February 24, 2020

"[I]n San Francisco... a two-bedroom apartment of what passes for affordable housing costs around $750,000 just to build...."

"In San Francisco a construction worker earns around $90 an hour on average... Not taking into account the price of land, around one quarter of the cost of building affordable housing goes to government fees, permits and consulting companies.... For a building to be defined as affordable housing it typically obtains tax credits and subsidies. A single affordable housing project requires financing from an average of six different sources — federal, state and local agencies.... 'It literally took us on the City Council six months to get all of our attorneys, all the developer’s attorneys, all the federal government’s attorneys, to agree on the paperwork. And that was just the financing... I walked away from that process and told the developer I cannot believe this project is going to employ more attorneys than construction workers to get built.'... Last year San Francisco broke ground on 767 subsidized affordable apartments. 'It’s nowhere near what we need'.... The average cost of a single affordable housing unit is around $500,000 in Los Angeles and around $600,000 in Oakland.... 'One word insanity — it’s just insanity'..."

From "Why Does It Cost $750,000 to Build Affordable Housing in San Francisco?/As California’s governor vows to tackle the state’s homelessness crisis, housing 'insanity' stands in the way" (NYT).

That quote, "One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom.

128 comments:

Seeing Red said...

Cos they passed the laws?

wendybar said...

Just watch out for the human shit everywhere!!

tim maguire said...

If anyone knows insanity, it's California Democrats and anybody who tries to get anything done there. But those two groups know it from different sides.

AlbertAnonymous said...

You know what’s really insanity? All the money they spend on homeless programs and the problem gets worse and worse with people literally shitting in the streets in broad daylight.

Bernie 2020!

/sarc

J. Farmer said...

I wonder whatever happened to Jimmy McMillan and the Rent Is Too Damn High party.

TreeJoe said...

Newsom has been intimately involved in CA politics and policy for 25 years including being Mayor of SF in 2004....

He's now saying this is insanity.....he's calling the very policies and approaches you championed, endorsed, and oversaw for nearly a quarter of a century insanity.

There's something insane here. Newsom, among others, is viewed as a strong political leader by those in CA. But it's not until he has to build something himself - housing for the poor - that he becomes aware of the impact of his own policies?

There's insanity to go around here. And the building-related policies are the least of it.

GatorNavy said...

The grifters who pass the laws all get their beaks wet very thoroughly.

J. Farmer said...

/sarc

Thank you, captain obvious ;)


Hope everyone likes what they are seeing, because California is the future of America staring you in the face today.

Greg the class traitor said...

That quote, "One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom.

Who is himself responsible for that insanity

Limited blogger said...

If you subsidize something, you get more of it - Homelessness.

If you tax something, you get less of it - Housing.

J. Farmer said...

Always worth linking again to the infamous showdown between Gavin Newsom and Adam Carolla back in 2013. It was a pretty convivial interview for the first 50 minutes before it went off the rails when they started getting into it over California homelessness and the disparities within the black and Latino communities.

rehajm said...

Housing 'insanity' stands in the way.

In economics there's a pricing concept casually referred to as 'supply and demand'. When more people desire housing in a certain area, more people are willing to pay higher prices for housing. The demand normally motivates builders to build more housing, but sometimes that increase in supply is constrained by regulation, lack of available land, lack of available trades, and other factors.

When looked at with a a bit of education it looks perfectly rational, not 'insane'. Next time, consider a more educated Governor.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Insanity is not recognizing that YOU are the problem. All the regulations, permits, permits, permits, studies, restrictive eco nazi rules, micro managing, insistence on prevailing/union wages instead of competitive bidding, delays, delays, delays, studies and more studies. Not to mention cronyism and corruption.

You--dumocrats---created this mess. YOU own it.

Nonapod said...

When you want examples of the results of long term feckless Progressive governance, you need look no further than the various big cities that have been under their control for decades in many cases.

In the case of these West Coast progressive havens with their mild winters, ill advised hyper- tolerance for bad behavior has attracted great massess of homeless and inevitably lead to a resurgance in medieval filth with its attendant diseases.

Meanwhile, various restrictions and environmental regulations have made it nigh impossible for normal people to even begin to afford a home. So you see this gradual hollowing out of the middle class. It feels like the end game is that you're either fabulously wealthy or homeless. Which is basically like it was back in the Dark Ages.

I'm Full of Soup said...

When even a liberal hack says something is insane, it probably is insane.

rhhardin said...

Recently Listed $1.5 Million Home In San Francisco Just Soggy Cardboard Box Full Of Used Needles

https://babylonbee.com/news/soggy-cardboard-box-full-of-needles-sells-for-15-million-in-san-francisco-housing-market

Bay Area Guy said...

"That quote, "One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom."

Bwahahaahahaha!

It is insanity! And, remind me again, which party has had unfettered rule over the city for the past 50 years?

Brown, Burton,Feinstein,Pelosi,Boxer,Newsom, Harris.-- all Leftwing Democrats. And the next generation (London Breed & Chesa Boudin) are even worse!

Limited blogger said...

Can Mike become mayor of San Fran?

narayanan said...

Blogger Limited blogger said...

Can Mike become mayor of San Fran?
_____________++++++++++++++
somebodies already fertilized sidewalks - farming should be piece of poo-cake

Lawrence Person said...

The point of "Affordable Housing" isn't to make housing affordable for ordinary people, the point is to extract the maximum possible rents and graft for the ruling party, with a side benefit of making sure the "right" people get first call on that "affordable" housing.

Watch this.

cubanbob said...

Trump should push to eliminate federal subsidies for housing in the bay area. Indeed for all of California. If the people of California want to be crazy with their money it's their prerogative but it's not their prerogative to use every other state's taxpayers money.

PM said...

Of all the Power-to-the-Government! progressives in CA - and there are plenty - no one is more dangerous than the magnificently idiotic State Sen. Scott Wiener.

wendybar said...

Newsom is Nancy's nephew by marriage. Figures.

Seeing Red said...

— There's something insane here. Newsom, among others, is viewed as a strong political leader by those in CA. But it's not until he has to build something himself - housing for the poor - that he becomes aware of the impact of his own policies?—


The Walter Mondale effect.

Nanny B was right, he’s the only one who started and ran a business.

Anonymous said...

What DBQ said at 10:09.

When I wanted to move back West after forty years either in the Army or trapped in DC by my Federal ex-wife, CA was too crowded, to expensive, and everybody who lived near the ocean wanted to keep anyone else from living there.

Now I'm on a basalt bluff directly on the ocean, drinking wonderful Pinot Noir from Dundee. at $500,000

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

You--dumocrats---created this mess. YOU own it.


They voted for this.

It’s like that Texas woman SAVE ME! Texas legislature! I know I voted for all the goodies but now I can’t afford to stay in my house.



Or all those who wanted Obamacare voted for Barry, and lo and behold, it’s even more expensive now!


P.J. O'Rourke — 'If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.'

Sebastian said...

"it’s just insanity"

Calculated, engineered, made to be that way by progs.

Progworld: it's just insanity.

Big Mike said...

That quote, "One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom.

Every once in a while the insane recognize their own insanity. But they are helpless to figure out how to do anything about it (John Nash being the only exception of whom I am aware).

bagoh20 said...

Californians will reelect every one of the assholes who cause the problems destroying their state, their bank accounts, and their quality of life. If there are referendums, they will will vote for the destructive polices themselves. Last year, the fools voted against cutting their own highest gas tax in the country. Insanity? Yep, and it's pandemic in the state. It will get worse as the people who don't vote for it all leave the state like I did, taking their tax money with them. Not only did I leave, taking my 13% tax money with me, but I took nearly 100 jobs with me and all the tax money and commerce those jobs generated. It cost me a fortune to move, but I just had enough, and I was willing to lose everything to start over free of the insanity. It was making me miserable even with the great weather. The place can't be fixed. There are just too many chasing the graft, and they keep importing more.

Just one example is that my worker's comp insurance was 9 times higher in CA than it is in NV with the exact same work being done (900% higher) As soon as an employee has a claim, your insurance company loses thousands without ever treating the "injured employee", which gets passed on to the employer of course. In the end, the doctors and lawyers get most of the money and the employee gets less than they would have staying on the job. It's one big scam protected by the politicians and that protection is paid for by the lawyers political money. Just one of the endless similar scams that rob the makers to pay takers.

Big Mike said...

Hope everyone likes what they are seeing, because California is the future of America staring you in the face today.

Like Hell it is.

gspencer said...

"Insanity" of course is a perfectly appropriate descriptor. But for a perfect descriptor of the cause, that one word is "government."

Setting aside whether smoking is good or bad, the right thing to do or not do, consider the retail price of a package of cigarettes. To make that pack might be 50-75 cents. The rest of it = the cost of government.

Cigarettes might be on the high end, but I include this example to point out how the cost of government is in EVERYTHING.

More government = less freedom. The Founders/Framers knew it. Why don't we?

bagoh20 said...

The solutions these people employed to solve past problems are exactly what causes the current problems. They will cluelessly do the same again, making things even worse.

Bay Area Guy said...

About 25 years ago, I lived in North Beach, which, arguably, is the hippest part of SF. Broadway, Washington Square park, St Peter & Paul church, Carol Doda, Coit Tower, Italian cafes, jazz cafes, etc, etc. We used to drink beer and shoot pool at Savoy Tivoli, which I think is still there. Even today, North Beach has stayed pretty faithful to its general vibe from 1950s. Go check it out.

At that time, a 2 bedroom apt was $1,100. And, downtown to work was a 15 minute walk. And my girlfriend lived in the Sunset near Golden Gate Park. Life was good.

I did see signs of deterioration, though. Homeless would sometimes get into street fights; the garbage on the streets started to pile up. The housing prices started to rise. I left in '97. It's gotten progressively worse.

bagoh20 said...

Californians need to ask themselves one simple question: Who caused this?

bagoh20 said...

" It's gotten progressively worse."

Excellent choice of words.

Yancey Ward said...

What a dumb fuck, Newsome is. The obvious solution is to mandate that the doctors prescribe only housing that is low cost to construct.

Steven said...

With Japanese-style pro-density zoning laws, the supply of housing in California would radically increase, and by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, housing would become vastly more affordable.

There is quite literally no one and nothing stopping Governor Newsom and his majority in both houses of the California Legislature from the statewide enactment of Japanese-style zoning laws right now, except themselves.

So, accordingly, the barrier to affordable housing in California is Gavin Newsom.

iowan2 said...

The Democrat caucus in Iowa. The Democrat Caucus in Nevada.
Political process run totally by the brightest Democrats. Fails.

And yet Democrats tell you they understand the physics of thermal impacts of the atmosphere as it affects the global temperatures. Understand to the degree, they can craft legislation that will alter the physics.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Qui bono?

Roger Sweeny said...

"I walked away from that process and told the developer I cannot believe this project is going to employ more attorneys than construction workers to get built."

We tell young people that they if they go to college, they will get a good job. This is a way of keeping that promise. As are all the permit officials, consultants, etc.

bagoh20 said...

What doctors need to prescribe is "Vote them out and call me in the morning. Repeat until symptoms subside".

Bay Area Guy said...

Let me tell you how ridiculously expensive SF is:

It's so ridiculous, that SF hip millenials are moving across the bay to Oakland in droves, driving up prices and causing many blacks to sell out and flee Oakland!

Don't believe me? 25% of blacks left Oakland by 2011, and have continued to do so over the past 9 years.

Fernandinande said...

going to employ more attorneys than construction workers

Just taking a wild guess here...those laws were written and passed by attorneys, not by construction workers.

LYNNDH said...

Just wait until the Coronavirus hits CA.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Withholding further comment until one or more of the Legislators who voted these programs into existence says "I was wrong. Common sense would tell us the overhead would be high. I allowed common sense to give way to a vocal consortium of lawyers, grant writers, government bureaucrats, and "non-profit" operators. I am now making a public apology to all the taxpayers whose hard earned money we seized, and wastefully spent. I apologize also to anyone who was displaced or whose property was seized for any of these projects."

Bob Loblaw said...

What a dumb fuck, Newsome is. The obvious solution is to mandate that the doctors prescribe only housing that is low cost to construct.

Heh. That made me chuckle, both because this kind of thinking is why we're here and because it's exactly the sort of thing CA politicos will put forward as a solution.

Yancey Ward said...

"Withholding further comment until one or more of the Legislators who voted these programs into existence says "I was wrong."

I am going to miss Hammond's comments. So long, pal.

Ken B said...

Hilarious to see J. “It can’t happen here” Farmer lamenting the effects of just exactly the kind of socialist, anti market policies he tell us not to worry about happening with Sanders as president.

Bay Area Guy said...

The one good (actually great) thing about San Francisco: Somebody owns all those homes and buildings built after the 1906 earthquake. Those folks -- the owner capitalist class- are quite happy with the current state of affairs.......

Jupiter said...

"Qui bono?"

That is the question. While it is certainly true that the zoning and land use policies favored by the liberals make housing more expensive, it is questionable whether that is the cause of "homelessness". It is possible to be homeless in the middle of the Mojave desert, but for some reason, the Mojave is not covered in shit and used needles. Drug addicts seem to prefer shitting on the sidewalks of San Francisco.

madAsHell said...

"One word insanity — it’s just insanity"

You don't understand. He doesn't want to scale back the insanity. He wants to double-down, go all in!!

You know......let's tie two rocks together, and see if they float!

bagoh20 said...

"Drug addicts seem to prefer shitting on the sidewalks of San Francisco."

If I was going to shit on the sidewalk, that's where I would go.

madAsHell said...

Just wait until the Coronavirus hits CA.

I'm trying to start the rumor that the coronavirus is a CIA solution to the homeless sleeping under I-5.

Howard said...

Just ship the poor people to fly over country where they can afford to live. Half the homeless came from there anyway.
Fucking aliens. Obviously regulation have some factor but the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way.

tcrosse said...

The people who own and run San Francisco must like it just as it is, since they have the means to change whatever they don't like.

alan markus said...

Dang - wish I was near a keyboard today. All this crap ties back to ACORN, Obama, Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett. Rezko made his fortune getting “developer fees” for his part in low income housing development. Valerie Jerrett’s grandfather was 1st black chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority. ACORN got HUD funds to provide 1st time homebuyer counseling. Also used CRA regulations to shake down lenders for “donations”. Most of that money was used as a front to conduct voter registrations. A lot of HUD monies went into the pockets of these people. Maybe Trump could pick up on this issue.

stlcdr said...

I notice that they don't do an actual breakdown of the costs...

Leland said...

In 2000, I worked for a Foster City company while living in Texas. Even back then, a 2 bedroom apartment in Redwood City cost twice as much to rent as my monthly mortgage payment for a 4 bedroom house in Texas. I see nothing has changed but the overall value of money outside of California.

Every now and then, Houston will flood and someone from California will say we ought to do more zoning. Then the flood recedes and people go back to normal in Houston. We then turn on the TV and watch how zoning works during a forest fire in California. By the way, I hear another drought is expected by summer. Stay safe!

Rick said...

One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom.

It's unrestrained leftism so its interesting to see left wingers describe it as insanity. If you think this is bad wait until they pass the Green New Deal.

Right now the impact of their policies is so absurd even the far left is having trouble accepting them. But the primary driver of this is comparison. They can't claim this is natural because Houston (among other places) proves them wrong.

So what happens if the left can destroy those comparisons by (for example) passing a national Green New Deal which mandates many of the same requirements which so paralyze California? Then they blame greedy corporations and billionaires while claiming the appropriate response is for "the rich" to fund the inflated costs through more taxes.

Rick said...

Howard said...
Just ship the poor people to fly over country where they can afford to live. Half the homeless came from there anyway.
Fucking aliens. Obviously regulation have some factor but the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand


And here's the idiot proving me right.

Todd said...

Howard said...

Obviously regulation have some factor but the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way.

2/24/20, 11:50 AM


So says Howard, proving he has no idea how any of this actually works.

You can call what goes on there "capitalism" (of a sort). The housing prices there are just responding to the local environment. I don't hate it and it isn't that it is not "going my way". In fact, I want Newsom to double-down. Pass a law that says everyone "deserves" a house. Require that anyone with a spare room must have a homeless person living in it. Require even more rules and regulates and zoning laws. Just also require no CA resident can leave the state too. Require them that made the bed sleep in it too and not spread their infection to the rest of the country.

Big Mike said...

I left in '97. It's gotten progressively worse.

With emphasis on “Progressive,” which is why they’ve gotten worse as well as how they’ve gotten worse.

Bill Peschel said...

From Strongtowns, here's the story of a developer who spent millions of dollars and several years jumping through the regulatory hoops, only to have one "no" vote kill the housing project.

Note also, that (in this updated story), the developer figured out a way to move forward without giving in to the board's demands.

Basically, this points out that the legal procedures in California is insane.

Tomcc said...

I moved to Anchorage, AK after college in 1983. Alaska was experiencing a surge in population due to North Slope oil. The state decided to help first time home buyers with subsidies. I bought a condo for about $62k and had about a third of my payment covered by the subsidy. Condo developments (and apartment conversions) were being erected everywhere. Then, the population plateaued and there was an oversupply of housing. Within 5 to 10 years, condo's were being razed. The value of my property declined to as little as $15k.
I held on to it (as a rental) after I moved away, not wanting to take the loss. I did eventually sell it about 12 years later for $30k.

Iman said...

Gavin Threesome talks of "insanity". That is to laugh.

And they wonder why peeps are leaving Cali in the rear view mirror...

FullMoon said...

WOn't be a problem when Bernie is Prez and institutes medicare for all. Newsom and posse
pass law homelessness is a medical problem. Docs write prescriptions, problem solved. Like medical marijuana, easily require 'script first step, then pass laws, no 'script required. Free housing for all homeless.
Due to lack of physical housing, involuntary shared housing mandated. You got extra bedroom? Meet your new roomie.

Iman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gilbar said...

Okay, currently these homeless poor people live, in one of the richest areas in the world; but they don't work, they don't grow anything... They just forage

SURE, they Like to live there; but WE can NOT afford to keep them there
The ONLY solution,
is to relocate them; to other, more affordable places; where they will be happy and thrive
Some, may not Want to go; but, it will be Our OBLIGATION to make that move FOR them
For Their Own Good

Andy Jackson, referring to the Cherokee tribes of North Georgia 1838


we've done it before; Time to do it Again.
There is Plenty of land in Oklahoma Still

jaydub said...

"Obviously regulation have some factor but the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way."

I know it's only Howard, but how does one read the sentence "Not taking into account the price of land, around one quarter of the cost of building affordable housing goes to government fees, permits and consulting companies" and come to that conclusion? FFS, 1/4 of the average $750K house is $188K. How is that "free market capitalism numbnuts?"

Iman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gk1 said...

The only way things would change in california was if we had a major earthquake that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. Agile entrepreneurs would ignore or leapfrog existing laws to rebuild. Then and only then would the state relax the mountain of regulations and micro-managing that has choked construction in this state. Until such time, people will need to vote with their feet. I'll just retire to a more rational area of the country when my time comes. These people here are hopeless.

Howard said...

$560K a not very affordable neither, none [sic] nuts. That was exactly my point when I included the caveat about the regulatory environment. Sunshine in the winter and cooling Marine layer in the summer isn't free.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

My impression is that the talk about wanting affordable housing is just that, talk. People bought 1500 square feet houses for $500,000 and up. Affordable housing means that the price of their house will go down. They don't want that.

Howard said...

I worked in commercial real estate in California for 25 years. I know all about the cost of doing business out there and what causes it. The fact of the matter is smart people still make great money in real estate development out there and real estate is so fucking valuable mostly because it is a great place to live and you're surrounded by very very smart people who know how to make money.

I agree it's no place to build affordable housing. It reminds me of the Sam kinison routine about the starving people in Africa where he screams move to where the food is you dumb shitz

Bay Area Guy said...

Recently, several massive tower/condos have been erected south of market that now pepper the SF skyline, and dwarf the old BofA building and Transamerica Pyramid.

Of course, these are not "affordable" housing.

I'm estimating that a 1000 Sq ft condo goes for $2 Million.

But it does have nice views!

I don't think there's a lotta room in other parts of SF to build new apartment units. It's kinda impacted already. A new apt complex in North Beach? I doubt it. In the Marina? I doubt it. Maybe, in South San Francisco.

If they were to demolish some old buildings in the Tenderloin, they would need hazmat suits and a lotta Lysol.

Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Howard said...

Affordable housing is about a $1.5 a square foot monthly rental or $150 per foot for ownership.

James K said...

this is free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way.

Um, the whole point of the story is that government is artificially restricting supply. Building lots of any kind of housing, "affordable" or not, will lower housing prices. But SF makes it impossibly costly to do that.

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

Hilarious to see J. “It can’t happen here” Farmer lamenting the effects of just exactly the kind of socialist, anti market policies he tell us not to worry about happening with Sanders as president.

One day Ken you might try responding to my actual arguments instead of the bullshit strawman you apparently keep in the forefront of your mind at all times.

I have never said anything "can't happen here," so that's bullshit right there. What I have said is that Sanders' domestic agenda will be constrained by institutional forces. The same institutional forces that have stymied Trump's domestic agenda.

But more importantly, if you could get your head outside of the 24/7 news cycle paradigm for a millisecond, you might have to face a very inconvenient truth: you're losing. The Democrats want mass immigration. The Republicans want mass immigration. Donald Trump wants mass immigration. So newsflash: whoever wins in 2020, you're getting mass immigration. And if you want a sneak peak of what mass immigration is doing to this country, take a look at what it's done to California.

So, Ken, maybe you can tell us how you think these changes from mass immigration will be forestalled. Hope and prayer?

Bay Area Guy said...

Here's a nice new condo/tower in SF, south of market. Pretty nice, no? Not affordable housing, though:)

DanTheMan said...

>>Due to lack of physical housing, involuntary shared housing mandated. You got extra bedroom? Meet your new roomie.

It sounds like the 3rd amendment will soon be as popular as the 2nd...😀

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It feels like the end game is that you're either fabulously wealthy or homeless. Which is basically like it was back in the Dark Ages.

Actually, since land and the serfs that worked it were the main source of wealth through out most of the middle ages, serfs were treated far better than the homeless are today in liberal enclaves. And why it is true that by our standards serfs were extraordinarily poor, the nobles weren't all that better off. Castles are drafty and cold. Dental care for the serf and the King was the same, somebody yanked out the aching tooth.

JohnAnnArbor said...

California and many of its municipalities have two contradictory policies:

--Encouraging illegal immigrants to arrive and stay;
--Discouraging any construction through regulation and permit denials.

Logically, those two don't line up.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

My daughter was interviewed about 6 times by Apple for a job on their design team. She was worried about where she would live and was thinking about buying a small motor home and parking it. She was relieved when she didn't get the job. Now, she has a husband and baby instead.

hawkeyedjb said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
"The obvious solution is to mandate that the doctors prescribe only housing that is low cost to construct."

No brand name housing, only generics. "You wanted an apartment? Sorry, not on your plan. How about a nice cardboard box?"

Bay Area Guy said...

The lesson here is not about exorbitant house prices in SF. If the price is too high for you, go live in Antioch and take BART.

The lesson is, see what one-party Democrat Party rule has done to a great city over 50 years, and don't let them do that to your city, or state or country!

Michael said...

What they mean by "affordable housing" is market-rate housing that someone else pays for, either through taxpayer subsidies or forcing it into other tenants' rents. And in 5 or 10 years the affordable apartments wind up inhabited by well-connected pols' and contractors' mistresses and their nephews in the 8th year of graduate school. What is needed is to let developers build actually affordable, perhaps "sub-standard" housing, but that would mean blowing up the Permit Raj and discomfiting the comfortable.

Danno said...

JohnAnnArbor said..."--Encouraging illegal immigrants to arrive and stay; --Discouraging any construction through regulation and permit denials. Logically, those two don't line up.

The operative term is cognitive dissonance, and Californicator Dems have it in spades.

Ralph L said...

Where do all the service workers live? There must still be some low-rent areas near the city. I doubt those tycoons have live-in help.

Achilles said...

JohnAnnArbor said...
California and many of its municipalities have two contradictory policies:

--Encouraging illegal immigrants to arrive and stay;
--Discouraging any construction through regulation and permit denials.

Logically, those two don't line up.



You people keep thinking Democrats are well meaning people that are stupid.

This is wrong.

These policies are clearly going to drive the price of housing up. Every additional tax or fee is a means to an end. They cut out competition and they get a pool of funds to distribute graft.

Pelosi and her Husband are probably Billionaires right now. A big part in San Francisco real estate.

Everywhere Democrats are in control the wealthy get wealthier and everyone else gets poorer. They are just Maduro or Castro in a bigger fishbowl.

But they want to take us to the same place. It is their goal. They are corrupt and greedy at every level and they do not care about the people they pretend to want to help.

hstad said...

"One word insanity — it’s just insanity" — is from Governor Newsom..." Who just recently wished that Doctors have the right to prescribe, for the homeless, housing. La La Land!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-governor-doctors-should-be-able-to-write-prescriptions-for-housing

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...

Why did they have to buy electricity on the open market just because they forbid the. building of any new power plants while encouraging millions of illegal immigrants and building server farm after server farm.

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...

Definitely I want my insurance plan to cover homelessness and to pay for housing should I become homeless. It only makes sense! I bet that it makes insurance even more “affordable” for certain values of “affordable” like the one they used in the ACA.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

To give a few examples of stupid California micromanaging and cost of housing.

1. Mandatory solar panels ON the roof of every house new built. Increase the cost by 25 to $30 thousand dollars. Nevermind if your house is in a shady area where there isn't sun (as it is in some mountainous areas). You MUST have them ON the roof.

We have a client who was OK with the panels but wanted to put them in a field near his actual home where they would be effective. He has a 5 acre parcel and wanted to put in more panels in a sunny location. NOPE...on the roof. He said screw it. I'm not building a new house.

2. Mandatory fire sprinklers INSIDE the house. Another 15 to 20 thousand dollars. Even IF your house is in a rural location. I can see it if your house is cheek to jowl with every other ugly McMansion to protect the neighbors and neighborhood.

If your house is in a rural area and it burns down. WHO CARES. Besides. Your greatest threat of fire in rural locations is wild fire. You should have sprinklers ON TOP of your house. But NOPE....you have to have solar panels. No room.

IN addition, the biggest damage to your house comes from interior sprinklers that "accidently" go off and you need to replace your drywall, flooring and carpet...just to start with.

Just those two items are a $$50K increase in cost. Add on the 15 to 20 to 30K in permits, studies from the county, the city, the water district, utility district.

Now you are about $80,000 or more added on costs in building a new home before you even turn a shovel of dirt.

Then there are all the rules about heating, cooling, roofing materials, siding that is no longer allowed, energy efficient blah blah blah blah. God help you if you need a septic tank. The engineering costs required NOW are HUGE!! All of which increase the cost of construction.

No wonder people are living in trailers and RVs.

I Callahan said...

free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way.

You’re even more full of it than usual with this one. Regulations, permits, eco Nazi rules, etc, were NOT put in place by free market capitalism. These are big government rules. The government reduced supply via the above, and increased demand by advertising for more homeless to move there.

How someone who’s supposed to be intelligent could get this completely bass ackwards is still surprising to me, though it shouldn’t be.

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...

"the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand which you people hate when it doesn't go your way.”

We are not the supply and demand denialists, we know how it works. It works the same when you flood the labor market with illegal immigrant scabs. The government has a lot to say that can either restrict the supply in the case of housing, or flood the supply in the case of labor, but the law of supply and demand, even the Soviets with total power could not repeal that.

JaimeRoberto said...

One of the biggest problems is the NIMBYism. My neighbors are holding up a development near me that would add about 50 homes. Another group is holding up development in downtown because it adds too much housing. Another project in my parents' town, recently written up in the NYT, has been held up for several years, even though it was zoned for development ever since the freeway was built through the property several decades ago. On their own, none of the projects will do much to bring down the price of housing, but in aggregate it will make a difference. I ask these people if the they are worried about our kids being able to afford a house in the Bay Area, and I just get a blank stare, like these things are unrelated. It's disgusting.

Kevin said...

No one who buys real estate hopes their neighborhood becomes “affordable”.

Steven said...

Obviously regulation have some factor but the bottom line is this is free market capitalism supply and demand

Nope. That's fundamental ignorance showing. "Supply and demand" isn't the rule of "free market capitalism", it is an iron law of all economics.

When supply is constricted, the cost will always rise. If, for some reason (like a government decree), the price denominated in money cannot rise, the cost will rise in some additional commodity not explicitly measured in money. Maybe the additional cost will be paid in time, reduced quality, favors -- there's all sorts of possibilities, including money paid off-the-books as bribes -- but it is absolutely, inexorably true, that the cost will be the price where the supply and demand curves intersect.

Supply and demand is not a feature of "free market capitalism", it is an axiom of any reality where scarcity exists. The only way to reduce the price paid to acquire something, no matter what system of economics you use, is to either increase supply or reduce demand.

Thus there are exactly two, and only two, ways to reduce the cost of housing in San Francisco. The first is to allow more housing to be built. The second is to drive people out. Literally nothing else is possible.

FullMoon said...

I ask these people if the they are worried about our kids being able to afford a house in the Bay Area, and I just get a blank stare, like these things are unrelated. It's disgusting.

If you have lived in Bay Area long enough to see the neighborhood kids grow up, you see them still living at home.
An offer on a house in San Francisco, will be accompanied by nice letters from doctors, lawyers and techies explaining how wonderful they are and why they are the best fit for your home.

50 year mortgages are my simplistic solution.

Tommy Duncan said...

I think there is a campaign ad for Trump somewhere in the California mess. The GOP should be holding California up as an example of what Bernie can do for all of America. Show the $h!t on the streets of San Francisco to the kind folks in Sheboygan and Rice Lake.

Leland said...

the biggest damage to your house comes from interior sprinklers that "accidently" go off and you need to replace your drywall, flooring and carpet.

Mandatory fire alarms with battery backup are annoying enough when the batteries drain and the hunt begins. I can only imagine how often in home sprinklers fail. How does that impact the 55 usgal/person limits on water consumption?

I noticed that a few homes survived the Paradise fires and a common feature of the surviving homes was a very green lawn. I think there was a bit more to it than the lawns, but the lawns were green. Outdoor sprinklers are much cheaper to install and do less damage when they fail.

Original Mike said...

It's hard to believe people can be that stupid.

Gk1 said...

"One of the biggest problems is the NIMBYism" Oh yeah, this is the bay area in spades. When I first came to the Bay area in 1998 I lived in a small town near San Rafael, about 40 miles outside of S.F. I happened to tune into the public access channel and watch the city council meeting. (Because I am a sadist)

Anywhoo, the first order of business was a guy trying to build a 2 story house, he presented the Planning dept. recommendation that it met all the guidelines etc.Showed some nice renderings of what it would look like etc. Then 20 minute in they allowed "effected neighbors" to come in and testify. And they uniformly hated it and said it was "too tall" and in gripping testimony one of them said "I just like to look up on that hill and not see any houses" WTF?!?! That still sticks to me to this day. I am not sure of the outcome but it was a splash of cold water to my face what sort of people I would be living with. Once you got your home, FUCK EVERYONE ELSE. I GOT MINE!

alan markus said...

What I was talking about above - nobody paid attention in 2008. But it was a long read.
Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair


Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama's US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama's former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama's early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko's company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama's district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.

One of the largest recipients of the subsidies was Rezmar Corp., founded in 1989 by Tony Rezko, who ran a company that sold snacks at city beaches, and Daniel Mahru, who ran a company that sold ice to Rezko. Neither man had development experience...…..Rezmar collected millions in development fees

n.n said...

50 state laboratory. Let the market be your guide.

JaimeRoberto said...

"Once you got your home, FUCK EVERYONE ELSE. I GOT MINE!"

The more liberal the city, the more likely the residents are to have that attitude. Marin County, Palo Alto, etc. I'm in my castle. Pull up the drawbridge.

Bleachbitandhammer said...

Newsom is good looking and the monies gays like him. The economic illiteracy is a bonus

rsbsail said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have a hard time believing that the average wage is $90/hr for a construction worker. Assuming 2000 hours per year, that works out to $180,000 per year. And that is the average?

I wonder if they are confusing the wage rate that is paid for federal or state projects. Even then, that sounds way too high.

Howard said...

90 is what the general charges, not a wage

Howard said...

You people were great, I'm here all week

Gk1 said...

"Maybe I'm missing something, but I have a hard time believing that the average wage is $90/hr for a construction worker. Assuming 2000 hours per year, that works out to $180,000 per year. And that is the average?" For federal and union construction jobs for skilled trades this is about right. Hence the active market for illegals working for cash and hired out as sub contractors. You can't compete hanging sheet rock or framing without them.

Gk1 said...

Here is a timely article from a Marin paper no less. No duh.

https://www.marinij.com/2020/02/23/bay-area-dissatisfaction-rich-poor-young-and-old-unhappy-here-2/

DavidUW said...

SF could add around 10000 units just building up the outer sunset to the legal 40 foot height. You’d get a bunch of 2-3 flats like Lincoln park in Chicago.

But they don’t.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Yes... The Dem world is all like Hillary's Haiti. Chicago rules. Stinks don't it?

Ray - SoCal said...

Great examples! In our area in So. CA, it's made it so the only thing getting built is either larger developments that can absorb all the added costs, or luxury stuff. It just does not make economic sense to build affordable housing, such as a class C apartment. And now with statewide rent control, watch the housing stock deteriorate more.

>Dust Bunny Queen said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ray -SoCal....is right on. Rent control is going to make it impossible for anyone to consider investing in rental properties.

If I had rentals right now. I would be selling them. The headache of having renters is bad enough. But if you are now prohibited from making enough money to be able to keep up with taxes, maintenance, insurance etc. What is the point.

Sell. Don't build. There are far easier ways to get ROI.

Mark said...

Steven -- everywhere your smart growth hyper-density development has happened -- such as here in Arlington -- it has led to making housing LESS affordable.

How, with all that added supply??

Because the "iron" law of supply and demand applies only when all other things are equal. And with the new hyper-construction, all other things are not equal.

All that new construction costs money. Each unit is thus substantially more expensive than existing housing stock. And that existing stock invariably raises its prices to come close to, but just below, that higher new housing price. Because they believe that that is what the market will bear.

Arlington has built and built and built and built and built. The Arlington regime has never met a development it didn't love -- and urge higher density. And all during that time, prices have gone up and up and up. The result? There is NO truly affordable housing here, except for that being affordable to folks making over $150,000 per year.

And yet they keep on going with their "smart growth." Even tearing down existing older truly affordable housing stock in order to build newer and more expensive units in their place.

Mark said...

To make things worse, a lot of this smart growth is government subsidized to some extent. That gives developers absolutely zero incentive to maintain or lower prices since they know government will kick in to pay whatever the tenant/buyer cannot.

Steven said...

Mark --

Nope. The cost of inputs has absolutely nothing to do with the clearing price. There is no such thing as "truly affordable housing stock", because there is no such thing as an inherent price. The price of housing is where supply meets demand.

If demand didn't support the price necessary to build expensive new housing, the result of expensive new housing isn't higher prices, but the people who built expensive new housing going bankrupt, and the expensive new stuff being made available for less than it cost to build.

If demand is such that it does support the price necessary to build that expensive new housing, but you stop it from being built, the existing stock won't stand still at its old price, but increase to reflect that demand. If the price-in-money is held down artificially, by price controls, the costs in non-money will increase to meet the place where the supply and demand curves intersect. At best you can deflect the new housing production to other communities that are willing to build.

And if a city council is engaged in "smart growth", then it's a dead certainty what it's doing is artificially holding the increase in supply down (to what it considers "smart"), and of course prices will go up as increases in supply fail to meet increases in demand.

Gretchen said...

Remind me again which party put in place all this insanity???

cyrus83 said...

The powers that be generally try not to make it too well known that the skilled trades are likely to pay much better than many of the bachelor's degrees handed out by colleges that in some cases are charging more than $90 per hour in the classroom (generally any college charging more than $1440 per credit hour, or $21,600 per semester for 15 credits).

It is not unexpected that California has made the cost of building housing sky high, that means the only way things ever get done is when the government subsidizes construction. In other words, the government ultimately decides most of what gets built, and it had better either line up with their vision or result in sizable graft and kickbacks.

The good news I suppose for affordable housing is that eventually San Francisco's government is going to destroy the demand for housing there with all the nonsense it enables, and once that happens housing prices are going to dive, regardless of what it cost to build or how underwater people are on the mortgage.

Chris N said...

If SF is to become similarly dense, crowded and full of extremes as NY (really rich and really poor), it should also have a more well-established Communist Mayor. Maybe more characters like Bloomberg and Trump instead of pretty boy, post hippie types like Newsom.

Gravitas.

I want a $159K a year Indian guy living in San Jose next to a homeless drug addict from Arkansas shitting on the sidewalk, next to a Mexican National drywaller living in Milpitas on his lunch break next to a Harvard grad fin tech guy next to a butch lesbian social critic.

This will be a diverse, vibrant and globally creative city, but ALSO a city where ambitious middle and upper middle class youth can play around in the arts, culture and such, like NYC

No place for honest hippies.

Chris N said...

If you’re shitting in San Francisco, don’t forget to wear bits of trash in your hair.

Take that VW bus and head on down to Santa Cruz, Skyler.

Namaste.

ALP said...

Now do this with daycare. There is a daycare shortage in major cities. How odd - here you have a need that consumers just can't fulfill without waiting lists. In Seattle, pregnant parents are urged to get on waiting lists before the kid is born.

You would think enterprising peoeple would take this on since there is such an unmet need - many customers just DYING to give you their money - but nobody to give it to.

I would love to see a major newspaper do a similar story on what it takes to get a daycare up and running. In real time with weekly installments.

Bunkypotatohead said...

It would be much cheaper to just pay the homeless to leave.