• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

TooBusyLookinGud

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
7,951
California
Who do you think caused the housing market to go up in California?

Everyone from all across the US.

People, even on these boards, whine the moment housing prices go up in their state. But, it was people FROM their states that drive up housing prices in CA to begin with.

The hypocrisy about this whole situation is disgusting.
I agree with this. At least as many people want to move here as want to move away. People from all over the world want to come and they are willing to pay the premium. Unfortunately, It has created a housing bubble that I don't see letting up any time soon.
 

Nax

Hero of Bowerstone
Member
Oct 10, 2018
6,674
Isn't the exodus from California also related to the homeless problems they are having? That was at least the sense I got from watching a few YT videos.
 

shintoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,112
A big problem is there is a strong correlation to NIMBY voters and college degrees.

The Californians WILL bring zero home growth policy with them.

This, its obvious what people mean when they say Californians. Its the people who moved to California, bloated the housing market there, complained about it while bringing in six figures and pricing out everyone else while talking about how they are just struggling to live too. Now want to move somewhere else while bringing the same trash along.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,226
This is also a taxpayer nightmare for existing owners. You better hope that city/town value reassessment that happens every 5-10 years doesn't massively bump up your tax bill.

imagine going from paying 5k a year to 10k.

New Jersey laughs at these tax prices. The county I'm in now averages around 10k with home prices easily in the 400-500 for most homes. It's not unusual for your typical 4 bedroom to be 650-750k and 11-12k in taxes.
 

maruchan

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
2,173
What the fuck nyt, making Idaho to be some neo-liberal paradise. Place is joke full of fucking neo nazis, and had some of the highest COVID cases because they had no regulations.
 

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
This, its obvious what people mean when they say Californians. Its the people who moved to California, bloated the housing market there, complained about it while bringing in six figures and pricing out everyone else while talking about how they are just struggling to live too. Now want to move somewhere else while bringing the same trash along.
Yep, it's modern manifest destiny brought to you by the PMC.
 

Septimus Prime

EA
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
8,500
Is there any irony complaining about NIMBYs while at the same time wanting to keep people from moving into your own backyard?

No! It's self-introspection that's wrong!
 

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Is there any irony complaining about NIMBYs while at the same time wanting to keep people from moving into your own backyard?

No! It's self-introspection that's wrong!
Someone already mentioned what the problem is. It's disingenuous to claim people driving up Housing Prices is the same as NIMBYism, especially when those people moving in are bringing NIMBY views
 

Septimus Prime

EA
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
8,500
Someone already mentioned what the problem is. It's disingenuous to claim people driving up Housing Prices is the same as NIMBYism, especially when those people moving in are bringing NIMBY views
Yeah, that's bullshit. NIMBYism is borne of fear of what allowing in undesirables will do to the market. This is the same thing.

And that NIMBY views thing is as dumb as saying poors will bring in criminality.
 

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Yeah, that's bullshit. NIMBYism is borne of fear of what allowing in undesirables will do to the market. This is the same thing.

And that NIMBY views thing is as dumb as saying poors will bring in criminality.
Is it bullshit? Are you arbitrarily re-defining NIMBYism to fit that argument? False equivalencing people being unable to afford in San Francisco with people withthe ability and priovellege of being able to overpay for houses in Boise is ridiculous.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
Isn't the exodus from California also related to the homeless problems they are having? That was at least the sense I got from watching a few YT videos.

If you don't build housing,
house prices will go up AND
you will have many more homeless people.
 

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
Is there any irony complaining about NIMBYs while at the same time wanting to keep people from moving into your own backyard?

No! It's self-introspection that's wrong!
This is some real "and yet you live in a society! curious!" energy. The housing crisis is multifaceted. NIMBYism is definitely a big part. Unequal purchasing power is both a cause and an effect of NIMBYism. Not wanting to double down on a broken, unequal system is not the thing that needs to be called out here.

Yeah, that's bullshit. NIMBYism is borne of fear of what allowing in undesirables will do to the market. This is the same thing.

And that NIMBY views thing is as dumb as saying poors will bring in criminality.
That's a false equivalency. Not wanting people to parachute in with bags of money and exacerbate the housing crises currently visiting almost every major metro in the country is NOT an irrational fear of the other. It's observing a real phenomenon that has a direct impact on peoples ability to eke out an existence.
 
Also: Just a friendly reminder that 500,000 people are still moving to California every year. We have the 3rd highest amount of domestic immigration, yet no one writes a story about that.

Maybe stop some of that from happening long enough so our housing prices become affordable for current residents to live here.

How is it hypocritical? Something bad happened to California, so we're not allowed to talk about it if it happens elsewhere? Anyway, my complaint is about the people that use their equity built by leveraging the human misery caused in CAs awful housing situation (prop13, general refusal to build, high levels of segregation), or remote workers taking their CA salaries, to arbitrage cheaper property markets elsewhere and inflict the same cycle of pain elsewhere. I don't have a problem with the people who are leaving because they literally can't make a life in CA due to housing costs.

I also don't understand how this part applies " But, it was people FROM their states that drive up housing prices in CA to begin with. ". If someone else from my state does something I don't like, I'm responsible for it? Nobody ITT is shitting on people just for living in CA. It's the people bringing their money and NIMBY attitudes from CA and fucking up the housing markets that people are complaining about. And for the people who did the same thing to CA once upon a time, yeah I think they're assholes too.

Some posts in this thread read exactly like they're blaming Californians for their personal misery. It's blatantly obvious. And it happens in almost every thread about Californians moving elsewhere. If this was the first time I saw it, I wouldn't have said anything.

Also, Californian is a vague term. There's a good chance many people leaving aren't originally from here - maybe they're just returning to their home state/region.

Second off, name a state without some form of NIMBYism. It's an American problem that people seem to exclusively scapegoat Californians for.

We won't fix any housing cost issues across any state without addressing the underlying problem.

Third, though there are absolutely terrible housing laws contributing to the California housing prices, building more is hardly a good option anymore. We have been building more - directly into the few places that are left, which are fire zones. We all just saw how that's working out these past few summers.

Now high density urban housing could use a major boost, but that comes with its own set of issues.

Basically, this is really no one's inherent fault. And nobody (in SoCal) whines about people from other states moving here - except for me. They just deal with it and move on.

Compare that to the reaction to when Californians move to another state - they lose their freaking minds.
 

KtSlime

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,910
Tokyo
you could almost say that you dont want them in your backyard 🤔

Isn't that term usually used to talk about things that cause the value of properties to become lower rather than higher? Such as prisons, airports, subsidized government housing? Prior to this thread I've never seen NIMBY used to talk about gentrification.
 

Deleted member 1086

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,796
Boise Area, Idaho
It's insane how fast Boise grew. I live by Ustick and Five Mile and seeing all of these apartment complexes popping up around me all at once is crazy.
One of the houses we lived in that was a rental way back in the day was right next to Summerwind Elementary, on Julion.

me and my little brother(mostly him) went to that daycare that burned down 20 some years ago, where there's now a park.
 

dapperbandit

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,162
As someone foreign to but familiar with California... is there really not space to urbanise. I realise "build a new town" sounds naive but at some point you have to increase the viable options people have of places to live and work if all the jobs are crammed into unaffordable expensive sprawls sprinkled with used needles and feces.

I went to Texas around the time Californians moving to Texas for a cheaper life became a more noticed trend. Literally everyone I spoke to about the topic there, bar my host (who had moved from California), was convinced that they were doomed because cosmopolitan hippy wannabes from Haight Ashbury were going to arrive en masse and all vote for the same policies that turned their former homes into crowded shitholes.

.
 

perfectchaos007

It's Happening
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,241
Texas
In places like San Francisco there simply isn't enough room for everyone who wants to live there. Pretty much every square inch is developed, so of course there are going to be bidding wars that drive up prices for real estate. A future solution could be to have a bay area wide high speed transit system so those who work in San Fran can live far away from the city but still not spend 20 hours/week commuting
 

Beignet

alt account
Banned
Aug 1, 2020
2,638
In places like San Francisco there simply isn't enough room for everyone who wants to live there. Pretty much every square inch is developed, so of course there are going to be bidding wars that drive up prices for real estate
The problem isn't that there isn't enough room, they could easily develop properties that people could afford but NIMBYism stops that in its tracks.
 

KtSlime

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,910
Tokyo
In places like San Francisco there simply isn't enough room for everyone who wants to live there. Pretty much every square inch is developed, so of course there are going to be bidding wars that drive up prices for real estate. A future solution could be to have a bay area wide high speed transit system so those who work in San Fran can live far away from the city but still not spend 20 hours/week commuting
Build up?
 

Beignet

alt account
Banned
Aug 1, 2020
2,638
Housing shouldn't be a commodity or investment anyways, that's fucking insane to me.
 

Z-Beat

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
31,845
XnQ9.gif
 

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
Also: Just a friendly reminder that 500,000 people are still moving to California every year. We have the 3rd highest amount of domestic immigration, yet no one writes a story about that.

Maybe stop some of that from happening long enough so our housing prices become affordable for current residents to live here.



Some posts in this thread read exactly like they're blaming Californians for their personal misery. It's blatantly obvious. And it happens in almost every thread about Californians moving elsewhere. If this was the first time I saw it, I wouldn't have said anything.

Also, Californian is a vague term. There's a good chance many people leaving aren't originally from here - maybe they're just returning to their home state/region.

Second off, name a state without some form of NIMBYism. It's an American problem that people seem to exclusively scapegoat Californians for.

We won't fix any housing cost issues across any state without addressing the underlying problem.

Third, though there are absolutely terrible housing laws contributing to the California housing prices, building more is hardly a good option anymore. We have been building more - directly into the few places that are left, which are fire zones. We all just saw how that's working out these past few summers.

Now high density urban housing could use a major boost, but that comes with its own set of issues.

Basically, this is really no one's inherent fault. And nobody (in SoCal) whines about people from other states moving here - except for me. They just deal with it and move on.

Compare that to the reaction to when Californians move to another state - they lose their freaking minds.
I agree with a lot of this, but you're really glossing over just how insane California's housing issues have gotten due to decades of neglect, short termerism and outright malfeasance. CA is not unique in this, it's highly prevalant across most of the country (thanks boomers), but it's an exceptionally bad example. The population density of LA is ridiculously low for a metro of its population. Except for DTLA and a few small pockets, there's hardly an apartment building over 2 or 3 stories in sight. This in turn (+the inflows of people and money, as you've noted) causes property values to skyrocket. Then the property owners sell the insanely overvalued housing, directly benefitting from the lack of supply. Then buy enormous houses in cheap places they've "discovered", and repeat the cycle.

Housing shouldn't be a commodity or investment anyways, that's fucking insane to me.
1000000000%
 

Beignet

alt account
Banned
Aug 1, 2020
2,638
I'd also like to dispel this myth that the Californians moving here are turning Texas blue, expats actually trend conservative and the types of people that move to Arizona or Texas are usually the ones with the wealth to get up and move in the first place. They want more money in their pockets from reduced rent and taxes and want to be in a state more politically aligned with their beliefs. Unfortunately for them, Texas has a pretty regressive tax system (imho) with sales taxes and some of the most absurd property tax rates in the country; so unless you're really well off, the cost of living in a major TX city isn't too different from living in CA.

What's turning us blue is younger generations becoming more politically active and minority communities that have been historically inactive and disenfranchised turning out more and more. If expats couldn't vote, then Beto would've won in 2018.
 

Beef Supreme

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,073
I would like to feel sorry for them, but we have our own problem trying to keep them the fuck out of Houston. I wouldn't mind my property being worth more if I didn't pay the obscene amount of property taxes that go along with it. My property value has increased almost 100% in the last 8 years. Please stop moving here.
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
In places like San Francisco there simply isn't enough room for everyone who wants to live there. Pretty much every square inch is developed, so of course there are going to be bidding wars that drive up prices for real estate. A future solution could be to have a bay area wide high speed transit system so those who work in San Fran can live far away from the city but still not spend 20 hours/week commuting

There absolutely is room. Sunset district alone could easily house 10x the amount of people it currently does. Let alone the exclusionary enclaves of Menlo Park, Berkeley, etc.
As someone foreign to but familiar with California... is there really not space to urbanise. I realise "build a new town" sounds naive but at some point you have to increase the viable options people have of places to live and work if all the jobs are crammed into unaffordable expensive sprawls sprinkled with used needles and feces.

There is tons of room to build new housing. The largest city in the planet, Tokyo, has cheap fucking housing because they increase density.
Housing shouldn't be a commodity or investment anyways, that's fucking insane to me.

Housing is either a commodity or an investment, it cannot be both. You want it to be a commodity.

Texas has a pretty regressive tax system (imho) with sales taxes and some of the most absurd property tax rates in the country;

You just described an extremely progressive tax system.

Third, though there are absolutely terrible housing laws contributing to the California housing prices, building more is hardly a good option anymore. We have been building more - directly into the few places that are left, which are fire zones. We all just saw how that's working out these past few summers.

LA only built 1 new unit for every 1000 residents last year (actually less). Norms in texas and Florida are 11 units per 1000. In CA the fucking aids foundation has taken part in campaigning against propositions to increase density.

Because the residents (e.g Californians) have their heads so far up their ass against multi family housing, they have literally caused the constant building in fire zones.

You assholes have jacked up permitting costs and "community impact fees" so high that even non profit supportive housing cannot be built because you fucks demand 200k up front per unit.
 
Last edited:

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Isn't that term usually used to talk about things that cause the value of properties to become lower rather than higher? Such as prisons, airports, subsidized government housing? Prior to this thread I've never seen NIMBY used to talk about gentrification.
Right?! I wonder how many people in this thread see people talk about gentrification driving up housing/cost of living in black neighborhoods so Black people can't afford to live there say "HEY! That's NIMBYism" when that shit is brought up. Lot of "Fuck you I got mine" mentality in here.
 

Pancoar

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,551
This is Colorado. I bought my home in Colorado Springs for $260K and it's worth $500K only 5 years later. Mass influx of people from California.
I'm in Colorado Springs and with the way they keep upping rent on me every year I have no idea where the fuck I'm going to end up in a few more years... Started at $900 now it's at $1400. Shit's beyond ridiculous.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Right?! I wonder how many people in this thread see people talk about gentrification driving up housing/cost of living in black neighborhoods so Black people can't afford to live there say "HEY! That's NIMBYism" when that shit is brought up. Lot of "Fuck you I got mine" mentality in here.

It's not complicated: NYMBY's negative impact is first and foremost due to a refusal to increase density. That's the main common point of NYMBY.
 

Beignet

alt account
Banned
Aug 1, 2020
2,638
Housing is either a commodity or an investment, it cannot be both. You want it to be a commodity.
You're able to invest in commodities

You just described an extremely progressive tax system.
Eh, the lack of state income taxes leaves the wealthiest having quite a bit of money. People lower on the rung foot more of a bill due to sales tax eating up more of their salary, and people who have jobs in the cities pay a decently hefty property tax. Far from ideal in my opinion and I'd hardly call it progressive. Keep in mind this doesn't mean I find somewhere like California to be a model system because that's absolutely not the case.
 

BolognaOni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
159
It's not complicated: NYMBY's negative impact is first and foremost due to a refusal to increase density. That's the main common point of NYMBY.

How exactly do you propose increasing density? Knock down luxury high rises and build bigger luxury high rises?

The only practical way to increase density is demolishing the lowest cost real estate and building bigger. Long term it fixes housing costs. Short term it usually boots people in lower cost (possibly rent controlled) housing out.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
How exactly do you propose increasing density? Knock down luxury high rises and build bigger luxury high rises?

The only practical way to increase density is demolishing the lowest cost real estate and building bigger. Long term it fixes housing costs. Short term it usually boots people in lower cost (possibly rent controlled) housing out.

That's wrong. It usually starts with derelict buildings and unused lots kept by owners who don't want to pay to demolish them and keep them to reap the value appreciation that is higher than the tax increases. Yet they cannot be demolished to be turned into big residential complexes because of NYMBYs. Add too this all the single-family homes not more than two story highs. They are often worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, but if any one of them hasn't been maintained to the point that they should be rebuilt they can't be as anything else than another single-family unit of the same height as all of those around it. And it goes on and on like this.

So yes, tear them down or raise taxes massively on lots and derelict buildings which don't favor an increase in density until they get sold for that end.
 

BolognaOni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
159
I'll admit I'm not familiar with other markets as much, but a decent amount of vacant stuff in the Bay Area is in the process of evicting the previous tenants. If you boot someone out for redevelopment purposes they're allowed to make certain claims on the new property. Let it sit for the better part of a decade and probably no one cares.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
I'll admit I'm not familiar with other markets as much, but a decent amount of vacant stuff in the Bay Area is in the process of evicting the previous tenants. If you boot someone out for redevelopment purposes they're allowed to make certain claims on the new property. Let it sit for the better part of a decade and probably no one cares.

Maybe but I have never seen that. Why kick people out if you can get revenue from them? It's either to build now some more profitable building or else they wouldn't. There are inherent costs with owning the land alone due to taxes, and maintenance for a building falling into disrepair and even fines in some locations.

And building up is always a progressive thing, it doesn't happen all at one.

Home prices should be massively lower in cities because density should be far higher. It would make home ownership far more accessible. It is a literal plight against the less well-off.
 

thermopyle

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,983
Los Angeles, CA
It feels like all sides of the spectrum work to ensure CA is as anti-density as possible. So much "discussion' on what to be done that nothing ever actually makes a dent in the problem. Hell, I was pleasantly surprised at this development in LA Chinatown, a no brainer for a dying neighborhood. Now if we'd build a 1000 more all over LA.