Our housing prices tripled, and new buyers don't blend into the community

[Tyson]

Seriously, the OP reminds me of those people who inherit a million dollars and then proceed to complain about the taxes they have to pay. 

House tripling in value?  Take the win ffs.

[One]

I have recently had a similar experience from the opposite side (though renting, not buying). Some of our neighbors were nice and welcomed us to the neighborhood, while others won't even say hi. We tried to invite people over for welcome party and about half showed up (mostly the ones who also have kids). There was no correlation with their wealth or how long they've lived in the neighborhood. I think a lot of this is due to people essentially being too busy at work to have free time, and not wanting to use any of that free time to interact with people they don't already know. I live in southern California in an area prized for its nice weather, and see almost no adults (other than our friends with kids) who spend greater than 30 minutes outside. Same thing with parks: only people there are parents, children, and bums. I guess the internet and TV are more interesting than neighbors.

My wife and I are introverts, we like our neighbors, we wave and say hello but that’s about it..  We love the fact that nobody is outside, we take long walks and enjoy the serenity. It’s really strange walking around the neighborhoods in our suburb and wondering where all the people are?.. I guess the internet and 4K tv really has improved our lives.  We can go hiking, biking, and on long walks without too many people clogging up the trails.  I guess that movie WALL-E wasn’t too far off from reality. We’re shifting our perspective and enjoying how things have changed.

[Another Reader]

"As for what people would choose, condo or a house: If sophisticated developers are willing to risk tens of millions of dollars to build mid-rise condo complexes then there must be demand for this option."

Sophisticated developers build what the City will allow them to build, as long as there is a profit.

For example, the old IBM plant in San Jose is nearing the end of redevelopment into retail and high density housing.  The townhouses built were three story with steep stairs and no landings and no yards.  In other words, unfriendly to families with small children and older people.  The units were not absorbed quickly, at least not at first.  I asked the salesperson not too long after the development opened who they were selling to.  Her answer?  Rental investors and young couples with no children.  I asked her why not build single family homes?  She said this is what the City required, they had no choice.

The larger development has been a disaster for the surrounding low density neighborhoods, with single family houses, duplexes, and some low density two story apartment style condos.  Traffic in the area is now beyond awful, and because the City lowered parking requirements for the new project, including unassigned on-site parking, every single parking space within a few blocks is occupied by cars belonging to residents of the new condos and apartments.  The shopping center that was constructed as part of the development has parking issues as well, thanks to the under-parked high density projects and the residents that park their cars in the lot.

Why did the City decide to do this?  Proximity to "transit," i.e. the light rail to nowhere, was the excuse.  A large number of these residents were projected to use public transport.  Not going to happen.  No one walks or drives to the light rail terminus, and this was simply a cynical move on the part of the City to jam as many of their deficit of housing units in as small a space as possible.

These units did nothing to solve the problems of low income housing, housing for young families with children, or housing for older people.  Meanwhile, mid-rise office buildings are sprouting up an every piece of available land further north, bringing in more office workers needing a place to live.

[Villanelle]

The thread has taken a turn so maybe my response is no longer entirely relevant, but I've just moved to a new area, one where housing prices are obscene and likely to rise even more quickly (thanks HQ2!). 

I've just been added by a friend to a "buy nothing" facebook group.  They are very particular that members must be residents of a specific, fairly small area.  I didn't understand at first because doesn't it make more sense to offer that free widget to anyone who can use it, or to request size 3 kids clothes from as large a pool as possible so you are more likely to get the help you need?  But then reading the FAQ causes it all to make sense.  Yes, this is about saving money and keeping things out of landfills.  But it's also about creating community.  As an introvert, I admit it's challenging.  I was actually going to respond to ask for something that had been offered, but social anxiety kicked in when I realized I might actually have to ring a doorbell and talk to a stranger.  But I also understand the point.  My friend asked to borrow a sweater shaver.  Someone had one for her to use, she borrowed it for a few days and then returned it. And she also met that person and maybe made a connection.

What does this have to do with the cost of tea in the Bay Area?  I think there are ways to create community.  Maybe they just require more effort.  And maybe some of those new neighbors will never buy into it.  Cultural issues and fears of racism in all directions aside, some people aren't like that. (I'm not, due to extreme social anxiety and introversion)  But if this is a problem for you and your neighbors, maybe you can start some projects intended to create more community-feeling.  And maybe you create that Buy Nothing XXX neighborhood group, and you leave a flyer on each house encouraging them to join.  Perhaps some of "the new people" will.  And of those who do, perhaps some will sit back and observe, and maybe eventually participate.  And if they don't?  You've still contributed to part of your community and a very real way. 

[FINate]

For example, the old IBM plant in San Jose is nearing the end of redevelopment into retail and high density housing.  The townhouses built were three story with steep stairs and no landings and no yards.  In other words, unfriendly to families with small children and older people.  The units were not absorbed quickly, at least not at first.  I asked the salesperson not too long after the development opened who they were selling to.  Her answer?  Rental investors and young couples with no children.  I asked her why not build single family homes?  She said this is what the City required, they had no choice.

Strange, while working in Singapore and Germany I got to know many families and old people living in small flats with several flights of stairs and no yards. Somehow they managed it. Same for families I know living in NYC.

These units did nothing to solve the problems of low income housing, housing for young families with children, or housing for older people.  Meanwhile, mid-rise office buildings are sprouting up an every piece of available land further north, bringing in more office workers needing a place to live.

All the units were eventually sold, either owner occupied or to rental investors. Every person housed is one less competing for housing in the market. A single project isn't going to make a dent in the problem, and the Bay Area continues fall further behind the demand curve. We need housing of all shapes and sizes, from small efficiency units up to luxury houses.

[Unionville]

"As for what people would choose, condo or a house: If sophisticated developers are willing to risk tens of millions of dollars to build mid-rise condo complexes then there must be demand for this option."

Sophisticated developers build what the City will allow them to build, as long as there is a profit.

For example, the old IBM plant in San Jose is nearing the end of redevelopment into retail and high density housing.  The townhouses built were three story with steep stairs and no landings and no yards.  In other words, unfriendly to families with small children and older people.  The units were not absorbed quickly, at least not at first.  I asked the salesperson not too long after the development opened who they were selling to.  Her answer?  Rental investors and young couples with no children.  I asked her why not build single family homes?  She said this is what the City required, they had no choice.

The larger development has been a disaster for the surrounding low density neighborhoods, with single family houses, duplexes, and some low density two story apartment style condos.  Traffic in the area is now beyond awful, and because the City lowered parking requirements for the new project, including unassigned on-site parking, every single parking space within a few blocks is occupied by cars belonging to residents of the new condos and apartments.  The shopping center that was constructed as part of the development has parking issues as well, thanks to the under-parked high density projects and the residents that park their cars in the lot.

Why did the City decide to do this?  Proximity to "transit," i.e. the light rail to nowhere, was the excuse.  A large number of these residents were projected to use public transport.  Not going to happen.  No one walks or drives to the light rail terminus, and this was simply a cynical move on the part of the City to jam as many of their deficit of housing units in as small a space as possible.

These units did nothing to solve the problems of low income housing, housing for young families with children, or housing for older people.  Meanwhile, mid-rise office buildings are sprouting up an every piece of available land further north, bringing in more office workers needing a place to live.

Wow, that is exactly what is happening in Oakland too...

[Another Reader]

"Every person housed is one less competing for housing in the market."

While this project was being built (and there are more phases under construction now), many more jobs were created than the units could house workers.  So the net number of people needing housing increased.  The real draw of this project to residents is not light rail, but the proximity of Highways 85 and 101, the roads to jobs up north.  Those roads are more crowded than they were because of the people occupying these units, commuting 20 plus miles to their jobs, and taking over an hour to do so.

Companies don't care where their workers live or how long it takes them to get to work.  Those costs are all on the employees.  Cities want more commercial and industrial development, because residents cost money and commercial and industrial development is net revenue positive.  Maybe if you had built housing where the office buildings were built, you could have reduced the housing deficit.  That did not happen and it's not going to happen in the future.

[FINate]

Some years ago Google tried to build housing near its Shoreline campus. The city of Mountain View wouldn't approve it.

Competition for tech talent is fierce, and companies care a great deal about how long it takes to commute. Hence the tech shuttles which are not cheap to operate. Also, tech companies are increasingly choosing to expand outside the Bay Area. A part of what's driving this, though not entirely, is the cost of living and commute.

I did the commute on 85 for about ten years. Yes, it's bad and has gotten much worse. But the VTA from Los Gatos, through downtown, then on to Moffett is terribly slow, about 2 hours each way last I checked. People drive because we haven't developed good alternatives. It would be an expensive but worthy investment to greatly improve this.

Yet I've lived here long enough to understand this isn't a problem people really want fixed since it's another way to stop growth. So I agree with you that building lots of new housing is unlikely, which is unfortunate. People want to live here, there are good jobs, and a mild climate. The Bay Area had an opportunity to build an inclusive eco friendly metropolis, but instead we're promoting low density urban sprawl into the Central Valley and other surrounding areas. In trying to avoid Manhattanization (lovely city, BTW) we've created Los Angeles Basin North. Pitty.

We aren't going to agree on the vision for the Bay Area. My claim is that change is inevitable. You can try to stop change by stopping development, but this doesn't stop change and instead causes it to manifest in unintended ways. Therefore, embrace the change and engage in growth with a plan. But that's just me, and I know I'm in the minority position.

So my question to you is this: What's the solution to the housing crisis and people on the lower rungs getting priced out?

[seattlecyclone]

I don't mean to be provocative but: Are saying that we should tear down our houses and replace them with high rise apartment buildings?

Not necessarily. The need for more housing is large, but still finite. There’s no need to go to full-on Manhattan densities across the region. Existing dense areas and places around BART stations should absolutely be allowing more high rises, but other areas can do their part by allowing more backyard cottages, duplexes, townhomes, small apartment buildings, etc. in more places.

Are the plumbers and teachers now expected to take on an additional burden of solving the housing crisis?  I think my neighbor is contributing a lot by renting to roommates. No need for him to build apartment buildings for each of them. 

Do they have an obligation? No, but they should absolutely have the option. Traditional single-family zoning is incredibly restrictive. Right now your neighbors have two options: either keep using their $3 million worth of real estate all for themselves (and any roommates), or take their money and run. I propose a third way: let these folks be more creative and entrepreneurial with their property. Let people build a rental unit or three and the rental income might be enough to keep them from deciding to sell out and retire to a luxurious life somewhere else.

Change of some sort is inevitable. You can either change the way your neighborhood looks so that there’s still enough room for people with a range of incomes to live there, or you can hold fast to the existing zoning and watch as your neighbors are gradually replaced by folks who can actually afford $3 million for a house with a big yard.   

And to another point - just because you are a family does not mean you must automatically own a home. I grew up and we never owned a home, and more shocking (compared to these days) is we only had one bathroom (which is still the case).  It's not that weird for a family to rent, and for kids to share a bedroom.  And where I live there are a lot of apartments for rent.  Yes, they are expensive, but way cheaper and less stressful than trying to enter bidding wars for houses. AS MMM often recommends -- you don't need a lot to have a fulfilling life and happy family - especially in a place where you can spend most of your time outdoors. 

I fully agree that renting often makes a lot of sense, even for families. I loved MMM’s article about how cheap it looks to rent in Toronto compared to buying. What I was trying to say is that for your particular situation where prices went up so much so fast, those who bought ended up much better off than those who were renting. While both groups may have plenty of incentive to leave the area, the owners are leaving with millions on their own schedule. The renters, on the other hand, are leaving on short notice when their landlords jack up rents to the new normal, and they aren’t leaving with millions of equity. I have much more sympathy for these folks being actually forced out than your homeowner neighbors who are getting a gentle nudge to leave rich when an un-refusable offer comes in.

[beltim]

Of course, another option (if you own) is to sell your highly appreciated house, take your capital gains exclusion (assuming you meet the requirements), and walk away with a big chunk of tax free cash.

But people shouldn't be chased out of their neighborhood just because property values have increased around them through no fault of their own.  Some people have lived here their whole lives.  It seems unfair to expect people to cash out and go live in Utah (or wherever). Maybe the people moving in should do that instead. LOL.  Our neighborhood has multigenerational families of multiple ethnicities. Some rent  rooms to students for a side income.  If someone wealthy buys that house, I doubt they would rent to students and therefore the housing density would go down. Replacing these properties with expensive apartment buildings would throw out a lot of average income renters and we'd probably be left with same residents per block (except it would be a high income population). For example, my neighbor rents rooms to about 6 people in his house (that he lives in).  Partly for retirement income, partly because he is elderly and likes having someone around the house in case he needs help at home. I can't imagine a 3 million dollar home owner doing that - nor would those same renters be able to afford newly built apartments.

Did anyone force your neighbors to sell?  Did someone apply pressure for your neighbors to move against their will?  If not, they weren't chased out.

[Another Reader]

"So my question to you is this: What's the solution to the housing crisis and people on the lower rungs getting priced out?"

I'm a big fan of letting the market decide who gets to live where.  If there is an imbalance, people will either live with it or make some changes.  The private employer operated buses are a small step. 

Back in the late 80's/early 90's, the semiconductor and other manufacturing companies decided that having manufacturing here was too expensive.  A number of them opened up facilities in the Austin area and in similar locations.  Shortly after doing that, manufacturing started moving offshore, and many of these facilities were shuttered.  Eventually costs will push some operations out of the Bay Area again, to other states or overseas.  When the big earthquake occurs, my guess is that the movement will accelerate.

The building process is so time consuming and expensive, it will never make financial sense for developers to build low cost housing.  A few projects with BMR units and subsidized apartments will be built to satisfy various political requirements, but there will be no large scale construction of truly affordable housing.  Rent control drives landlords out of the market.  That will lessen the availability of rental homes and condos if it's implemented. 

I don't see a "solution" anytime soon, just a shift in equilibrium points here and there. 

[Cassie]

California retirees are cashing out and moving to surrounding states like Nevada, Oregon, Washington, etc. Now these areas are starting to experience the same problem with not enough affordable housing, rents and housing costs escalating and pushing out the average residents.  There really is no solution as you cannot stop people from moving.  We have lived all over the country and many places are cheap. We raised the kids in the Midwest for that reason.  We didn’t care about how much there was to do because we were too busy. Now retired we live somewhere that has lots of activities, festivals, etc.

[FINate]

Agree there's no short term solution. The housing situation in California has been decades in the making, will take a decade or more to correct.

Also agree that it's something the market needs to sort out, and that rent control makes the problem worse. That said, I think we need to let the supply side of the market work as part of reaching equilibrium. Free markets are not just about buying and selling, also includes adding new supply to meet demand. In the Bay Area this means increased density. Subsidized housing plays a role, but mostly we need market rate. Upzoning near transit is a way of responding to the supply side, and developers are willing to invest in these areas.

It's true that developers prefer to build for the higher end, but this has always been the case. Upthread I cited a paper from the California LAO addressing this concern. Housing degrades as it ages even if the overall property value increases. It gets worn, goes out of fashion. As time passes it filters down market and becomes more affordable  (this is not the same as "trickle down economics" - just to nip that in the bud). However, we've built so little new housing that we've disrupted this filtering process. So now the wealthy consume older housing that otherwise would be consumed by lower income folks. Again, no quick or easy fix.

To be honest, I don't think the state as the political will to address the real problem, which means we're likely to see ever increasing ham-handed solutions such as rent control and just cause evictions.

[facepalm]

I live in a Bay Area neighborhood of teachers and plumbers, but now outsiders are moving in and paying almost $3 million cash for a house because they like our neighborhood. But these same buyers rarely interact with the community, especially when they should (one of them got broken into). Curious if anyone else has experienced a sudden neighborhood wealth gap and how it changed your community.

Don't worry. With house prices tripling, your county will continue to raise property taxes to a point where the teachers and plumbers can't afford it. Then all that will be left are the rich folks that interact with each other.

This is California. Crazy property tax increases don't happen there.

No, but they can special assessment district you to death.

Why would a teacher or a plumber choose to live in the bay area???  What is going on!?!?

Take your cash and get out while you can.

OK, I'll bite: Go where?

I teach in the Bay Area, and the reason I stay is that as a 20 year in employee, I make close to 100K.  I rent (cheaply) and save around 60% of my gross. If you include mandatory contributions to STRS, closer to 70%.

If I left, no way could I pull down the kind of money I do. No district will grant me year for year salary credit on their salary schedule. I'd be back to making 50K a year.  my savings would drop from 65K a year to a lot less.

So I stay.

I'll retire in 2025 and move to a more tax friendly state. If I were to move now I'd have to work an additional 5 years. I grew up here, and living here is mostly convenient. but I have been to a lot of other places in the US that are just as convenient. I'll probably end up in Idaho (family) or Wyoming  (more family).

[runbikerun]

I'll confess that I'm uncomfortable with being part of a wave of gentrification. The people in my neighborhood who own their homes haven't been directly affected by people like me moving in (middle-class professionals entering a historically working-class district), but there are other impacts. Two new bars have opened in our village since we moved in four years ago, and one has closed down: the now-closed bar was solidly ordinary, while the two new ones have plenty of options if you want a seven-dollar craft beer or a fifteen-dollar dinner but not much if you're just looking for a pint of Guinness and a cheese toastie. There are new cafes, but the kind that have notes on the menu about the welfare conditions of the pigs the bacon comes from and enough kale to make a vegan demand steak. I know where to get a fancy brunch option, but I'd have to cook my own classic Irish breakfast if I wanted one where I live. All of this is fine for me, because I happen to like cooking for myself anyway and I really like fancy beers with silly names, but I'm not sure my neighbours like it much. And their children are often being priced out of living near their families, and end up moving fifty miles west in an effort to find a place they can afford - while commuting to jobs that are three miles from where their parents live.

I don't have any proposals for solutions, or even a clear idea of whether it's something to be solved, and I'm certainly glad to be living in a place I like and paying 1200 a month on a mortgage instead of 2,600 on rent. But gentrification does impose real costs on people and communities, and we should at a minimum be conscious bof those costs and seek to minimise them where possible.

[Tyson]

I'll confess that I'm uncomfortable with being part of a wave of gentrification. The people in my neighborhood who own their homes haven't been directly affected by people like me moving in (middle-class professionals entering a historically working-class district), but there are other impacts. Two new bars have opened in our village since we moved in four years ago, and one has closed down: the now-closed bar was solidly ordinary, while the two new ones have plenty of options if you want a seven-dollar craft beer or a fifteen-dollar dinner but not much if you're just looking for a pint of Guinness and a cheese toastie. There are new cafes, but the kind that have notes on the menu about the welfare conditions of the pigs the bacon comes from and enough kale to make a vegan demand steak. I know where to get a fancy brunch option, but I'd have to cook my own classic Irish breakfast if I wanted one where I live. All of this is fine for me, because I happen to like cooking for myself anyway and I really like fancy beers with silly names, but I'm not sure my neighbours like it much. And their children are often being priced out of living near their families, and end up moving fifty miles west in an effort to find a place they can afford - while commuting to jobs that are three miles from where their parents live.

I don't have any proposals for solutions, or even a clear idea of whether it's something to be solved, and I'm certainly glad to be living in a place I like and paying 1200 a month on a mortgage instead of 2,600 on rent. But gentrification does impose real costs on people and communities, and we should at a minimum be conscious bof those costs and seek to minimise them where possible.

I just don't understand the problems people have with gentrification.  I suppose for me it might go back to the fact that I was a military brat, so I moved around a lot growing up.  It seems to me that gentrification is a huge boon to the people already in the neighborhood.  They went from owning a $200k asset to owning a $500k asset.  That's a win for them, and for zero effort on their part.  They can cash out any time they want to. 

In my experience, if we want to talk about things like "walkability" scores and making cities "bike/pedestrian friendly", those things are ONLY driven by gentrification.  Those are things that the blue collar working class simply does not care about, and even if they did, they don't have the $$ or political clout to affect any changes.  No, if we want improvements to the cities, to move toward a more European style neighborhood, it's gentrification that's going to make it happen. 

[Imma]

I completely get what @runbikerun says. I feel the same as a professional living in a solid working class environment. It's all we could afford back then. We were the first non-working class people to move in the street but now there are several professionals living there. We're all in relatively low-income fields (teaching, music, art, social work) but we aren't cleaners or factory workers like the others. We are in Europe and what may be different in the US is that many people in this town have roots going back a long time here. It's difficult for them to even consider moving to another city, let alone another part of the country. Plus usually jobs are in HCOL areas and not as much in LCOL areas.

I moved to this city when I was 20 and didn't grow up here but my roots in this place literally go back centuries. My family has been here since the 1600s. My grandparents left after the town was heavily bombed in WWII but they grew up here, my great grandfather was on the crew that built this neighbourhood during the Depression. I can point out the homes where my grandparents' grandparents used to live. I'm seeing my street and my town change ( there are 20 high rise tower buildings in progress or planned right now) and proces go up and it feels less and less like home. I will eventually sell and move back to the countryside, that was always the plan, but I hadn't imagined my home would change so much that it doesn't feel like home anymore.

[honeybbq]

In my area in Seattle, they tear down the smaller "more" affordable SFHs (800k++) and build enormous single family houses that sell for 1.8MM. People complain.

They also tear down the smaller, more affordable SFHs and build 6 or 8 10 foot wide townhouse skyscraper things that are as ugly as all get out. People complain because of the population density and lack of parking, etc.

People complain if they don't tear down the smaller more affordable SFHs because they are really not affordable in any way at resale prices. No plumbers, teachers, or people that don't work in CS/IT/medicine can afford.

There's basically too many people in Seattle right now, if you ask any one.

[mm1970]

It's all a pretty tricky business.  @wenchsenior had a good point - but here's how our neighborhood is.  We bought 15 years ago, and didn't really know anyone for a long long time.

We knew our back neighbors (the lot was split in the 50s, so our driveway goes to someone else's house).  They moved, and then we really got to know the new neighbor.  But that was it, for quite a long time.  When you are working full time, that's how it goes.

This used to be a really working class neighborhood.  It still is, to a degree, because only about half of the houses have turned over in the last 15 years.  But it will depend a lot on when you bought.  A small, 1940s or 1950s 2 BR ranch will run you $900k now.  So...working class people aren't buying those houses.  They *did* buy at the bottom of the market in 2011/2012, and some bought in the 1990s or early 00's before the run up.  I haven't seen a great amount of gentrification, but a fair bit of accessory dwelling units, which is how many can afford it.

Fast forward to 15 years later, and I know a LOT of my neighbors.  Many through kids.  On our street and the next one alone, I have at least 7 families in my contacts.  Many of us get together every Sunday for a potluck.  These are my people.  I know the names of at least a few more than that.

Onto housing.  I live in So Cal, in a coastal community.  It's beautiful here, and insanely expensive.  Our city, and many like the bay area, are between a rock and a hard place.  It's really really hard to build the amount of housing needed for the increased population.  The politics and funding are difficult.

For example, did you know that the state of California requires builders to specify where the water is going to come from before they build a new community "somewhere new"?  Makes total sense, right?  Before you build a new city just outside the last city in the greater expanse of Los Angeles, figure out where these people are going to get their water.

Yet the same thing is NOT done for existing cities.  My city is expected to build >3000 new units in the next 4 years.  Um, where?  We aren't even really out of the drought and we are living on borrowed time and borrowed water.   For some reason, the state doesn't really give a shit about water if you are forcing areas to build.  And then, there's little to no coordination between cities.  A city near ours built SO MUCH in the last 5 years that traffic has gotten much worse. 

I honestly cannot blame locals, or people who have lived here a long time, to be unhappy about change.  They like their 10 minute commutes.  They don't want the new traffic, they don't want the new density (that comes with very little parking).  They just want zero growth and the same quality of life.  Equally strident are the people who want more affordable housing.  Our rental vacancy rate is 1%.  That's insanely low.  Rental costs are very high.   However nothing has worked.  We allowed a couple of larger, more dense projects to go up to address the housing shortage, and the fucking developer built uber-expensive apartments that are $3000-4500 a month, for a 1-2BR apartment.  And you want to know something?  They are empty.  (This ain't the bay area with the associated salaries.)

The bad thing is that it is so hard to find a happy medium.  At first, I HATED the ADU law that the gov signed (accessory dwelling unit, requiring cities allow these, period - no restrictions).  I though the AUD (Average unit density, high density) was a good idea.  Now I've flipped it.  Our city requires ADUs to be owner occupied - which means people are being a lot more mindful of what happens in the neighborhood.  AUDs and developers kind of suck.

I figure that we have SO MANY vacancies in commercial real estate that maybe there will be talk about converting them to condos or apartments.  And as long as a certain % are affordable (seriously, stop letting people "out" of that), then it may work. 

But it may not.  Commercial issues come from on line shopping, and the homeless population, which means locals and tourists avoid downtown.

Added to that - homelessness itself is a problem that is hard to fix
And not everyone can afford to live here.  After spending 5 years in DC, it was easy to learn that.  This town is never going to have the mix that it did in the 1950s.

[mm1970]

Do they have an obligation? No, but they should absolutely have the option. Traditional single-family zoning is incredibly restrictive. Right now your neighbors have two options: either keep using their $3 million worth of real estate all for themselves (and any roommates), or take their money and run. I propose a third way: let these folks be more creative and entrepreneurial with their property. Let people build a rental unit or three and the rental income might be enough to keep them from deciding to sell out and retire to a luxurious life somewhere else.

CA governor signed a law last year I think to allow accessory dwelling units with very few caveats.  Does not allow 3 rental units for the most part though.

[ysette9]

Of course, another option (if you own) is to sell your highly appreciated house, take your capital gains exclusion (assuming you meet the requirements), and walk away with a big chunk of tax free cash.

But people shouldn't be chased out of their neighborhood just because property values have increased.  Some people have lived here their whole lives.  It seems unfair to expect people to move out, cash out and go live in Utah (or wherever).  Their entire family network is here.  Just because someone else is rich, they shouldn't determine the future of a neighborhood.

I get the sentiment. I've lived in the Santa Cruz/Monterey area most of my life, have watched it change for better and worse in different ways. My friends and family are here, but I don't see my kids having a future here due to the insane cost of living. What's happening in the Bay Area is particularly frustrating: A lack of coordination and planning across the entire region along with a general no-growth attitude has driven housing up to the point of crisis, and now this is spilling into neighboring areas, including Santa Cruz.

Of course, Santa Cruz is not without blame. Like the Bay Area we've also doubled down on no-growth policies which, rather predictably, intensified the problem.

The question remains of what to do about it? You can't prevent outsiders from moving in. To be bit provocative, I find it ironic that we're opposed to "the wall" (as we should be) while at the same time want to wall off our communities to outsiders.

IMO, the solution is to build up and much more densely. Not just in SF, but in all the Bay Area counties, esp. near BART. And invest heavily in BART, CalTrain, VTA, and other mass transit. It's about time for the Bay Area to grow up and become a real metropolis rather than a collection of suburbs. This would make the region much more socioeconomically inclusive. Alas, our instinct is to cling to visions of the past with single family homes, lawns, and pools.

~clapping~

[zolotiyeruki]

...We allowed a couple of larger, more dense projects to go up to address the housing shortage, and the fucking developer built uber-expensive apartments that are $3000-4500 a month, for a 1-2BR apartment.  And you want to know something?  They are empty.

So here's my question:  why did the developer build apartments that didn't meet the local demand?  I totally understand the desire to pursue the higher rents that come with more expensive apartments, but if they sit empty, that does the developer no good.  Did they misunderstand the market?  Are they hoping for an influx of high earners at some point, so they're just holding onto it?

[marty998]

I have a lot of sympathy for the points @Another Reader is making. Perhaps not the Indian community* rant but more so on this idea that densification is the solution.

My city has been completely taken over by an army of developers, at one point in the recent past there was a statistic put out that there are more cranes above Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane than the 13 largest US cities combined.

Here's a hint, if I wanted to live in in a city like Hong Kong or Taipei, I'd go live in Hong Kong or Taipei! Don't go around telling me the solution is to cram more and more people into less and less space. Just because it is the norm elsewhere, doesn't mean those mistakes should be repeated.

When the sun is blocked out because of endless apartment towers, each with their own air conditioner, and there's no green space and your city is a maze of motorways and the water runs out.... you have to question, what on earth is the point of it all?

Time to get out once FIREd.

*Yes we have one too. They are generally good citizens, and I guess the locals quite enjoy their food so it's all good...

[FINate]

There are aspects to prop 13 that make sense to prevent taxing old folks out of their homes. However Props 58 and 193, allowing inheritance of tax basis on real estate between parent-child and grandparent-granchild, is extremely inequitable. It's possible to keep a 1970s tax basis in perpetuity. And it creates crazy distortions in the market and people staying in the area longer than they would otherwise, and/or im houses that are too big for.

[ysette9]

I tend to agree with economists on questions of housing affordability: it is a fairly simple supply and demand equation. We have a wonderful place to live in the Bay Area with perfect weather and lots of educated, smart, innovative people with lots of good jobs. So naturally people want to live here. Lots of demand pushes prices up like crazy if supply isn’t allowed to keep pace. You have a couple of options: 1) you can basically do nothing and then watch as more and more people get priced out (what is happening actually), 2) you can increase supply by building more densely/intelligently, and 3) you can wait for some external factor to make the area less attractive, reducing demand, which will then reach a new and more affordable equilibrium with supply.

Even as a homeowner who is one of the lucky people, I can see that the NIMBYism here has been detrimental to a lot of people. Out zoning rules are very inefficient at properly allocated our very scare resource: land. Dense housing doesn’t have to be soulless, ugly Soviet-Area concrete apartment blocks. It absolutely is possible to have a wonderful urban feel while housing lots more people per square hectare. For example, what about keeping all of our current green space as green space, but redeveloping suburban peninsula neighborhoods so it is more like Paris? Beautiful, denser buildings that aren’t sky scrapers but still way more efficient with land, coupled with awesome public transportation and all the amenities and culture that come with being a real city. I’d love something like that. Sure, my kids like our backyard, but they have way more fun st a great city park. I’d take that trade in a heartbeat if it meant real public train options to get me to where I need to go and stores I frequent being walking distance from my house.

[ysette9]

Somewhat related podcast I listened to recently: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

[Cassie]

Our city just voted against tiny houses in the backyard after people raised a big stink.  Our neighborhood is old and has small homes.  It''s very popular and it's hard at times to find on street parking if you need it.  I was originally for it but after studying the issues changed my mind.

[ysette9]

Our city just voted against tiny houses in the backyard after people raised a big stink.  Our neighborhood is old and has small homes.  It''s very popular and it's hard at times to find on street parking if you need it.  I was originally for it but after studying the issues changed my mind.

The parking thing actually irritates me also and is a problem in my neighborhood. I dream up solutions to try out while biking home: resident parking permits so neighborhood streets are for neighbors and not businesses on the main drag; develop the parking lot down the street from us that literally is empty most of the time into something useful (business ground floor, housing above, parking below ground), parking garages instead of lots on the main drag, etc. We just need to get in the mindset that our land has become way more valuable than it used to be and plan accordingly.

[mm1970]

...We allowed a couple of larger, more dense projects to go up to address the housing shortage, and the fucking developer built uber-expensive apartments that are $3000-4500 a month, for a 1-2BR apartment.  And you want to know something?  They are empty.

So here's my question:  why did the developer build apartments that didn't meet the local demand?  I totally understand the desire to pursue the higher rents that come with more expensive apartments, but if they sit empty, that does the developer no good.  Did they misunderstand the market?  Are they hoping for an influx of high earners at some point, so they're just holding onto it?

I think they very much misunderstood the market.  Urban millennials and all that.  If someone has $4000 to spend, most likely they are looking to rent a house.  In this town/ neighborhood anyway.

[mm1970]

There are aspects to prop 13 that make sense to prevent taxing old folks out of their homes. However Props 58 and 193, allowing inheritance of tax basis on real estate between parent-child and grandparent-granchild, is extremely inequitable. It's possible to keep a 1970s tax basis in perpetuity. And it creates crazy distortions in the market and people staying in the area longer than they would otherwise, and/or im houses that are too big for.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for people wanting to will their houses to their kids, and I think it keeps the neighborhoods "mixed".

I don't agree with the grandparent thing, and I most certainly voted against whatever the recent prop was that was trying to allow someone over 50 to "trade up" to a more expensive house and keep their tax basis.  Um.  No.  There's already a law allowing you to trade down to a less expensive home (in today's dollars) and keep your tax basis.

[mm1970]

Our city just voted against tiny houses in the backyard after people raised a big stink.  Our neighborhood is old and has small homes.  It''s very popular and it's hard at times to find on street parking if you need it.  I was originally for it but after studying the issues changed my mind.

The parking thing actually irritates me also and is a problem in my neighborhood. I dream up solutions to try out while biking home: resident parking permits so neighborhood streets are for neighbors and not businesses on the main drag; develop the parking lot down the street from us that literally is empty most of the time into something useful (business ground floor, housing above, parking below ground), parking garages instead of lots on the main drag, etc. We just need to get in the mindset that our land has become way more valuable than it used to be and plan accordingly.

We have similar issues.  Our city allows backyard flats (they are required to), and owners have to live on property.  They do not have to provide additional parking if the home is within 1/2 mile of public transit. People complain a LOT about parking.  I have neighbors with one off street spot and 3 or 4 cars.

My suggestion has always been paid parking zones.  Our downtown area already has them.  City can limit you to a certain number per house.  If you have a 2BR house and a granny unit apartment, you can have 1 or 2. 

[Fomerly known as something]

We have similar issues.  Our city allows backyard flats (they are required to), and owners have to live on property.  They do not have to provide additional parking if the home is within 1/2 mile of public transit. People complain a LOT about parking.  I have neighbors with one off street spot and 3 or 4 cars.

My suggestion has always been paid parking zones.  Our downtown area already has them.  City can limit you to a certain number per house.  If you have a 2BR house and a granny unit apartment, you can have 1 or 2.
[/quote]

The town I lived in from 2000-2003 near NYC (Floral Park NY) solved this by stating that no cars can be parked on the road between 4-6am.  The solution was that my apartment offered 1 parking space for the tenant.  If I need more I could either purchase a space in a city lot a mile away or park for "free" on the grass next to Belmont Race Track fence about a 1/4 mile away.  I was one of about 10 cars that regularly parked along the Race track fence.

[Radagast]

Comments on many issues here:
Gentrification: I support it. People will complain regardless of whether a nice neighborhood goes to shit, a shit neighborhood becomes nice, or any neighborhood stagnates. Therefore I support the one that ends in a nicer neighborhood. Let's gentrify the whole country. In fact we already have several times over. Let's keep at it. People will always be a little nolstalgic for the way things used to be, but that doesn't mean anywhere should be stuck with how it was 30 years ago.

Soaring real estate prices: I am against them. If your area experiences these, it is probably a result of bad governance. The government should do everything possible to encourage the construction of new housing units because that is the only way to keep prices down in a place everybody wants to move to. High prices in Canadian cities are especially funny because if there are two things which Canada does not lack it is land and building materials. Even San Francisco is not at all lacking in either. I have far less sympathy for people who don't want their low-density neighborhood to change than I do for people who don't want their low-cost neighborhood to change. YIMBY for life! Except for the most painfully obvious ones like keep fertilizer plants far away, thanks.

Should California do things to get its real estate prices under control: Absolutely. The high prices there are starting to affect prices for hundreds of miles around, and the fleeing ex-Californians who are unjustly and smugly newly wealthy from the sales of their humble homes are super annoying.

[Paul der Krake]

My city has been completely taken over by an army of developers, at one point in the recent past there was a statistic put out that there are more cranes above Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane than the 13 largest US cities combined.

Here's a hint, if I wanted to live in in a city like Hong Kong or Taipei, I'd go live in Hong Kong or Taipei! Don't go around telling me the solution is to cram more and more people into less and less space. Just because it is the norm elsewhere, doesn't mean those mistakes should be repeated.

When the sun is blocked out because of endless apartment towers, each with their own air conditioner, and there's no green space and your city is a maze of motorways and the water runs out.... you have to question, what on earth is the point of it all?

Time to get out once FIREd.

Semi-serious question: where are you going to go? Isn't Australia basically those 3 cities and a whole lot of dirt?

[sun and sand]

After being in my area of Toronto, new people moved in, they were flashy with their wealth and thought they had, 'made it' when they got a house in the neighbourhood. Two storey homes were demolished to make way for the newer, larger homes on 30' frontages. Almost everyone in the area belonged to the private Cricket Club. I was the one who did not blend it at the moment.  Attitudes changed hugely--it was all about what wealth you showed. I sold my house for 1.6 and then it sold eighteen months later at 2.5 mill.  I only wish I had stayed a bit longer........

[CowboyAndIndian]

Is it solely a wealth gap or a culture gap as well?  My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.

The Bay Area was a nice place to live prior to the late 1980's.  Not so much today for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.

Wow, I cannot believe the bias you show.

So, you are surprised that they did not drop their culture and immediately convert to whatever religion you follow.

First generation immigrants always do this. See the Italians and the Irish. The second generation will melt into the melting pot.

[LaineyAZ]

 ... .
[/quote]So here's my question:  why did the developer build apartments that didn't meet the local demand?  I totally understand the desire to pursue the higher rents that come with more expensive apartments, but if they sit empty, that does the developer no good.  Did they misunderstand the market?  Are they hoping for an influx of high earners at some point, so they're just holding onto it?
[/quote]
I think they very much misunderstood the market.  Urban millennials and all that.  If someone has $4000 to spend, most likely they are looking to rent a house.  In this town/ neighborhood anyway.
[/quote]

Seeing the same thing here in Phoenix.  Seems like everyone bought into the idea that millennials want to live in hip, downtown neighborhoods, so we're seeing lots of places building and advertising "luxury" apartments.  Some of these were regular apts. that were just remodeled with new paint and granite countertops.  So, where does that leave the average renter, especially given the very average income levels of a typical Phoenix worker?

[Another Reader]

Is it solely a wealth gap or a culture gap as well?  My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.

The Bay Area was a nice place to live prior to the late 1980's.  Not so much today for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.

Wow, I cannot believe the bias you show.

So, you are surprised that they did not drop their culture and immediately convert to whatever religion you follow.

First generation immigrants always do this. See the Italians and the Irish. The second generation will melt into the melting pot.

There is no bias.  It's an observation.  When the US was largely a European derived population and value was placed on assimilation, what you described happened.  No value is placed on assimilation today and I see second generation immigrants staying within the closed community.  There seems to be a split in the Vietnamese community.  Some embrace the broader American culture, some do not.

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

[GuitarStv]

Is broader modern American culture worth embracing?

[Another Reader]

Is broader modern American culture worth embracing?

It's not much different than broader Canadian culture.  Are you happy with that?

[Philociraptor]

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

By your own admission, they ARE participating in a larger community, one in which the common ground is a shared ethnic heritage. What makes that community inferior to your conception of community?

We've lived in the same house for nearly 7 years and I don't know the name of a single neighbor. My community is spread around the USA, and I use the miracles of phone calls and texting to keep up with them. We're only home to cook, eat, rest, and sleep. The rest of our time is spent at work, gym, or visiting friends and family in the area. There is no rationale for me to know my neighbors and "participate".

[Another Reader]

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

By your own admission, they ARE participating in a larger community, one in which the common ground is a shared ethnic heritage. What makes that community inferior to your conception of community?

We've lived in the same house for nearly 7 years and I don't know the name of a single neighbor. My community is spread around the USA, and I use the miracles of phone calls and texting to keep up with them. We're only home to cook, eat, rest, and sleep. The rest of our time is spent at work, gym, or visiting friends and family in the area. There is no rationale for me to know my neighbors and "participate".

And you miss the benefits of neighborhood and community as a result.  What about your kids?  Are you involved in their schools and activities?  Do you know what's going on at school beyond their grades and what they mention at dinner?  When a tornado or flood strikes your neighborhood, who are you going to rely on?  Phones and texting won't likely help much then.

I'm older, from an era where everyone knew their neighbors and relied on them to some extent.  The evening after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake demonstrated the value of having neighbors that you know and trust.  No power, no phones or internet, and only the car radios for information.  People shared food, flashlights and information with their neighbors.  The response to the next disaster will likely not be as neighborly.

[GuitarStv]

Is broader modern American culture worth embracing?

It's not much different than broader Canadian culture.  Are you happy with that?

Not entirely, no.

[Philociraptor]

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

By your own admission, they ARE participating in a larger community, one in which the common ground is a shared ethnic heritage. What makes that community inferior to your conception of community?

We've lived in the same house for nearly 7 years and I don't know the name of a single neighbor. My community is spread around the USA, and I use the miracles of phone calls and texting to keep up with them. We're only home to cook, eat, rest, and sleep. The rest of our time is spent at work, gym, or visiting friends and family in the area. There is no rationale for me to know my neighbors and "participate".

And you miss the benefits of neighborhood and community as a result.  What about your kids?  Are you involved in their schools and activities?  Do you know what's going on at school beyond their grades and what they mention at dinner?  When a tornado or flood strikes your neighborhood, who are you going to rely on?  Phones and texting won't likely help much then.

It sounds like the neighbors you aren't a fan of are intimately involved in their kids' lives and those of their local community though. Anecdote alert, I find that immigrant families tend to eat more meals together as a family and have much stronger social connections. Personally, we don't have kids and don't have plans for any. But if a tornado or flood struck both sets of our parents are within a 10-15 minutes drive, a half dozen brothers and sisters within a half hour, and several dozen work/gym friends and extended family within an hour. It wouldn't be too difficult to get help.

[Another Reader]

Is broader modern American culture worth embracing?

It's not much different than broader Canadian culture.  Are you happy with that?

Not entirely, no.

And a better broad culture can be found where?

[GuitarStv]

Is broader modern American culture worth embracing?

It's not much different than broader Canadian culture.  Are you happy with that?

Not entirely, no.

And a better broad culture can be found where?

How long is a piece of string?

You're asking a meaningless question there, because it's not valid to classify all aspects of any culture as simplistically as better/worse.  There are many aspects of culture in Canada and the US that are worthy of praise, many that are worthy of denouncement, and many that don't really matter one way or the other.  The question becomes even more meaningless when you realize how changeable these things are.  The current culture in Canada is quite different from the prevailing culture even just 40 years ago.  I'd expect the same is true of the US.

[seattlecyclone]

Our city just voted against tiny houses in the backyard after people raised a big stink.  Our neighborhood is old and has small homes.  It''s very popular and it's hard at times to find on street parking if you need it.  I was originally for it but after studying the issues changed my mind.

The parking thing actually irritates me also and is a problem in my neighborhood. I dream up solutions to try out while biking home: resident parking permits so neighborhood streets are for neighbors and not businesses on the main drag; develop the parking lot down the street from us that literally is empty most of the time into something useful (business ground floor, housing above, parking below ground), parking garages instead of lots on the main drag, etc. We just need to get in the mindset that our land has become way more valuable than it used to be and plan accordingly.

Ah, parking. This seems to be the one thing that is most likely to get otherwise reasonable people riled up into a frenzy where new development is concerned.

My unpopular opinion: one should not generally expect to be able to park free of charge in an urbanized area. The land is scarce and expensive. People pay for their use of this land when they rent a home or patronize a business that has its own rent bill to pay. Why should parking be any exception to this?

The widespread proliferation of free parking has led to a number of bad side effects.

• People are more likely to drive somewhere when the parking at the destination is free. This leads to more traffic and more pollution and worse health outcomes than if more people chose a more active form of transport such as biking, walking, or public transit.
• There's no free lunch. When parking is given away for less than its true cost, someone is still paying for it, but that someone isn't the motorist! Instead the cost is spread out over all the other people using the building attached to that parking lot, whether they use the free parking or not, whether they own a car or not. This means the non-drivers are subsidizing the drivers in a pretty significant way.
• As a neighborhood with free parking densifies, this parking often tends to fill up at peak times. This leads to uncertainty for people traveling to that neighborhood by car: will there be anywhere to park? Hard to say! A lot of time you might find yourself circling the neighborhood for quite a while waiting for someone to leave, maybe making you late, and definitely causing you to spew excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much better to charge a nominal market price, just high enough to ensure that each block will have an open space or two most of the time. That way if you do need to travel by car to a place you'll be pretty confident you can find a space near your destination.

Quite a few voters put a very high value on the maintenance of abundant, free public parking. This leads to rather ridiculous policies such as requiring each new building to come with a certain number of off-street parking spots attached. These policies have their own set of bad side effects.

• The policy is only truly effective if the required off-street parking absorbs all of the parking demand from the new development. The new development isn't going to be adding curb space to your neighborhood, but it is going to be adding people. If the people in the new place use the curb space in the same per-capita ratio as the people in the existing buildings use it, eventually you're going to run out of curb space. The new building's residents need to use zero curb space for the policy to be effective in the long term.
• This is inequitable on its face, as the residents of the new building are paying the same taxes as anyone else, but they're expected not to use the public parking that their neighbors use. Imagine if we did this for any other infrastructure! We'd require new apartment buildings to come with athletic facilities and lending libraries and classrooms so that their residents will never feel the need to use parks or the public libraries or send their kids to public schools. That's not what we do. If we need more parks or schools, we pool the tax money and build some! No reason this couldn't be done with parking if the voters prioritized free parking highly enough.
• Parking is expensive to construct, increasingly so in a denser development. Asphalt is pretty cheap, but there's only so much population density you can support with one surface parking spot per home. Eventually you need to put the parking in your building, at a cost of $30-50k per spot in an underground garage. This raises the cost of building homes, suppressing the rate of construction and causing rents to be higher than they would be if we let market forces choose how many parking spaces to construct.
• Note that simply allowing parking spots to be rented separately from apartments is not a real solution to the above bullet point about costs. Remember that for the required parking policy to be sustainable, the residents of the new building must not choose to park outside the building in any significant numbers. Therefore if rent is charged for these required parking spots, the rent must be set to a low enough level that it can compete against the free street parking outside. This level will not be anywhere near enough to recoup the actual cost of building the parking garage, which means most of the cost will still be borne by apartment renters whether they use the garage or not.

Here's a real example from my previous neighborhood in Seattle. A developer purchased a one-story commercial building on a pretty small lot in a mostly higher-income neighborhood. They proposed to replace this building with a new one that had the same amount of commercial space, plus 55 small studio apartments on top, apartments that would rent for a low enough price that a full-time minimum wage worker would be able to pay the rent.

No parking would be included, as allowed by a rule that exempts housing developments from parking requirements in "designated urban villages" (which this was in), near bus lines running at least every 15 minutes for most of the day (which this was). Many neighbors were irate about this. They raised tens of thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to bury the developers in every conceivable legal appeal possible. They eventually prevailed on a technicality. The parking exemption was written in a way that it could be interpreted to mean that the bus had to actually come at least every 15 minutes in practice rather than merely being scheduled to come every 15 minutes. In other words, it could never ever be late. Of course, every bus is late from time to time, so this interpretation would render the parking exemption pretty meaningless across the whole city. The city council amended the law shortly thereafter to explicitly use scheduled times, as was their intent all along.

The building is now under construction, basically the same as what was originally proposed, save for a couple extra years added to the schedule. These are years that 55 lower-income people who work in restaurants and shops in the neighborhood have had to wait for a relatively affordable home near their workplace.

What if the parking requirements had stuck? The developer claimed the whole time that the lot was too small for an underground parking garage; the ramp would have needed to be rather steep to get down far enough, and there wouldn't be much room for actual parking spots aside from the ramp. I saw someone else who works in architecture claim that it would be tight, but a 15-car garage could maybe be squeezed in there. If they were held to the 1:1 parking ratio that prevails in much of the city, the developer would be unlikely to build just 15 small studios on top of an expensive parking garage; more likely is that they build larger apartments to maximize the allowed building envelope on the site.

In fact, a building right across the street was finished last year and did just that: an underground parking garage with larger condos on top. These ranged in price from ground-floor studios (larger than in the building across the street) selling for $400k to two-bedroom units on the top floor with pretty nice views that sold for $1 million. Needless to say, nobody on minimum wage is going to be buying these.

In the end it comes down to priorities. The policies that keep parking free and abundant also keep lower-cost housing from being built. Which would we rather have: an exclusive neighborhood with free parking, or a mixed-income neighborhood where car owners pay the true cost of their transportation choices?

[Villanelle]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

I think it's easy to assume those who don't want to increase density are simply NIMBYs who don't want lower income people in their vicinity.  But there are very real problems and I think we dismiss them at our peril.  Perhaps some of them are solvable or mitigate-able (Traffic?  Build better public transport--although that may be hard to do when you've already eaten up all the land with the extra homes.  But water in SoCal?  More challenging. ).  But just "more homes=more affordable housing=good", and "people who don't want more housing density just don't want change, or don't want poor people around them".

It's an incredibly complex issue.

[Cassie]

We have been in a drought for most of the past 30 years. People from California are moving in like crazy.  The weekly motels were a eyesore but now housing for the poor is gone. We have land to build but builders got burned in 2008 so not being as aggressive.

[Shane]

Our city just voted against tiny houses in the backyard after people raised a big stink.  Our neighborhood is old and has small homes.  It''s very popular and it's hard at times to find on street parking if you need it.  I was originally for it but after studying the issues changed my mind.

The parking thing actually irritates me also and is a problem in my neighborhood. I dream up solutions to try out while biking home: resident parking permits so neighborhood streets are for neighbors and not businesses on the main drag; develop the parking lot down the street from us that literally is empty most of the time into something useful (business ground floor, housing above, parking below ground), parking garages instead of lots on the main drag, etc. We just need to get in the mindset that our land has become way more valuable than it used to be and plan accordingly.

Ah, parking. This seems to be the one thing that is most likely to get otherwise reasonable people riled up into a frenzy where new development is concerned.

My unpopular opinion: one should not generally expect to be able to park free of charge in an urbanized area. The land is scarce and expensive. People pay for their use of this land when they rent a home or patronize a business that has its own rent bill to pay. Why should parking be any exception to this?

The widespread proliferation of free parking has led to a number of bad side effects.

• People are more likely to drive somewhere when the parking at the destination is free. This leads to more traffic and more pollution and worse health outcomes than if more people chose a more active form of transport such as biking, walking, or public transit.
• There's no free lunch. When parking is given away for less than its true cost, someone is still paying for it, but that someone isn't the motorist! Instead the cost is spread out over all the other people using the building attached to that parking lot, whether they use the free parking or not, whether they own a car or not. This means the non-drivers are subsidizing the drivers in a pretty significant way.
• As a neighborhood with free parking densifies, this parking often tends to fill up at peak times. This leads to uncertainty for people traveling to that neighborhood by car: will there be anywhere to park? Hard to say! A lot of time you might find yourself circling the neighborhood for quite a while waiting for someone to leave, maybe making you late, and definitely causing you to spew excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much better to charge a nominal market price, just high enough to ensure that each block will have an open space or two most of the time. That way if you do need to travel by car to a place you'll be pretty confident you can find a space near your destination.

Quite a few voters put a very high value on the maintenance of abundant, free public parking. This leads to rather ridiculous policies such as requiring each new building to come with a certain number of off-street parking spots attached. These policies have their own set of bad side effects.

• The policy is only truly effective if the required off-street parking absorbs all of the parking demand from the new development. The new development isn't going to be adding curb space to your neighborhood, but it is going to be adding people. If the people in the new place use the curb space in the same per-capita ratio as the people in the existing buildings use it, eventually you're going to run out of curb space. The new building's residents need to use zero curb space for the policy to be effective in the long term.
• This is inequitable on its face, as the residents of the new building are paying the same taxes as anyone else, but they're expected not to use the public parking that their neighbors use. Imagine if we did this for any other infrastructure! We'd require new apartment buildings to come with athletic facilities and lending libraries and classrooms so that their residents will never feel the need to use parks or the public libraries or send their kids to public schools. That's not what we do. If we need more parks or schools, we pool the tax money and build some! No reason this couldn't be done with parking if the voters prioritized free parking highly enough.
• Parking is expensive to construct, increasingly so in a denser development. Asphalt is pretty cheap, but there's only so much population density you can support with one surface parking spot per home. Eventually you need to put the parking in your building, at a cost of $30-50k per spot in an underground garage. This raises the cost of building homes, suppressing the rate of construction and causing rents to be higher than they would be if we let market forces choose how many parking spaces to construct.
• Note that simply allowing parking spots to be rented separately from apartments is not a real solution to the above bullet point about costs. Remember that for the required parking policy to be sustainable, the residents of the new building must not choose to park outside the building in any significant numbers. Therefore if rent is charged for these required parking spots, the rent must be set to a low enough level that it can compete against the free street parking outside. This level will not be anywhere near enough to recoup the actual cost of building the parking garage, which means most of the cost will still be borne by apartment renters whether they use the garage or not.

Here's a real example from my previous neighborhood in Seattle. A developer purchased a one-story commercial building on a pretty small lot in a mostly higher-income neighborhood. They proposed to replace this building with a new one that had the same amount of commercial space, plus 55 small studio apartments on top, apartments that would rent for a low enough price that a full-time minimum wage worker would be able to pay the rent.

No parking would be included, as allowed by a rule that exempts housing developments from parking requirements in "designated urban villages" (which this was in), near bus lines running at least every 15 minutes for most of the day (which this was). Many neighbors were irate about this. They raised tens of thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to bury the developers in every conceivable legal appeal possible. They eventually prevailed on a technicality. The parking exemption was written in a way that it could be interpreted to mean that the bus had to actually come at least every 15 minutes in practice rather than merely being scheduled to come every 15 minutes. In other words, it could never ever be late. Of course, every bus is late from time to time, so this interpretation would render the parking exemption pretty meaningless across the whole city. The city council amended the law shortly thereafter to explicitly use scheduled times, as was their intent all along.

The building is now under construction, basically the same as what was originally proposed, save for a couple extra years added to the schedule. These are years that 55 lower-income people who work in restaurants and shops in the neighborhood have had to wait for a relatively affordable home near their workplace.

What if the parking requirements had stuck? The developer claimed the whole time that the lot was too small for an underground parking garage; the ramp would have needed to be rather steep to get down far enough, and there wouldn't be much room for actual parking spots aside from the ramp. I saw someone else who works in architecture claim that it would be tight, but a 15-car garage could maybe be squeezed in there. If they were held to the 1:1 parking ratio that prevails in much of the city, the developer would be unlikely to build just 15 small studios on top of an expensive parking garage; more likely is that they build larger apartments to maximize the allowed building envelope on the site.

In fact, a building right across the street was finished last year and did just that: an underground parking garage with larger condos on top. These ranged in price from ground-floor studios (larger than in the building across the street) selling for $400k to two-bedroom units on the top floor with pretty nice views that sold for $1 million. Needless to say, nobody on minimum wage is going to be buying these.

In the end it comes down to priorities. The policies that keep parking free and abundant also keep lower-cost housing from being built. Which would we rather have: an exclusive neighborhood with free parking, or a mixed-income neighborhood where car owners pay the true cost of their transportation choices?

Amen! It should be possible in the US to develop housing that does NOT include guaranteed free parking, or any parking for that matter! The idea that in order to build more housing it should be required of developers to also provide parking is just wrong. If local governments auctioned off all of the street parking and new developments were built without parking lots/garages, guess what? People who chose to live in those buildings/neighborhoods would figure out other ways to get around: on foot, bicycle, public transit, Uber, or maybe work from home and rent cars for weekend trips. It shouldn't be required that public buses be already scheduled to run every 15 minutes before new housing is built. Maybe some of the people who choose to live in the new, more affordable (because there's no place to park for free) housing don't have any intention of ever taking a bus anywhere. Maybe they work online and like to walk to the local market to do their shopping. Maybe they carpool to work with coworkers who live in other neighborhoods. Who cares? It shouldn't be the job of the government to micromanage people's lives. People need housing, but they don't necessarily need a bus or a place to park a car. If we just make it clear to people purchasing or renting the new housing that there will definitely not be any nearby convenient, and definitely not free, place to park a car, it should be up to them whether they want to live there or not.