How to win in HCOL areas and not be a victim

[clarkfan1979]

I guess Crested Butte got expensive post-COVID-19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhElNHGN9KY

I really don't like the victim mentality of the pizza employees and the pizza owner enabling that mentality. I just looked for apartments in Gunnison. There is a huge college style apartment complex 32 minutes away from the pizza place. 2 bedrooms are $990/month and 3 bedrooms are $1265. Fee wifi and gym included. It mostly caters to college students, but you don't need to be a student.

When I first moved to Kauai, I lived in north Kapaa (Kapahi). My wife and I lived in a 332 sq. ft. stuido. We were 1-mile from the beach and loved it. Every morning, we walked 1-mile down the hill to the beach, 1 mile along the ocean on the bike path and 1 mile back up the hill every morning.

For me, it was a 35-40 minute drive to work or 45-50 minutes by bus. I normally took the bus. Employees on the North Shore (Princeville and Kilauea) were complaining about the cost of housing and said their only options were to move off-island or be homeless. Why not drive from North Kapaa, which is 25-35 minutes away?

I know long commutes are not healthy and this is the MMM forum. However, I don't understand how someone can honestly say, I can't drive 25-35 minutes to work. My only option is to leave or be homelessness.

Anyone have any wins to share on how to thrive in HCOL area? I will go first.

In college (1999-2000), I lived one block away from the beach in Mission Beach, San Diego. Rent was $500/month and I had a roommate, so $250/month each. At the time, most beach houses sold for over 1 million.

I met many interesting people from all over the world, surfed almost every morning and did well enough in undergrad to get accept into grad school a few years later. I thrived. I was not a victim. 

[FINate]

A ~30 mile commute at over 8000' elevation doesn't seem like a particularly viable option during winter. Plus, Google maps puts the time at ~40 minutes during commute hours, which I'm sure is much much longer when snow is flying. And all for restaurant wages? Meh, not worth it.

This is a fairly typical case of mountain resort town COL woes, amplified by the pandemic migration. The town itself has very little dense multi-family/workforce housing, it's clear that they didn't expect (or perhaps, plan for) the growth they are not experiencing. I don't know the backstory there, but wonder if, like so many places, there was an effort to preserve the "character" of the town by stopping/slowing development?

In any case, your SD experience in 1999-2000 probably isn't a great comparison. A city like SD has a lot more diversity of housing options, which made it possible to find *something* for cheap (like a small dated surf shack), especially back in the days before the housing shortage really hit hard in CA. A bigger city also has a lot more employment opportunity (i.e. potential to earn more), whereas a small mountain resort town is very limited.

So I understand why folks feel they're being forced out, and it seems unlikely to improve anytime soon. IMO, folks should move somewhere more livable at let the rich people experience the consequences of pricing out the workers. 

[Dicey]

I'll play. I got an apartment in LA with a roommate. When she moved out, I took over the lease in full. Subsequently, and with the landlord's knowledge and approval, I chose the my own roommates, increasing the rent each time. The apartment was under rent control* and the LL's liked me, so I didn't get increases every year. Eventually, the roommates were paying the Big Half of the rent. Mind you, they were still getting a good price because I had been in the apartment for so long. I can't imagine what the place rents for now.


*At the time, the rent control was that a LL could charge whatever the market would bear when a unit turned over and then increase the rent up to a small maximum amount per year. It may be different now.

[waltworks]

I have a lot of friends in CB and friends who no longer live there (you can tell the same story in Jackson, Breck, PC, etc, etc, etc) and I think this is a bit too simplistic.

First off, it didn't get "get expensive". CB was already expensive. COVID made it double or maybe triple in cost from there in 18 months. No joke, same thing happened where I live.

You don't live in CB to work at a pizza place. You live there to be right in the mountains to go for a ride/run/BC ski trip right out the door, with your friends who live nearby. The pizza place is just to pay the bills.

If you live in Gunnison (which is a fine place in it's own right) you're no longer part of that community. Want to go ride Teo or do a dawn patrol lap on Red Lady? Gotta drive half an hour and then if you forgot your beacon you gotta drive all the way back again to grab it.

Setting aside the considerable expense of driving an hour every day (easily $500 a month) the lifestyle of living in one place and doing the things you love somewhere else is not even vaguely the same thing.

Nobody has a right to live in an expensive ski town. That being said, I can say from 20 years of experience (or more, really, as I've spent my whole life in mountain towns of one kind of another) that the towns have gotten a lot less fun and interesting as house prices have skyrocketed. I know a lot of new folks here who are perfectly nice people but aren't interested in doing most of the things that make mountain towns fun.

For example, a 5 bedroom house down the street sold last year for a bit over $2 million (would be $3 million now). It was owned by friends with 2 young kids who threw great backyard bbqs, could be counted on to come help out if you needed to move a downed aspen, and were fun to go ride bikes or ski with. The new owners are middle-aged people from out of state with no kids who wanted a vacation home with good access to the commuter trail system to *walk their dog*. They are never there, there is no way in hell they'd babysit a kid if we had an emergency, and there's not a single bike or ski in the garage. These people own a house in PC because it's prestigious and they have the money. They'd probably be better off in suburban Atlanta or something for dog walking.

Replace enough people like my friends with the new owners (which is happening rapidly) and there's nothing really left of what the town used to be.

I don't know what the answer is but I can understand the angst from folks whose lives have been disrupted.

-W

[clarkfan1979]

A ~30 mile commute at over 8000' elevation doesn't seem like a particularly viable option during winter. Plus, Google maps puts the time at ~40 minutes during commute hours, which I'm sure is much much longer when snow is flying. And all for restaurant wages? Meh, not worth it.

This is a fairly typical case of mountain resort town COL woes, amplified by the pandemic migration. The town itself has very little dense multi-family/workforce housing, it's clear that they didn't expect (or perhaps, plan for) the growth they are not experiencing. I don't know the backstory there, but wonder if, like so many places, there was an effort to preserve the "character" of the town by stopping/slowing development?

In any case, your SD experience in 1999-2000 probably isn't a great comparison. A city like SD has a lot more diversity of housing options, which made it possible to find *something* for cheap (like a small dated surf shack), especially back in the days before the housing shortage really hit hard in CA. A bigger city also has a lot more employment opportunity (i.e. potential to earn more), whereas a small mountain resort town is very limited.

So I understand why folks feel they're being forced out, and it seems unlikely to improve anytime soon. IMO, folks should move somewhere more livable at let the rich people experience the consequences of pricing out the workers.

Yes, I understand that SD example isn't the greatest, but I only have so much personal experience to be able to pull from. During the 2002-2003 season, I was a snowboard instructor at Breckenridge. I lived in Frisco because Breckenridge was too expensive. I walked about 3/4 of a mile to the bus stop in downtown Frisco. I rode the bus to downtown Breckenridge. Then I would take a shuttle to the ski resort. It was about 13 miles total. Started at 9,000 ft. and ended at 10,000 ft. It took about one hour total.

The Gunnison example is 27 miles, so it is longer. I could imagine not waiting to do the commute in his truck because it probably gets 10 mpg. However, isn't that a choice? I'm not an expert on trucks, but that looks to be at least a $30,000 truck, right?

I made $12/hour or $60/day. I think it was around $1500/month. I could have easily made twice as much waiting tables. However, I didn't want to stuck working day shifts and not be able to snowboard. My rent was $500/month.

I understand that Gunnison isn't the same at Crested Butte. I also understand that 32-45 minute commutes are not fun. However, I don't like it when people play the homeless card. If you don't want to do the commute and would prefer to be homeless, then fine. However, it's a very conscious choice.

[FINate]

The Gunnison example is 27 miles, so it is longer. I could imagine not waiting to do the commute in his truck because it probably gets 10 mpg. However, isn't that a choice? I'm not an expert on trucks, but that looks to be at least a $30,000 truck, right?

I made $12/hour or $60/day. I think it was around $1500/month. I could have easily made twice as much waiting tables. However, I didn't want to stuck working day shifts and not be able to snowboard. My rent was $500/month.

I understand that Gunnison isn't the same at Crested Butte. I also understand that 32-45 minute commutes are not fun. However, I don't like it when people play the homeless card. If you don't want to do the commute and would prefer to be homeless, then fine. However, it's a very conscious choice.

It's a RAM 1500 and should get somewhere around 20 mpg highway. For sure, it's a clown car, especially for someone struggling just to make ends meet. But I have empathy for the guy, seems he's in this situation rather suddenly and is camping as a short term option while he figures out what's next.

[waltworks]

The guy with the truck used to be able to live in a crappy place in town and work at the pizza place, and now he can't. Neither can anyone else in town, including people who don't own clown trucks and actually do save money. Even if you're not financially irresponsible, your rent doubling (or your rental being sold out from under you to become an AirBnB) is something most people, including mustachians, won't be able to handle.

Even Gunnison ain't cheap. I see one apartment for rent on Zillow. $1500 a month for 2 bedrooms.

That's the issue here. Even dirtbaggin/sharing rooms/etc won't cut it anymore in some of these places.  The cheapest studio I see in the whole PC area for rent is $1900 a month, for example.

-W

[former player]

I live in an expensive resort area where people come on holiday, houses in this area can cost millions of pounds.  It's also where my ancestors have lived for hundreds of years, back as far as written records go (and their local names go even further back than that).  I spent most of my life away from here, making a career and earning enough money to buy my way back in, but for people who want to stay in their ancestral home, where they have family and community and do jobs that are vital to the local community, the answer has to be affordable homes to rent for local people, and luckily we have a local authority that invests in such things.

[FINate]

I don't know what the answer is but I can understand the angst from folks whose lives have been disrupted.

I think part of the solution has to include building more housing. Not SFH, but instead dense efficiency units in town limited to year-round residency which disallow subletting and short-term rentals. Such restrictions keep them from becoming vacation rentals. Keeping them small/dense largely keeps the rich away and means very little water usage. Building in town allows people to live where they work, so almost no impact on traffic.

[Dicey]

I don't know what the answer is but I can understand the angst from folks whose lives have been disrupted.

I think part of the solution has to include building more housing. Not SFH, but instead dense efficiency units in town limited to year-round residency which disallow subletting and short-term rentals. Such restrictions keep them from becoming vacation rentals. Keeping them small/dense largely keeps the rich away and means very little water usage. Building in town allows people to live where they work, so almost no impact on traffic.

HaHaHa. I live in an expensive, non-resort town. Our enlightened community leaders have been aggressively promoting this kind of smart housing development. You cannot believe the blowback from the Nimbys and BANANAs ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" - or "anyone").

The latest two are typical. In the first, the owners of some recently build zero lot line homes don't want the church across the street to provide a few semi-permanent houses (along with social support to get them on their feet) for the homeless behind the church. Funny, all the things they're saying now are what were being said when their project was proposed. Next, the heirs of a long-time a landowner have decided to sell their old ranch to a not-the-highest-bidder respected developer of Age In Place Communities. Over 25% of our citizens are older than 65 and we have nothing this comprehensive, so the need is definitely there. The leader of the effort to block it lives in a nearby PUD. Guess what? The neighbors didn't want her complex built either. Oh, and our town has one of the highest percentages of Open Space in the State. Go figure.

[FINate]

HaHaHa. I live in an expensive, non-resort town. Our enlightened community leaders have been aggressively promoting this kind of smart housing development. You cannot believe the blowback from the Nimbys and BANANAs ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" - or "anyone").

Oh, I believe it, have seen it my entire adult life. The important thing is to always let perfect be the enemy of the good, that way people can say nice sounding things like caring about the poor while stabbing them in the back. "I support more affordable housing, just not this project because bla bla bla" Actually doing something tangible never rises to the level of higher priorities like preserving one's view or keeping people out of the neighborhood. "Let them commute" is the new "let them eat cake."

The latest two are typical. In the first, the owners of some recently build zero lot line homes don't want the church across the street to provide a few semi-permanent houses (along with social support to get them on their feet) for the homeless behind the church. Funny, all the things they're saying now are what were being said when their project was proposed. Next, the heirs of a long-time a landowner have decided to sell their old ranch to a not-the-highest-bidder respected developer of Age In Place Communities. Over 25% of our citizens are older than 65 and we have nothing this comprehensive, so the need is definitely there. The leader of the effort to block it lives in a nearby PUD. Guess what? The neighbors didn't want her complex built either. Oh, and our town has one of the highest percentages of Open Space in the State. Go figure.

Yes indeed to the bolded. The same arguments are being made here (ex-Californians bringing their ways?), but so far the system has called BS. Take for example the following quote from the judge in this case:

“The numerous existing homes surrounding this area on at least three sides have already caused loss of visual context, loss of wildlife habitat and rural uses, etc.,” Williamson wrote. “And presumably, many of NWNA’s members presumably live in the housing developments surrounding this area, and their housing developments presumably caused the same conditions they now object to.”

[PMJL34]

I watched the video.

That restaurant owner was the worst lol.

I feel for the "homeless" pizza worker. Are room rentals not a thing in this city?

As an owner of a rental in one of the most liberal cities in the world... this video really scared me. I fear that taxation/fees/penalties for second properties becoming a very real thing. I feel conflicted.

[Freedomin5]

I’ve only ever lived in HCOL cities in three different countries. It is entirely possible to live frugally within a low budget.

I lived on $1000/month in LA as a very poor grad student. Lived in a two-bedroom with three other roommates. $325/month for rent. Had a car and paid $200/month in gas+maintenance+insurance. $100/month for groceries. Health insurance covered by my university.

Then moved to HCOL Vancouver. Lived in a basement apartment for $800/month (no roommate). Biked to work. Groceries were around $100/month. Car/transportation costs were around $200/month.

I currently live in VHCOL Shanghai. We (family of 3) spend around $1000/month. We househack by having work contracts that include housing, health insurance, and private school tuition. The $1000/month includes utilities, DD’s lessons, a weekly house cleaner and imported expensive groceries.

[former player]

I watched the video.

That restaurant owner was the worst lol.

I feel for the "homeless" pizza worker. Are room rentals not a thing in this city?

As an owner of a rental in one of the most liberal cities in the world... this video really scared me. I fear that taxation/fees/penalties for second properties becoming a very real thing. I feel conflicted.

In areas of housing shortage I'm all in favour of extra taxation for residential properties that aren't being used as permanent housing.  So holiday homes, second homes, short-term rentals (airbnb and such) and vacant properties should all be taxed more heavily than properties being used as permanent housing.  Using taxation is the best way to get under-utilised assets back into full use and also helps even out unequal distributions of assets.

[clarkfan1979]

I watched the video.

That restaurant owner was the worst lol.

I feel for the "homeless" pizza worker. Are room rentals not a thing in this city?

As an owner of a rental in one of the most liberal cities in the world... this video really scared me. I fear that taxation/fees/penalties for second properties becoming a very real thing. I feel conflicted.

In areas of housing shortage I'm all in favour of extra taxation for residential properties that aren't being used as permanent housing.  So holiday homes, second homes, short-term rentals (airbnb and such) and vacant properties should all be taxed more heavily than properties being used as permanent housing.  Using taxation is the best way to get under-utilised assets back into full use and also helps even out unequal distributions of assets.

Agreed. Property taxes seem to be under-utilized.

Property taxes in Florida and Hawaii are cheaper for houses that are a primary residence. When I lost the owner occupied discount for my house in Florida, the property taxes went up from $1350/year to $2600/year. When I lost the owner occupied discount for my house in Hawaii, the property taxes went up from $1520/year to $3840/year.

My father got pushed out of his primary residence as an owner because the property taxes were too expensive. He bought his home in 1989 for $145,000. It was a bigger house (needed work), on a bigger lot (.5 acres) on a lake in a suburb of Chicago (Lake County). I don't know his original property taxes or his original mortgage. However, in 2006 he sold for $450,000 because he was struggling to pay the property taxes of $11,600/year and save for retirement. He was a construction worker (pipe-fitter). My dad loved that house. He put his heart and soul into it for 17 years thinking he would own it forever.

He was also 57 years old and 5 years away from retirement. After he sold, he moved into a trailer park so he could save more money for retirement. The value on zillow is now 880K and the taxes are $24,000/year. The new owners did do some extensive renovations. If my dad kept the house "as is", the value would be 600K and his taxes would be $15,400/year. 

[Dicey]

Illinois has some of the highest property taxes in the country. Top 3, IIRC. For better or for worse, CA's Prop 13 and its successors have prevented that from happening. Sucks that that happened to your Dad.

[affordablehousing]

Until CA repeals Prop 13 the state will always have an issue. Let it fester....

[roomtempmayo]

The guy with the truck used to be able to live in a crappy place in town and work at the pizza place, and now he can't. Neither can anyone else in town, including people who don't own clown trucks and actually do save money.

To riff on Tom Ritchey... mountains, amenities, affordability: pick two.

[FINate]

Until CA repeals Prop 13 the state will always have an issue. Let it fester....

CA will need to chip away at Prop 13 in the coming years, it's simply unsustainable to have so many homeowners paying so little in property taxes. The recent passage of Prop 19 limiting passing on of low taxes to heirs is a good start. Prop 13 supporters are quick to trot out elderly widows that need lower taxes to stay in their homes, however, statistically, it's the wealthy that benefit most. There are better and more targeted ways to help those that really need tax relief. E.g. property tax deferment for those over 65 under a certain income limit, with the deferred taxes paid when the estate is settled.

[GodlessCommie]

HaHaHa. I live in an expensive, non-resort town. Our enlightened community leaders have been aggressively promoting this kind of smart housing development. You cannot believe the blowback from the Nimbys and BANANAs ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" - or "anyone").

The latest developing trend is to replace community input meetings with demographically representative surveys. Only a certain class of people is able and willing to regularly come and yell at county board or town council. They don't represent the community in any way. It's difficult to get rid of public meetings entirely, since it *feels* anti-small-d-democratic, but there's absolutely no reason to use them in decision making process. Listen, point to a survey, do what you planned to do. Come election, point to what you've done.

[Dicey]

HaHaHa. I live in an expensive, non-resort town. Our enlightened community leaders have been aggressively promoting this kind of smart housing development. You cannot believe the blowback from the Nimbys and BANANAs ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" - or "anyone").

The latest developing trend is to replace community input meetings with demographically representative surveys. Only a certain class of people is able and willing to regularly come and yell at county board or town council. They don't represent the community in any way. It's difficult to get rid of public meetings entirely, since it *feels* anti-small-d-democratic, but there's absolutely no reason to use them in decision making process. Listen, point to a survey, do what you planned to do. Come election, point to what you've done.

Um, that's absolutely not what's happening in my community.

[therethere]

Disclaimer, I did not watch the video. But I think you're off the mark on this one. It's showing quite a bit of a chip on your shoulder too. While it's a conscious choice to live in these communities the fact is these workers are needed by the rich. And they are making money off their backs while also insanely driving up their cost of living. Who is going to clean their Airbnb's and serve them their pizza? Commuting an hour daily in the mountains sounds like hell and a recipe for major car accidents. Crested Butte to Gunnison is 30 minutes in the summer. It is not 30 minutes in the winter. And besides, do you really want your lift operator or ski medic to have 2 hours of harrowing commute every day if your safety is any part of their job? If they can't afford rent they likely can't afford snow tires either.

I was in Silverton recently. There are workers living on USFS land in a bus and will likely be there over the the winter. There is a hotel where there workers are living in bunks in the basement. Almost everywhere I camped this year there was at least one site that was someone's home. I'm not talking about someone RV'ing around the country. Literally people who had tents covered with all their belongings. That's completely ridiculous. Meanwhile downtown they're only building million dollar houses that will get bought for second homes and rentals.

Have some empathy. They are making a choice, but it's still sad that basically the worker class is getting completely pushed out. They are needed and they should be supported. Also, they're not all ski bums looking to live somewhere cool. Some of them are locals getting pushed out of their hometowns. The mountain towns have lost a ton of their character and activity. Airbnb's  and second homes have ruined so many neighborhoods and towns.

[FINate]

Yep, and it's happening in mountain towns all over. We were in Ketchum/Sun Valley last weekend and the same dynamic is happening there. They have a noticeable worker shortage, worse than other areas, and understandable angst about short term rentals. But also, a history of wealthy property owners killing new housing. From the article linked above:

Several speakers at the meeting pointed the finger at wealthy, lawyered-up residents who fight to choke out any attempts at building affordable apartment complexes or homes in the City of Ketchum. The mayor admitted that "neighborhoods rose up and resisted" prior planned projects, effectively halting them from going forward. Tax credit applications - designed to incentivize private investors to build lower-cost housing - repeatedly died on the vine.

Ketchum is very much like other wealthy resort towns such as Jackson Hole and Crested Butte. It skews heavily affluent, white, college educated, and Democratic. Since when did the Dems become the party that hates poor people?

[former player]

Yep, and it's happening in mountain towns all over. We were in Ketchum/Sun Valley last weekend and the same dynamic is happening there. They have a noticeable worker shortage, worse than other areas, and understandable angst about short term rentals. But also, a history of wealthy property owners killing new housing. From the article linked above:

Several speakers at the meeting pointed the finger at wealthy, lawyered-up residents who fight to choke out any attempts at building affordable apartment complexes or homes in the City of Ketchum. The mayor admitted that "neighborhoods rose up and resisted" prior planned projects, effectively halting them from going forward. Tax credit applications - designed to incentivize private investors to build lower-cost housing - repeatedly died on the vine.

Ketchum is very much like other wealthy resort towns such as Jackson Hole and Crested Butte. It skews heavily affluent, white, college educated, and Democratic. Since when did the Dems become the party that hates poor people?

Voting has turned into a cultural choice rather than an economic or social one. 

Plus, people are selfish, and quite likely rich people are more selfish than most - that's partly how they get rich.  You can see the same thing with carbon emissions - all those rich people with second houses think nothing of the carbon costs of an under-utilised carbon-expensive house (all construction is carbon-expensive) plus the travel costs of going back and forth, and if challenged just say that their money will protect them from the worst effects of climate change.

[waltworks]

Plus, people are selfish, and quite likely rich people are more selfish than most - that's partly how they get rich.  You can see the same thing with carbon emissions - all those rich people with second houses think nothing of the carbon costs of an under-utilised carbon-expensive house (all construction is carbon-expensive) plus the travel costs of going back and forth, and if challenged just say that their money will protect them from the worst effects of climate change.

Even on this very forum we have people who claim they are very concerned with climate change who are also simultaneously discussing how to hack travel credit cards and fly all over the world for fun.

As a rich person who lives in a fancy mountain town, if I have to choose cheap housing and crowds of people or expensive housing and people unable to afford to live here, I guess I'd probably choose expensive housing and less people. It's ok with me if there's no pizza place anymore, I don't live here to go to restaurants. Hell, I'd be fine if the ski resort closed. But that's just me.

-W

[joenorm]

This OP is pretty lame. Reminds me of all the the boomers in my area thinking they're geniuses for accidentally getting lucky with appreciating real estate throughout their lives.

I see interesting and creative people having to straight up leave my community because housing is ether non-existent or too expensive.

With those people leaving the spirit of the place leaves, too. It's not bad enough for me to want to move, and I have no idea what to do about it besides support community housing efforts.

Not to mention all the restaurants are closing for lack of workers, so none of the rich people can eat out anyway.

Pretty much sucks for everyone.

[GodlessCommie]

Since when did the Dems become the party that hates poor people?

But I put a BLM sign in my yard! What more can be expected of me?

/sarcasm off

[clarkfan1979]

Plus, people are selfish, and quite likely rich people are more selfish than most - that's partly how they get rich.  You can see the same thing with carbon emissions - all those rich people with second houses think nothing of the carbon costs of an under-utilised carbon-expensive house (all construction is carbon-expensive) plus the travel costs of going back and forth, and if challenged just say that their money will protect them from the worst effects of climate change.

Even on this very forum we have people who claim they are very concerned with climate change who are also simultaneously discussing how to hack travel credit cards and fly all over the world for fun.

As a rich person who lives in a fancy mountain town, if I have to choose cheap housing and crowds of people or expensive housing and people unable to afford to live here, I guess I'd probably choose expensive housing and less people. It's ok with me if there's no pizza place anymore, I don't live here to go to restaurants. Hell, I'd be fine if the ski resort closed. But that's just me.

-W

Even on this very forum we have people who claim they are very concerned with climate change who are also simultaneously discussing how to hack travel credit cards and fly all over the world for fun.

If this was directed at me. I visited my parents and rental house in Florida. I also visited my rental house in Hawaii. I never said that I was "very concerned".

I am concerned about climate change. I also get on airplanes. I also try to save money on flights and share that info with other people so they can do the same.

My driving behavior to the mountains to go snowboarding is probably worse for carbon footprint than my flying.

[clarkfan1979]

Disclaimer, I did not watch the video. But I think you're off the mark on this one. It's showing quite a bit of a chip on your shoulder too. While it's a conscious choice to live in these communities the fact is these workers are needed by the rich. And they are making money off their backs while also insanely driving up their cost of living. Who is going to clean their Airbnb's and serve them their pizza? Commuting an hour daily in the mountains sounds like hell and a recipe for major car accidents. Crested Butte to Gunnison is 30 minutes in the summer. It is not 30 minutes in the winter. And besides, do you really want your lift operator or ski medic to have 2 hours of harrowing commute every day if your safety is any part of their job? If they can't afford rent they likely can't afford snow tires either.

I was in Silverton recently. There are workers living on USFS land in a bus and will likely be there over the the winter. There is a hotel where there workers are living in bunks in the basement. Almost everywhere I camped this year there was at least one site that was someone's home. I'm not talking about someone RV'ing around the country. Literally people who had tents covered with all their belongings. That's completely ridiculous. Meanwhile downtown they're only building million dollar houses that will get bought for second homes and rentals.

Have some empathy. They are making a choice, but it's still sad that basically the worker class is getting completely pushed out. They are needed and they should be supported. Also, they're not all ski bums looking to live somewhere cool. Some of them are locals getting pushed out of their hometowns. The mountain towns have lost a ton of their character and activity. Airbnb's  and second homes have ruined so many neighborhoods and towns.

Not trying to win the argument. Just sharing my experience.

I know construction workers that camped in the woods in Telluride, CO in the late 1990's. Some of their friends bought houses in Norwood and did the commute.

I rented a mother-in-law suite in Frisco, CO in 2002-2003 for $500/month. I would read stories in the Summit County paper of people camping in the woods because they didn't want to pay the unaffordable rent.

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, 40 miles away from the city center. The typical commute for workers was 1 hour into the city and 1.5 hours on the way home. My mother did that 5 days/week for 25 years. At least 25% of the families in my hometown had at least one parent that did that commute. The school would allow kid drop-off starting at 6:45 a.m. and the bell rung at 7:55 a.m.

[therethere]

Disclaimer, I did not watch the video. But I think you're off the mark on this one. It's showing quite a bit of a chip on your shoulder too. While it's a conscious choice to live in these communities the fact is these workers are needed by the rich. And they are making money off their backs while also insanely driving up their cost of living. Who is going to clean their Airbnb's and serve them their pizza? Commuting an hour daily in the mountains sounds like hell and a recipe for major car accidents. Crested Butte to Gunnison is 30 minutes in the summer. It is not 30 minutes in the winter. And besides, do you really want your lift operator or ski medic to have 2 hours of harrowing commute every day if your safety is any part of their job? If they can't afford rent they likely can't afford snow tires either.

I was in Silverton recently. There are workers living on USFS land in a bus and will likely be there over the the winter. There is a hotel where there workers are living in bunks in the basement. Almost everywhere I camped this year there was at least one site that was someone's home. I'm not talking about someone RV'ing around the country. Literally people who had tents covered with all their belongings. That's completely ridiculous. Meanwhile downtown they're only building million dollar houses that will get bought for second homes and rentals.

Have some empathy. They are making a choice, but it's still sad that basically the worker class is getting completely pushed out. They are needed and they should be supported. Also, they're not all ski bums looking to live somewhere cool. Some of them are locals getting pushed out of their hometowns. The mountain towns have lost a ton of their character and activity. Airbnb's  and second homes have ruined so many neighborhoods and towns.

Not trying to win the argument. Just sharing my experience.

I know construction workers that camped in the woods in Telluride, CO in the late 1990's. Some of their friends bought houses in Norwood and did the commute.

I rented a mother-in-law suite in Frisco, CO in 2002-2003 for $500/month. I would read stories in the Summit County paper of people camping in the woods because they didn't want to pay the unaffordable rent.

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, 40 miles away from the city center. The typical commute for workers was 1 hour into the city and 1.5 hours on the way home. My mother did that 5 days/week for 25 years. At least 25% of the families in my hometown had at least one parent that did that commute. The school would allow kid drop-off starting at 6:45 a.m. and the bell rung at 7:55 a.m.

I'm not trying to discount your experience. I too had an hour+ commute each way to my first job due to rent. Heck my DH had one up until a few months ago.

But I think the main thing here is that COVID, remote working, and other factors like Airbnb have exponentially raised the rent in a very, very short timeline. Something they could have afforded a year ago could have gone up 25%+. If they even were offered a choice. Two years ago, it's even more. Having external circumstances drastically upend your life in a very short amount of time with little to no warning does not leave many options. It's very hard to accept a forced drastic life change so quickly. Not everyone can pivot quickly or even imagine other options so soon. Also, moving in itself isn't cheap. You still need first/last/security on whatever rent (and now that amount is even higher). A year or so might not have been enough for people to plan for such a change that was not of their own making. Especially since the lower end of workers were typically hit the hardest with layoffs during COVID. Calling that "victim mentality" is a little over the top in my opinion with all the major changes over the past year.

[clarkfan1979]

Disclaimer, I did not watch the video. But I think you're off the mark on this one. It's showing quite a bit of a chip on your shoulder too. While it's a conscious choice to live in these communities the fact is these workers are needed by the rich. And they are making money off their backs while also insanely driving up their cost of living. Who is going to clean their Airbnb's and serve them their pizza? Commuting an hour daily in the mountains sounds like hell and a recipe for major car accidents. Crested Butte to Gunnison is 30 minutes in the summer. It is not 30 minutes in the winter. And besides, do you really want your lift operator or ski medic to have 2 hours of harrowing commute every day if your safety is any part of their job? If they can't afford rent they likely can't afford snow tires either.

I was in Silverton recently. There are workers living on USFS land in a bus and will likely be there over the the winter. There is a hotel where there workers are living in bunks in the basement. Almost everywhere I camped this year there was at least one site that was someone's home. I'm not talking about someone RV'ing around the country. Literally people who had tents covered with all their belongings. That's completely ridiculous. Meanwhile downtown they're only building million dollar houses that will get bought for second homes and rentals.

Have some empathy. They are making a choice, but it's still sad that basically the worker class is getting completely pushed out. They are needed and they should be supported. Also, they're not all ski bums looking to live somewhere cool. Some of them are locals getting pushed out of their hometowns. The mountain towns have lost a ton of their character and activity. Airbnb's  and second homes have ruined so many neighborhoods and towns.

Not trying to win the argument. Just sharing my experience.

I know construction workers that camped in the woods in Telluride, CO in the late 1990's. Some of their friends bought houses in Norwood and did the commute.

I rented a mother-in-law suite in Frisco, CO in 2002-2003 for $500/month. I would read stories in the Summit County paper of people camping in the woods because they didn't want to pay the unaffordable rent.

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, 40 miles away from the city center. The typical commute for workers was 1 hour into the city and 1.5 hours on the way home. My mother did that 5 days/week for 25 years. At least 25% of the families in my hometown had at least one parent that did that commute. The school would allow kid drop-off starting at 6:45 a.m. and the bell rung at 7:55 a.m.

I'm not trying to discount your experience. I too had an hour+ commute each way to my first job due to rent. Heck my DH had one up until a few months ago.

But I think the main thing here is that COVID, remote working, and other factors like Airbnb have exponentially raised the rent in a very, very short timeline. Something they could have afforded a year ago could have gone up 25%+. If they even were offered a choice. Two years ago, it's even more. Having external circumstances drastically upend your life in a very short amount of time with little to no warning does not leave many options. It's very hard to accept a forced drastic life change so quickly. Not everyone can pivot quickly or even imagine other options so soon. Also, moving in itself isn't cheap. You still need first/last/security on whatever rent (and now that amount is even higher). A year or so might not have been enough for people to plan for such a change that was not of their own making. Especially since the lower end of workers were typically hit the hardest with layoffs during COVID. Calling that "victim mentality" is a little over the top in my opinion with all the major changes over the past year.

That's fair. You make some good points based on the quickness of change.

[waltworks]

I was not referring to you specifically, Clarkfan.

Air travel has about a 50% higher carbon footprint than car travel *per kilometer* (assuming an economy class plane ticket and single passenger in the car). One flight to Fl and back is probably equivalent to several seasons of driving back and forth to Breck every day.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

-W

[dandarc]

On the non-owner-occupied property taxes. I actually think there should be some equalization there between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied property taxes. That higher tax rate surely gets passed on to renters, and landlords don't like it either.

When you're talking about housing people live in long term, why should a renter via their landlord be paying more property tax than an owner-occupier does? Hard pressed to come up with a better answer than "that's just the political reality of the situation".

Make no mistake - I take the homestead exemption and like my save-our-homes differential as much as the next person. But there's absolutely no reason I deserve these benefits any more than the folks on our street who are renting.

[lhamo]

It's kind of a shame that the city council didn't consider using a carrot rather than a stick approach -- perhaps some kind of tax write-off for adding a rental unit or two to a new build and guaranteeing that those units are rented out to a low- or moderate-income longer term resident of the area?  The restaurant owner seems the clearest headed of the bunch -- she understands that her workers need affordable places to live if she is going to keep her businesses running.

I think in this case it is the property owners that are showing more of a victim mentality.  As if they couldn't absorb slightly higher taxes.  Really they are worried about the demand dropping before they cash in.  There are also probably PLENTY of long-term landowners in that area who could easily put up more affordable housing and still make a profit if they really wanted to, assuming the zoning allows for it.  You could easily build a small complex of studio and 1br apartments in the space that one of those crazy big houses take up.  Of course you probably wouldn't want to "waste" that view on the cheaper rents.  But you could have basement and ground level smaller units and still get the $$$$ rents for the upper floors. 

[GodlessCommie]

BTW, in case you are sympathetic to cool, contributing to the vibe homeowners of yesteryear... Under whose watch all those zoning ordinances were passed and maintained? Yep. First, we want our small town to remain small. To not have THOSE people living nearby. Then money that's bigger than yours come in, and suddenly it's you who are THOSE people, being priced out and squeezed out. Funny how it works, no?

[FINate]

The saga continues: https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/essays-culture/how-to-save-a-ski-town-west-tourism-economy/

[clarkfan1979]

I was not referring to you specifically, Clarkfan.

Air travel has about a 50% higher carbon footprint than car travel *per kilometer* (assuming an economy class plane ticket and single passenger in the car). One flight to Fl and back is probably equivalent to several seasons of driving back and forth to Breck every day.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

-W

I clicked on the link. I agree with your overall conclusion.

However, according to the article, it says long haul flights produce 102g of carbon per kilometer and single passenger cars produce 171g of carbon. Based on my math, single passenger cars produce 68% more carbon than long haul flights, per person, per kilometer.

One round trip flight from Denver to Kauai is about 7,000 miles with a connection. This seems to be the equivalent of 4,200 miles driven. My drive to Breckenridge is 250 miles (round trip). One round-trip to Kauai, seems to be the equivalent of 17 trips to Breckenridge.

Thanks for sharing. It was a good mental exercise.   

[windytrail]

We live in one of the most expensive markets in the country. Our solution is to live in an old, small apartment unit, 570 sq ft for $1800/mo (15% of our after-tax income). It's rent-controlled, but we are still basically paying market-rate 2 years later due to the slump in rent prices in our area during COVID. Employ the standard Mustachian tactics: we save thousands a year by biking everywhere and not owning a car. In theory, we could almost afford one of the rare condo units in the area for sale at $600-700k, but we've decided it's just not worth it for that price. Better to stockpile the carrots in VTSAX for now.

If you are outraged about high housing costs in your community, the solution is to demand from your politicians more housing at ALL income levels (from low-income to market-rate).  They will listen. This country has done a particularly poor job at building "missing middle" housing, buildings ranging from 2-4 units that blend in well with existing neighborhoods. For years, it's been only the voice of the NIMBYs that has predominated, but us pro-housing folk are starting to make it a real fight, in certain areas at least. We need your help!

[FINate]

IMO, folks should move somewhere more livable at let the rich people experience the consequences of pricing out the workers.

Well how about that, it's happening: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/locals-are-priced-colorado-mountain-towns-fight-keep-workers-rcna17970 Ok, CB isn't mentioned specifically, but apparently this is happening in ski towns in general:

In Telluride, only one or two restaurants were open last summer because there weren’t enough workers to keep the others going, said Hayley Nenadal, a filmmaker who lives in the historic town known for its challenging ski slopes and annual film festival.

“You just don’t get coffee anymore, or you just don’t go to dinner anymore, or you just don’t have a place for your friends to gather anymore,” Nenadal said. “The large impact people feel is a loss of community and the loss of quality of life.”

Poor things, no hoi polloi to serve food or drink!  It's almost as if years of exclusionary housing policy has consequences. Gosh, I feel really bad for them /s

[Dicey]

We live in one of the most expensive markets in the country. Our solution is to live in an old, small apartment unit, 570 sq ft for $1800/mo (15% of our after-tax income). It's rent-controlled, but we are still basically paying market-rate 2 years later due to the slump in rent prices in our area during COVID. Employ the standard Mustachian tactics: we save thousands a year by biking everywhere and not owning a car. In theory, we could almost afford one of the rare condo units in the area for sale at $600-700k, but we've decided it's just not worth it for that price. Better to stockpile the carrots in VTSAX for now.

If you are outraged about high housing costs in your community, the solution is to demand from your politicians more housing at ALL income levels (from low-income to market-rate).  They will listen. This country has done a particularly poor job at building "missing middle" housing, buildings ranging from 2-4 units that blend in well with existing neighborhoods. For years, it's been only the voice of the NIMBYs that has predominated, but us pro-housing folk are starting to make it a real fight, in certain areas at least. We need your help!

I completely agree with this and have some additional thoughts.

People blame corporations and airbnbs, etc. for the current showing shortage/price run-ups. But there are other key factors at play. During the Great Recession, builders everywhere lost their asses. Those that managed to survive or rose from the ashes were very cautious. They read the tea leaves very carefully so they didn't get blindsided again. Demographers declared convincingly that Millennials were going to be lifelong Urban Renters, not Home Buyers, so the majority of Bay Area* building focused on multi-family rentals, i.e. "Stack 'n Pack" apartments along transit corridors. This relates to what you're saying, @windytrail, because the politicians listened to the Demographer's studies and predictions, because that's how things are done.

Except the Millenials graduated from college and landed high paying jobs. They got married and started having babies and their fancy apartments became less attractive. They want houses now. We go to a lot of Open Houses, which are a constant stream of young parents with babes in arms, strollers, backpacks, in utero or some combination thereof. It's hilarious! The historically low interest rates make their new dreams possible.

I'm not blaming Millenials one bit. Everyone is entitled to their dreams. It's just that the Demographers and other prognosticators were so very, very wrong. These artificial generational designations forget that humans are not all so different from one another. Seriously, I think it's a construct designed to sell us more shit. Look how that's turned out.

*This phenomenon exists all over, but the Bay Area market is the one I know best.

[FINate]

Demographers declared convincingly that Millennials were going to be lifelong Urban Renters, not Home Buyers, so the majority of Bay Area* building focused on multi-family rentals, i.e. "Stack 'n Pack" apartments along transit corridors.

I see things differently. During the 2010s the Bay Area added just 1 unit of housing per every 6 jobs. The results of such extreme supply-demand imbalance are obvious. Deriding multi-family as "stack 'n pack" is a familiar trope in the the Bay Area, and the common refrain is "no one wants to live there" which  is really a dog whistle for "we don't want these people as neighbors!" Interestingly, such multi-family buildings generally don't have problems filling units. Certainly, there was a flight to more space during the pandemic, which softened rents, but this was largely resolved by market forces. If apartment buildings were sitting empty, then I would agree that millennials (or whoever) just don't want to live in cities, but I'm not convinced this is true. Instead, no-growth policies created a housing shortage and subsequent housing crisis as prices spiked, thereby pricing people out of the area and into exurban sprawl. This is so well documented that I'm not going to waste time looking up supporting data/articles -- it's all there and easy to find for those willing to take even a cursory look.

My prediction: Future historians will not look fondly on this era of the Bay Area. It will be remembered as a time when an entire region squandered a golden opportunity to create a thriving community that promoted inclusion, racial justice, upward economic mobility, and healthy dense walkable/bikeable cities that would become an example for the rest of the US on how to break the dependency on cars and car-centric suburbs. And they did so because current homeowners feared change, feared outsiders, and instead created economically gated communities. There are signs of change, but I fear it's too little too late. It's very sad.

I have hope, however, for other places in the US doing the right thing. Boise isn't perfect, and as more Californians move here I fear they will bring their NIMBYism, but for now the city is doing the right thing. City Council recently rejected a zoning revamp because it wasn't dense enough! Such a thing is almost unheard of in CA. https://boisedev.com/news/2022/03/02/boise-zoning-code-feedback/

“I look at how this is written today. It’s written in large part based on what we’ve built over the last 50 or 60 years with those kinds of setbacks and height limitations,” Clegg said. “It’s not necessarily based on what we’d like to see get built, especially in a new environment.”

Nearly every council member chimed in with ideas on how to make the draft more aggressive toward the goal of building more infill housing and creating a more walkable, public transit-friendly city. 

There was also support for shrinking the minimum lot size to allow for more homes on smaller pieces of land. Council Member Bageant pointed out that many of the city’s most valuable homes in the North End would not be allowed to be constructed today because of their small lot size, which he said should not continue into the next era of the city’s zoning code. 

And my favorite quote:

“In my mind, we don’t want to build moats around the richest parts of our town and make them even more valuable as we exclude even more people from coming in,” he said. “…Protecting the neighborhood in my mind is protecting the neighborhood, safe, accessible, open, economic opportunity, all walks of life. That’s what we want to protect. That’s not the same as not allowing development of a certain kind or protecting uses from other uses.”

[samanil]

I used to have a victim mentality here in Seattle, doing carpentry. I burned out badly (much of my energy and money being expended on trivial things), so I went to Baja where I lived in a hut I rented for $150 per month. In that time I read all of MMMs articles and took long barefoot walks on the beach.

With a revolutionized attitude, I went back to Seattle, posted a "looking for housing" ad on craigslist and found a room with a fellow carpenter, in a prime location, with a huge deck and a world class view. It's 1k per month. In the first year I made more than I needed for rent simply by side hustling--doing food delivery with my ebike right in my neighborhood. I put away a ton of cash, with a relatively modest income. It's been amazing to witness the transformation between "victim" and "winner" within myself, and not just internally--but also in the RESULTS that that attitude change created.

It's sad how many people have a victim mentality. My roommate for example makes $10 more per hour than me, yet feels like it's not nearly enough (he lives paycheck to paycheck) and complains about how expensive everything is. He eats out for lunch everyday, and when he gets home he watches TV and drinks for hours. He's a good guy, but his behaviors are the problem, not his income or how expensive things are. I tried to communicate this to him but he wouldn't listen. I probably won't try anymore in the future, with him or others, because it's wasted energy.

[Dicey]

Demographers declared convincingly that Millennials were going to be lifelong Urban Renters, not Home Buyers, so the majority of Bay Area* building focused on multi-family rentals, i.e. "Stack 'n Pack" apartments along transit corridors.

I see things differently. During the 2010s the Bay Area added just 1 unit of housing per every 6 jobs. The results of such extreme supply-demand imbalance are obvious. Deriding multi-family as "stack 'n pack" is a familiar trope in the the Bay Area, and the common refrain is "no one wants to live there" which  is really a dog whistle for "we don't want these people as neighbors!" Interestingly, such multi-family buildings generally don't have problems filling units. Certainly, there was a flight to more space during the pandemic, which softened rents, but this was largely resolved by market forces. If apartment buildings were sitting empty, then I would agree that millennials (or whoever) just don't want to live in cities, but I'm not convinced this is true. Instead, no-growth policies created a housing shortage and subsequent housing crisis as prices spiked, thereby pricing people out of the area and into exurban sprawl. This is so well documented that I'm not going to waste time looking up supporting data/articles -- it's all there and easy to find for those willing to take even a cursory look.

My prediction: Future historians will not look fondly on this era of the Bay Area. It will be remembered as a time when an entire region squandered a golden opportunity to create a thriving community that promoted inclusion, racial justice, upward economic mobility, and healthy dense walkable/bikeable cities that would become an example for the rest of the US on how to break the dependency on cars and car-centric suburbs. And they did so because current homeowners feared change, feared outsiders, and instead created economically gated communities. There are signs of change, but I fear it's too little too late. It's very sad.

I have hope, however, for other places in the US doing the right thing. Boise isn't perfect, and as more Californians move here I fear they will bring their NIMBYism, but for now the city is doing the right thing. City Council recently rejected a zoning revamp because it wasn't dense enough! Such a thing is almost unheard of in CA. https://boisedev.com/news/2022/03/02/boise-zoning-code-feedback/

“I look at how this is written today. It’s written in large part based on what we’ve built over the last 50 or 60 years with those kinds of setbacks and height limitations,” Clegg said. “It’s not necessarily based on what we’d like to see get built, especially in a new environment.”

Nearly every council member chimed in with ideas on how to make the draft more aggressive toward the goal of building more infill housing and creating a more walkable, public transit-friendly city. 

There was also support for shrinking the minimum lot size to allow for more homes on smaller pieces of land. Council Member Bageant pointed out that many of the city’s most valuable homes in the North End would not be allowed to be constructed today because of their small lot size, which he said should not continue into the next era of the city’s zoning code. 

And my favorite quote:

“In my mind, we don’t want to build moats around the richest parts of our town and make them even more valuable as we exclude even more people from coming in,” he said. “…Protecting the neighborhood in my mind is protecting the neighborhood, safe, accessible, open, economic opportunity, all walks of life. That’s what we want to protect. That’s not the same as not allowing development of a certain kind or protecting uses from other uses.”

I used "Stack 'n Pack" as a descriptor, not a pejorative. Nothing wrong with them, IMO. It's just that Millenials are finding they want something more, which is causing unanticipated market pressure.

[FINate]

Demographers declared convincingly that Millennials were going to be lifelong Urban Renters, not Home Buyers, so the majority of Bay Area* building focused on multi-family rentals, i.e. "Stack 'n Pack" apartments along transit corridors.

I see things differently. During the 2010s the Bay Area added just 1 unit of housing per every 6 jobs. The results of such extreme supply-demand imbalance are obvious. Deriding multi-family as "stack 'n pack" is a familiar trope in the the Bay Area, and the common refrain is "no one wants to live there" which  is really a dog whistle for "we don't want these people as neighbors!" Interestingly, such multi-family buildings generally don't have problems filling units. Certainly, there was a flight to more space during the pandemic, which softened rents, but this was largely resolved by market forces. If apartment buildings were sitting empty, then I would agree that millennials (or whoever) just don't want to live in cities, but I'm not convinced this is true. Instead, no-growth policies created a housing shortage and subsequent housing crisis as prices spiked, thereby pricing people out of the area and into exurban sprawl. This is so well documented that I'm not going to waste time looking up supporting data/articles -- it's all there and easy to find for those willing to take even a cursory look.

My prediction: Future historians will not look fondly on this era of the Bay Area. It will be remembered as a time when an entire region squandered a golden opportunity to create a thriving community that promoted inclusion, racial justice, upward economic mobility, and healthy dense walkable/bikeable cities that would become an example for the rest of the US on how to break the dependency on cars and car-centric suburbs. And they did so because current homeowners feared change, feared outsiders, and instead created economically gated communities. There are signs of change, but I fear it's too little too late. It's very sad.

I have hope, however, for other places in the US doing the right thing. Boise isn't perfect, and as more Californians move here I fear they will bring their NIMBYism, but for now the city is doing the right thing. City Council recently rejected a zoning revamp because it wasn't dense enough! Such a thing is almost unheard of in CA. https://boisedev.com/news/2022/03/02/boise-zoning-code-feedback/

“I look at how this is written today. It’s written in large part based on what we’ve built over the last 50 or 60 years with those kinds of setbacks and height limitations,” Clegg said. “It’s not necessarily based on what we’d like to see get built, especially in a new environment.”

Nearly every council member chimed in with ideas on how to make the draft more aggressive toward the goal of building more infill housing and creating a more walkable, public transit-friendly city. 

There was also support for shrinking the minimum lot size to allow for more homes on smaller pieces of land. Council Member Bageant pointed out that many of the city’s most valuable homes in the North End would not be allowed to be constructed today because of their small lot size, which he said should not continue into the next era of the city’s zoning code. 

And my favorite quote:

“In my mind, we don’t want to build moats around the richest parts of our town and make them even more valuable as we exclude even more people from coming in,” he said. “…Protecting the neighborhood in my mind is protecting the neighborhood, safe, accessible, open, economic opportunity, all walks of life. That’s what we want to protect. That’s not the same as not allowing development of a certain kind or protecting uses from other uses.”

I used "Stack 'n Pack" as a descriptor, not a pejorative. Nothing wrong with them, IMO. It's just that Millenials are finding they want something more, which is causing unanticipated market pressure.

I've never heard "stack n' pack" used in positive or even neutral sense, so thanks for the clarification.

I still wonder if millennials really prefer SFH, or if we just haven't built what they want. I.e. given the choice between a suburban track home vs. an affordable condo/apartment in a safe walkable urban environment near clean parks and a vibrant nightlife and good schools, what would people prefer... I would choose the latter hands down, but maybe I'm out of touch with the younger generation. I strongly suspect, however, that we simply haven't provided many reasonable alternatives to the suburbs, so condos in nice neighborhoods are too expensive, and affordable units are in unsafe or unwalkable neighborhoods, etc. Europe figured this stuff out decades ago, wish the US would get serious about planning and building livable cities.

[Another Reader]

Normally I agree 100 percent with Dicey, but not here.  The State of California mandated the cities to produce their share of new housing units.  Most cities lack the buildable land to meet their quota with single family homes, the product the market wants.  Hence, the high density product is built that most home buyers disdain.  No new SFR product means increased competition for the existing low density SFR's and higher prices.  Single family neighborhoods are largely occupied by highly paid professionals and the traditional middle class buyers buy stacked condos or narrow multi story townhouses over garages with no yards, or nothing.

[Dicey]

Normally I agree 100 percent with Dicey, but not here.  The State of California mandated the cities to produce their share of new housing units.  Most cities lack the buildable land to meet their quota with single family homes, the product the market wants.  Hence, the high density product is built that most home buyers disdain.  No new SFR product means increased competition for the existing low density SFR's and higher prices.  Single family neighborhoods are largely occupied by highly paid professionals and the traditional middle class buyers buy stacked condos or narrow multi story townhouses over garages with no yards, or nothing.

I'm not sure there's anything to disagree with, because I've made no statements pro or con on this topic. I'm merely saying the prognosticators got it wrong. The folks who were supposedly never going to be buyers are now desperate to buy homes. Nobody saw that coming, but it sure is real.

My walking partner is well versed on the CA housing mandates and we discuss the topic frequently. My husband works for a utility company and he keeps asking, "Where's the water going to come from?"

Finally, I'm not sure what SFR is. Single Family Residence? Wouldn't that include townhouses and condos? Duh.

[Wintergreen78]

Normally I agree 100 percent with Dicey, but not here.  The State of California mandated the cities to produce their share of new housing units.  Most cities lack the buildable land to meet their quota with single family homes, the product the market wants.  Hence, the high density product is built that most home buyers disdain.  No new SFR product means increased competition for the existing low density SFR's and higher prices.  Single family neighborhoods are largely occupied by highly paid professionals and the traditional middle class buyers buy stacked condos or narrow multi story townhouses over garages with no yards, or nothing.

The issue in California is that traditional middle class buyers can’t buy anything in many cities. Professionals buy stacked condos or narrow multi story townhouses, rich people buy traditional single family homes, and middle class people rent or buy in a town 30 miles away and commute every day.

I agree, I don’t love the higher density stuff that is built in my corner of California (Ventura County). It is still built in a way that assumes and encourages everyone to drive everywhere. But the choice isn’t between building single family homes or building higher density. The choice is between building high density infill or building nothing.

All the reasonable spots to build single family neighborhoods that are near jobs have been built. If you are building new single family homes anywhere near the coast in California, they are multi-million dollar homes.

[Wintergreen78]

Plus, people are selfish, and quite likely rich people are more selfish than most - that's partly how they get rich.  You can see the same thing with carbon emissions - all those rich people with second houses think nothing of the carbon costs of an under-utilised carbon-expensive house (all construction is carbon-expensive) plus the travel costs of going back and forth, and if challenged just say that their money will protect them from the worst effects of climate change.

Even on this very forum we have people who claim they are very concerned with climate change who are also simultaneously discussing how to hack travel credit cards and fly all over the world for fun.

As a rich person who lives in a fancy mountain town, if I have to choose cheap housing and crowds of people or expensive housing and people unable to afford to live here, I guess I'd probably choose expensive housing and less people. It's ok with me if there's no pizza place anymore, I don't live here to go to restaurants. Hell, I'd be fine if the ski resort closed. But that's just me.

-W

Even on this very forum we have people who claim they are very concerned with climate change who are also simultaneously discussing how to hack travel credit cards and fly all over the world for fun.

If this was directed at me. I visited my parents and rental house in Florida. I also visited my rental house in Hawaii. I never said that I was "very concerned".

I am concerned about climate change. I also get on airplanes. I also try to save money on flights and share that info with other people so they can do the same.

My driving behavior to the mountains to go snowboarding is probably worse for carbon footprint than my flying.

I know this is an old post, but here’s some data about carbon footprints:

Worldwide average emissions need to be about 2.3 metric tons CO2 per person/year to keep warming around 1.5 deg C.
Burning 260 gallons of gasoline puts out about 2.3 metric tons of CO2.
A round trip flight between Denver and Miami puts out about half a metric ton of CO2.

So, flying to Florida once a year is ok, if you burn less than 200 gallons in your car that year. Of course, this ignores all the emissions associated with heating your house, keeping the lights on, and all the stuff you eat and buy.

This is also why just telling working class people to drive 60 miles every day doesn’t work.

Target: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-set-be-30-times-15degc-limit-2030
Car emissions: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
Plane emissions: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx

[windytrail]

My walking partner is well versed on the CA housing mandates and we discuss the topic frequently. My husband works for a utility company and he keeps asking, "Where's the water going to come from?"

This is a common red herring from anti-housing folks (not to suggest your husband is one of them). In reality, residential use is only 10% of the entire water usage in California.

source: https://norcalwater.org/2014/03/24/understanding-water-use-in-california-and-the-sacramento-valley/


source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/

The "not enough water" argument is often made against urban infill housing in cities, i.e. conversion to multi-unit residences. But the data shows that single family residents use much, much more water per capita than people in multi-unit residences, to sustain their grassy lawns in our arid environment.

source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/07/california-drought-database-shows-big-difference-between-water-guzzlers-and-sippers/

New development should be focused near the coast and in established cities, where water use and fire risk are lower. We should prohibit new development outside of established areas, especially in the wildland urban interface where fire risk is the highest.

[former player]

If "urban" means "residential" (as you imply) where does all the water for industry and business come from?

Also, little point providing housing for people who have nothing to eat.