow removal (at least here) and lot coverage. These are aspects of development that local planning departments grapple with on a daily basis. And, they are important.

I would think a law that "encourages" infill development in the way of tax incentives, reduced utility tap fees, increased lot coverage (where appropriate) etc would be a better way of going about this.

I have owned four houses. Each was VERY land conservative. The largest lot was 6250 Sq. Ft. (50 x 125). My mountain "cabin" is on a 5000 Sq. Ft. lot. It includes a guest house/ADU. So, I'm into small and efficient development. That said, my neighbor being able to just unilaterally split his lot into two building sites would cause a whole host of negative issues. I support increasing density...but, done with deliberate planning.

I'm not sure how California should deal with the housing shortage. We see the handwriting on the wall here too. But, I have to ask the question. "Why is it the responsibility of the current residents to provide a place for the new comers?" I didn't move to my mountain residence as a 35 year old and expect a job and and a house. I lived in less desirable areas for most of my adult life to save the money and establish a career that allowed my eventual move to a desirable location.

If California, simply, does not have room, and the water BTW, what's wrong with folks staying in Minnesota for awhile?

[boggsman1]

Very good points. The main issue is one that gets casually floated all the time by folks on the right, and many in states like Texas--that is the idea that tech companies can simply relocate. But , the reality is that startups come here for the VC support, and the ecosystem--its not as lucrative to start a company in Overland Park , KS. This puts huge pressure on housing, natural resources, and labor... So, I don't see an easy way out, and I for one would love to see a few million people LEAVE!

The drive to Tahoe is brutal, the water shortage is brutal, taxes are brutal...
LEAVE !!! I say , LEAVE!! That's my solution.

[coachg]

[coboardhead]

[techno900]

mac said:

[mac]

Techno--I have said that California has a housing problem and I don't know what the answer is. I am certain that you have no clue. Have you actually read SB9? Can you tell us all what is in it and what the problems are? No, you're just trolling.

Here it is: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9

I didn't participate in the debate over the bill, and I don't know the details. California already has a law encouraging "granny units", but it hasn't added a lot of housing. I doubt this will add a lot.

My own view is that we should densify areas near transit hubs and jobs. We've done that in Berkeley, I've supported it for over 30 years, and it has been controversial.

I stand on my critiques of single family zoning and Proposition 13, and your hysterical and uninformed panic about both.

Yes CB and Boggs, I wish there were half the number of people in California. San Diego was such a beautiful city when I visited it in the 1960's. But the jobs keep coming, and the people keep coming, and the market has not provided housing for the people who have already moved here, or were born here. Proposition 13 is one of the problems, popular and poorly understood as it is.

[boggsman1]

[mac]

Boggs—there is plenty of water in California—if it is used in a sustainable manner. And everyone in California has an interest in a sustainable agricultural economy. But we don’t have one.

When the big water projects were built—the Central Valley Project by the feds and the California Water Project by the state—there was a lot of excess capacity in the system. So agricultural land owners were sold the “excess” water for a song. It warped the economy—cotton was grown in dry lake beds while farmers in the south were paid not to grow cotton. Alfalfa and seed alfalfa were leading crops—damaging the grazing economy of other parts of the state. Agriculture used 85% of the water.

Today, higher value crops are grown, and agricultural use is down to 80%. But corporate agriculture is not living up to the promise that it grow seasonal crops in years when there is actually excess water. Orchards and grapes are high value, and can pay much more for water than cotton—but need to be irrigated every year, not just in wet years.

As the saying goes, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. The vast plantings of almonds were not sustainable agriculture—it relied on mining groundwater, which just got more expensive. Now groundwater is being regulated, because the pumping damaged roads and freeways, and we are losing the snowpack, which represented about 1/3 of the water stored. The really good reservoir sites are developed, and all the new ideas—whether reservoirs or water reclamation—cost more than $2,000/acre foot of water. Compare that to the surplus water selling for $1/acre foot in the 1970’s. So neither the economic structure, the physical structure, nor the water rights structure is ready for climate change and the current population. But not to worry, Larry Elder will fix it. According to folks like Techno.