How did California price itself out of the market for entry-level home buyers?

How did California price itself out of the market

How do these people get elected?

Well, it is not necessarily only the politicians, it is the NIMBY folks who love what they have and don’t want it ruined by incoming folks.

To be fair, you can’t also just build indiscriminately without looking into the water, energy, pollution and traffic ramifications.

1 Like

Are there any US cities that are reckless about it?

I wonder if we’ll see a foreign purchase tax similar to Vancouver. The people it’d hurt can’t vote. There seems to be a lot of popular anger aimed at foreign buyers for driving up prices.

Enjoyed the article. I think the observation that younger folks these days have a harder time getting a SFH vs our parents time is fully supported by this article. I think it would be a good move to buy the homes for your kids now…

Well, somewhat understandable if these people are literally not living in the place. We have plenty of domestic buyers who are buying to put a roof over their heads. For them, it is about a shelter and not just a pitstop for someone to park some moola.

Yes, the idea of being a first time buyer now is scary even though I like to think that between my wife and I who both work we would be able to buy but the thought of competing against everyone would not be fun.

While just 12 percent of Americans live in California, 22 percent of America’s homeless live here, more than in any other state.
When you factor housing in, California has the highest poverty rate in the country. Housing instability affects people’s health and kids’ academic performance. And as people move farther from jobs, long commutes increase pollution.

I’ve pointed out before that considering cost of living, California’s poverty rate is equal to Pakistan. Just let that sink in. That’s despite all our many taxes and programs that are allegedly designed to make things more equal.

California’s poverty is mostly caused by illegal immigrants. Even under poverty, they are still really happy, they are the envy of 100s of millions of foreigners, and million of foreigners want to cross border and become one of the US people under poverty.

Does Pakistan provide good social welfare to its population under poverty? California provides good welfare.

2 Likes

So what you’re saying is the more benefits you provide to people in poverty, then you get more people in poverty? I’m shocked. It’s similar to all the benefits for single mothers. The number of single mothers keeps going up as we add more benefits. Go figure. It’s basically an endless pit that we’ll never fix by more programs for single mothers.

Maybe many single mothers are fake? They just pretend to be single mothers to get benefit, while living with their kid’s father together

1 Like

I know one doing that…

The only solution to poverty has to happen on a national level. SF can’t afford to take on the US homeless solo. Benefits have to be federal.

And yes, we need tight borders (still don’t think a wall is the smart way to do that)

Aren’t food stamps and section 8 federal programs? Doesn’t the federal government pay part of the Medicaid bill?

Sanctuary city and other liberal policies are the reason for the huge illegal immigration population. CA has 50% of population from illegal immigration directly and indirectly.

The most effective solution is to end sanctuary policy and deportation. Once it’s advertised that US will deport illegal immigrants and will stop providing free school and free healthcare, many people would lose interest in crossing border.

Since liberal cities continue to harbor illegal immigrants, wall is the only way to declare the determination to stop it. Many liberals advocate for open border and welcome illegal immigrants. They might change the tone now but their real intention is to open border in order to get Latino votes to grab the power

1 Like

Yes but there are limits. Not everyone can get food and shelter under those programs.

1 Like

They are aimed at people with kids. If you’re a single man, good luck qualifying.

Many welfare program is a lottery system. Sure, 100 millions of people can qualify for section 8, but government does not have that much money to provide. So only a really really small percentage of the qualified people can get section 8 housing. It seems a necessary program and definitely good for recipients. For the majority of the population, it’s a program that does not exist for them for over 10-100 years. Reminds me of a saying, too good to be true.

If we truly have an open border, many of you would have left US. Too good to be true.

Basically, lefism is too good to be true, just like communism

1 Like

wrong person. sorry

The point is the state in its infinite greed made houses too expensive to build, 20% of construction costs for permits and fees…They could make it 100%, there is nothing to top the greedy bastards than run our state.

How did an entire state price itself out of the market for entry-level home buyers?
By Joe Bousquin
When Pat Burns began his construction career in California in 1970, houses sprang forth from the ground in as little as two months, and it didn’t cost that much to get them started. Today, he says, cycle times have doubled, and he estimates that fees, labor regulations, and more stringent building-code requirements add roughly $47,000 to a typical 1,400-square-foot home—and that’s if everything goes right.

These costs don’t include the costs of BMRs, required on all large multi family projects…basically a tax on market rate buyers

2 Likes