Posted on 06/20/2002 11:06:00 AM PDT by grundle
We often hear people complain that northern California doesn't have enough affordable housing. Why is this?
Well, if we really want to know why, it would help if we compared northern California to a different geographical location - one that does have affordable housing. So let's compare northern California to Houston, Texas.
A one bedroom apartment in Houston might rent for $500 a month. But in northern California, the exact same apartment might rent for three times as much.
Are the landlords in northern California greedy? Yes. Of course they are.
However, the landlords in Houston are just as greedy as the landlords in northern California. So, if the landlords in Houston are just as greedy as the landlords in northern California, then why are the rents in Houston so much lower?
Here's why.
During the early 1980s, there was a big oil boom in Houston. A huge number of people moved to Houston.
There was a huge demand for housing in Houston. So, developers responded to this demand, and they built a huge amount of new housing. The peak year of construction was 1982, when 60,000 units of new housing were built in Houston.
Because of this huge amount of contruction, Houston had a huge amount of housing. All throughout the 1980s, the rental vacancy in Houston was above 15%. Landlords were desperate to attract and retain tenants. In order to attract and retain tenants, landlords kept their apartments in good condition, and they kept their rents low. Because of this, Houston had an abundant supply of decent, affordable housing.
Now, let me be very clear about something: the landlords in Houston are not saints. They didn't supply this decent, affordable housing because they were big hearted, or because they were kind, or because they were caring. Instead, they did it because they were greedy, and because they wanted to make money. And the only way they could make money was by attracting and retaining tenants. And with Houston's high rental vacancy, the only way that landlords could attract and retain tenants was by offering decent, affordable housing.
In other words, the landlords in Houston are just as greedy as the landlords in northern California. The fact that the landlords in Houston provided decent, affordable housing was simply an "unintended consequence" of their greed.
During the 1990s, there was a big high-tech boom in northern California. Lots of people moved to northern California. There was a huge demand for housing.
However, the local governments in northern California did not want decent, affordable housing to be built. Local governments in northern California used zoning laws, density restrictions, height limitations, anti-development laws, bureacracy, red tape, and other things to prevent developers from building enough housing to meet the demand.
Because of this, the supply of housing did not keep up with the demand. So the greedy landlords responded to this by raising their rents. Landlords are greedy, and they will always charge as high a rent as the market will bear.
The landlords in northern California are no more greedy than the landlords in Houston. All landlords are greedy. All landlords will always charge as high a rent as the market will bear. What differs between northern California and Houston is not the greed of the landlords. Instead, what differs is local goverment policies regarding the construction of housing. Northern California passed laws with the specific intent and purpose of preventing decent, affordable housing from being built.
In northern California, there are many huge grassy fields that are available for the construction of housing, but, instead of being used for housing, they are sitting idle, empty, with no housing being built.
A 100 acre plot in Houston could have 10,000 units of housing built on it. But in northern California, that same 100 acre plot sits empty, with no housing being built. Or maybe it gets 5 units or 10 units. But it won't get 10,000, or anything even close. The local governments in northern California have specifically *banned* the construction of high density, low cost housing, because they don't want it to be built.
So, let me be very clear about this: the reason that northern California does not have enough decent, affordable housing is precisely because the local governments there took deliberate steps to deliberately prevent decent, affordable housing from being built. The local governments in northern California do not want decent, affordable housing to be built, so they banned it.
Now, here's what is especially interesting. The very people on the radical left who pass these laws to prevent the private sector from building decent, affordable housing, are the very same people who complain the loudest about the lack of decent, affordable housing. This is just so funny. First, they take deliberate steps to prevent the decent, affordable housing from being built. Then, they complain that the decent, affordable housing does not exist.
The people who complain the loudest about the lack of decent, affordable housing are the very same people who passed laws to prevent it from being built. This is so funny.
Another funny thing is that the people who passed these laws to prevent decent, affordable housing from being built in northern California claim to be "concerned about the environment." In actuality, the real world result of these policies is that many of the people who work in northern California cannot afford to live near their place of employment, so in order to get to work each day, they must drive very, very long distances. This results in huge traffic jams, with many cars sitting idle in traffic for long periods of time, and this puts a huge amount of pollution into the atmosphere. I find it very funny that the people who engineered the creation of these massive traffic jams actually have the nerve to refer to themselves as "environmentalists."
The housing idiots here are particularly stoopid.
When the city's rent control and tax/cost structure forces a landlord to abandon a building, the city takes it over. If it's in awful shape, it gets torn down. The vacant lot becomes a "community garden".
As the real estate cycle turns, and someone want to GIVE MONEY TO THE CITY AND BUILD HOUSING on the vacant lot, the "community acitivists" scream about their garden "being taken away for a greedy developer". These are the same turds who scream about the "lack of affordable housing".
If they weren't so bloody stoopid, it'd be funny.
I just heard on the hourly Fox News Radio update that the average commuter in LA spends 136 HOURS a year stuck in traffic. (thats about 5 1/2 DAYS)
Insanity.
That's about the size of it. You need to study about the free market and why it works. Human beings are not naturlly charitible. They strive to improve themselves. In a command economy or in a Mercantile economy that is accomplished by limiting the market and keeping the great majority poor so that the elite can live lavishly. Riches are acquired by force and armies and conquest is the way to prosper. And it is because men are greedy. Competion is stifled so that the elite producers don't have to share their wealth and they don't have to compet by cutting prices or improving products. In a free market one must compete in the marketplace in order to acquire wealth and anyone can do it. Producers have to sell cheaper or produce cheaper to get profits. They have to pay their help more to keep talent and experience.
What a load of socialist crap! Many of us strive to improve ourselves so *we can* be charitable, as well as self sufficient. That is the NORM, not human nature. So instead, socialism perfers to penalize one for improving oneself? Give me a break!
I just sold/bought a house in southern California, and let's just say that minimum-wage workers aren't participating in the bidding wars.
There will never be "affordable housing" in high demand areas. What's different about this area is the almost uniform price rise across the entire spectrum of housing quality.
By the way, there is another factor in the equation: rent control. Because of rent control laws, property owners are further discouraged from building more housing, and landlords/slum lords have little incentive (in addition to the supply/demand factors you mention) to keep extant housing in decent working order.
The combination of rent control laws and the regulations you've mentioned make for an amazing result: government-mandated slums!
Which, as you point out, the leftists in government proceed to complain endlessly about. Funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.