No discussion on Gov. Brown's new proposal?

What would happen if it got passed? Flood of condos driving house price down?

We did touch on it in another thread. I like Brown’s proposal, and it should bring more supply to the market. How much effect it will have? I’d love to see more data.

Housing costs rising too fast has the potential to dampen our economy. I think for people who refuse to relocate to the Bay Area, housing price must be one of the top reasons. Big companies like Google and Facebook in turn have to open satellite offices to get to those folks in places like Austin and Boston. Imagine if Brown can lessen the sting of housing costs and more talented people come to the Valley? Our economy will benefit and so will house prices in the long run.

Reduction in any red tape would certainly help but realistically how much more building can happen, especially in our fav 7x7 city? Land is either very expensive or not available. If anything, outlier areas should benefit so prepare for even more crowded freeways and traffic heading towards the employment centers like SF or SV.


For San Jose, there is still plenty of place available especially in the north part. According to city planning, 32000 units were planned in north San Jose, along the light rail and new BART.
The bill requires development to be near public transit, which may somewhat alleviate the traffic issue.

There may be land but isn’t it going to be expensive? Will projects pencil out for these developers if they have to add even a smidgen of affordable housing units? To me, developers are fairly smart so why haven’t they already bought up that land then and built on it? I agree, SJ is prime as it is close to SV and I am sure rent levels are going through the roof as we speak. Is it again a matter of the planning dept or nimbyism rearing its ugly head again?

1 Like

All the new units in San Jose are luxury units, and they have to be. With all the fees San Jose charges developers, such as traffic mitigation fees and school fees, The new condos or townhouses would not sell as well. Some of the fees are per square foot, but others are fixed.

1 Like

They are putting those fees to work. The roads and sidewalks are torn up all over downtown. I figure it must be utility upgrades to support all the new buildings going up.

Funny how Jerry came up with this at the end of the cycle…do we need a flood of new houses after prices peak?

Counter viewpoint to Jerry’s plan if you wanted one…

I’m sick of people being anti-development but expecting cheap rent.

Rent control achieves both, for current renters already renting in SF. So you tell SF voters new people coming in in the future won’t be able to afford housing? Why should they care? They are voting for their own self interests. They don’t like new people much anyway.

It’s like the old people in Britain voting for BREXIT. They don’t like immigrants and they voted Leave. So what if British economy goes down the toilet? They don’t care. They would already be in the graves.

Democracy can’t be everybody voting for his or her own narrow self interests. At some point we need people doing the right thing for the benefits of others.


Isn’t it the job of our legislators and judicial system to promote policies that are as neutral and fair as possible? How some equitable solution to addressing rent can not be drawn up is beyond me.

1 Like

Politicians are elected by voters. And majority of SF voters are renters already living in rent-controlled units. You want the pols to NOT cater to their constituents? C’mon.

1 Like

This is classic game theory stuff. Every city by itself, maximizing its own narrow self interests, will make the whole system worse off.

I am 110% for Brown to come in and spank the BoS.

1 Like

Since most of the newcomers are not white, they need to prove rent control is racist…Then the BOS will shite in their pants. …lol

I can live with rent control as landlord. What I can’t live with is the wanton disregard for contracts. Once you rent your pre-1979 house out, you may as well kiss it goodbye. Tenants are under no obligation to move out after their leases end, and you actually have to PAY them to move out. And if they don’t feel like it? You are stuck.

That’s the most nefarious part of the SF rent control law. To my layman’s eyes that’s not at all different from unlawful seizure and should therefore be unconstitutional.

I will never, ever buy anything built before 1980 as rentals. To be absolutely safe I like to stick to post-2000.

1 Like

Is this SF only? or are there other cities in the Bay Area which have this rule as well?

I only know about that in SF. Pretty sure San Jose’s rent control laws don’t have that. What about Oakland and Berkeley?

1 Like

What are the rules no helping them move out? That could be a business opportunity.