Nimbys win again..Reject more housing in Los Gatos


#1

The city rejected the North 40 project.

http://www.townnotcity.com/


#2

What is a nimby?


#3

Not in my back yard


#4

#5

Talked for 7 years comes to nothing.


#6

Two of my Los Gatos friends are applauding this on Facebook…Neither have kids…It will become an old retirement community like Sausalito. .


#7

This is a classic case why BA housing is in crisis. .Cities encourage employment and discourage housing…Great for long term homeowners, not good for homebuyers.

Why would any developer want to tie up funds and time for 7 years and get nothing?.


#8

Unintended consequence of Prop 13.


#9

IMHO, this is the biggest reason for why inventory is damn low. Nimbyism only restrict supply but is not the cause of dwindling supply for sales.


#10

I wonder if the affordability situation keeps getting worse, will there be enough political will to tackle the root cause aka Prop 13? Or will pols go for easy fixes like rent controls that don’t fix anything? Sadly I think the latter.

The bright side is Bay Area real estate has gigantic policy support. It can only go up as supplies are artificially suffocated. New houses will be much more expensive to build as well because of the climate change bill passed last month. :smile:


#11

Nimbys are concerned about overcrowding and traffic…Most homebuyers become nimbys right after they buy…That is why I am a perma bull. …Homebuyers dont have any political clout, homeowners do…


#12

Indirectly causing prices of existing houses to appreciate.


#13

The issue is if you remove prop 13, then you’re giving local governments way too much money to spend. They’ll spend it stupidly like they did before prop 13. Also, how many people would get forced out of their home when property taxes double over 5-8 years? If property taxes are high enough, no one is really an property owner. It’s the equivalent of owning a non-moveable structure on land you rent. The structure will depreciate over time.


#14

Property tax should be based on rents and not value of the property since rent is “income”.
For example, if annual rent = $50k, tax could be $2k, assuming 4%.
Not 1% on value of property, $2 mil, = $20k.


#15

Interesting idea!


#16

I am not saying I want to get rid of Prop 13 altogether. But I can see the points against Prop 13. In a way you want people to be forced out of their houses in Palo Alto, because housing old people in prime Silicon Valley is not the best and most productive use of the land.


#17

Making new construction difficult because of climate change is the typical liberal crap that could elect Trump…Housing in Cali is already twice as expensive to build as n Texas because of all the special interests pet projects…Housing is the whipping boy of all that is evil in government. …

If liberals really had the interests of the poor at heart they would suspend all building and zoning codes…Housing shortages would be solved in a couple of years…
Environmentalism is an elitist movement than discriminates against the poor. .Every thing the looney left passes hurts poor people…Cage free chickens, organic food, building restrictioms…all just make poor peole suffer.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-climate-change-disadvantaged-communities-20160822-snap-story.html


#18

How’s building cost in Stockton compared to San Francisco or peninsula?


#19

Housing policy should go hand in hand with transportation policy.


#20

I don’t see a reason why prop 13 should extend beyond original owners. That would be a positive change that wouldn’t impact the people that bought the home. Personally, I think the bigger issue is government spending. Just look at top employers in the Bay Area. You’ll be shocked how many are government agencies, counties, etc. All those jobs are paid for through taxes. Some how we have some of the highest income tax, sales tax, and property tax (dollars paid not percent). Yet it’s still not enough. Tech comao it’s have to restructure and get rid of obsolete products and decisions. It helps keep them lean and more efficient. There’s no government equivalent, because there’s no competition. It’s ironic the government won’t allow corporate monopolies, because they are bad for the consumer. The government has no issue running monopolies themselves.