My question was not to put down one class of renters but to understand the demographics of the people who are likely to rent an ADU or a unit in a skyscraper built on a lot meant for single family home. That is all. Since you seem to be one of those cheering for the removal of SFH zones, I wanted to get a better understanding who your target segment is.
Renting a home is a business. Anyone who pays on time is a valid customer. Customer pays salaries. So, it is worthy of all respect.
Twitter thread on Sunnyvale downtown. Looking good! Lots of pictures inside.
A good essay on the likely outcome of SB9 and SB10:
Suburbs will likely stay mostly the same, just a bit denser. I agree with Noahās prediction.
I recently saw a poll where a huge % of ppl in urban areas believe they are in suburban!
He is just describing evolutionary change. Very safe to make such predictions - does not need new laws to evolve this way
No. I think we need new laws to make it easier for people to build. Be it ADUās or duplexes. But those new laws are not going to turn the Bay Area into Manhattan. Far from it.
Agree with you. Bay Areaās SFH dominated housing stock will only evolve slowly even with these news. Wonāt turn into NYC or Hong Kong anytime soon
Are you really aspiring to convert Bay Area into Hong Kong?
No, heaven forbid.
My point (and the prediction of the blog posted by @manch) is that the new laws will only incrementally density our suburban Bay Area communities.
The new laws will help some of us homeowners, in the sense that it is very difficult to buy another house when SFHs are selling for $2.5M a pop. But thanks to the new laws, it is relatively easier to build an ADU for 1/10th the cost (I.e., ~ 250k) on the spare land in oneās existing house, and use the ADU to house oneās near and dear family/friends.
Exactly. Say if you want to have the grandparents move in with you but donāt have the space. ADU is a reasonable solution. Or you have grown kids but they canāt afford the house price here. Split the lot into two and let them build on it.
Among the new laws, the ADU law seems more practical and hence more likely to be used by homeowners. Raising about 250k to build an ADU in back/front yard seems doable for most homeowners with equity - via a simple HELOC.
The duplex/fourplex law is more complicated. Splitting a lot with an existing SFH into 2 lots may not be very practical because most of the common ranch style SFHs really span the whole lot with 5 feet alleyway on either side. They are also typically centered on the lot to allow for some front yard and back yard. So, would require quite a bit of reconfiguration (which adds cost) to convert to duplex/fourplex. Probably will cost over $1M, which the typical homeowner will not be able to raise easily.
The liberals that forced through legislation to make more affordable housing all failed math in school.
The cost of construction in labor and materials is so high that affordable housing is a myth. For $250k you can get a McMansion in the Midwest. Or an in-law shack in your backyard in the BA. From an investment standpoint it would better to buy a rental unit in a high cash flow state than to have a rent controlled tenant in your space.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6108-N-Wheeling-Ave-Muncie-IN-47304/85210367_zpid/
Rent control is the real issue. Rent control makes any rental unit undesirable to builders. In-law shacks might have appeal to some immigrants but not mostAmericans. Like my father told meā¦ live at least 3000 miles from your in-laws. I took his advice to heart. My in-laws are 8000 miles away. ADUs have been allowed for years and have had very little appeal or success. Very few have been built.
Sorry, you do not bend rules (like building an ADU or multi family home in a neighbhorhood carved out for SFH) just to suit your convenience. It is like saying I stole food because I was hungry. Lot of not so rich people live in single family homes and they do not want to see their neighborhood destroyed by someone wanting to earn an extra income or to settle someone in backyard. Not everyone can afford a home in atherton, but everyone want to keep sanity in neighbourhood.
I am not bending any rules. The great state of California has changed the laws to allow ADUs and MFHs to be built in SFH neighborhoods. Whether you or I like it or not, those are the new rules. We can choose to take advantage of it or not. But it is the new reality, and better to accept it as such
You are justifying bad rules because it was passed by California legislature.
Hey buddy, I am not justifying anything. Merely stating the facts. I donāt know if these rules are good or bad - only time will tell. But since the legislature passed them and the Gov signed the bills, they are the law now. As individual homeowners, we can each choose to use them for our benefit or not. Thatās all we can do
ADUs have been around for a long time. Especially in Berkeley Oakland SF DC and SJ. One thing cities should do is grandfather in the existing illegal ones. That would be a good start. Then get rid of rent control and ridiculous laws giving tenants the right to stay forever. It is even extremely difficult to get rid of obnoxious roommates. If governments were serious about adding new housing units they would roll back housing regulations to the 1950s when we could build all the housing needed. Building and zoning regulations started in the 1970s created the shortages we have nowā¦ not greedy builders or landlords.
When people first move here the want to live in crowded coastal cities. By the second or third generation they want to get away from the congestion noise and other urban issues. By making these zoning laws statewide the state government wants to force urban congestion everywhere. Not good sustainable policy.
While it may be cheap to build/buy houses in the Midwest, the problem there is that the weather sucks and most Midwestern states are cultural wastelands that no one wants to live in.
On the other hand, many people from around the world want to come to California (this too is a fact, no matter how much you can argue about how dysfunctional CA is). And the more they loosen the laws and allow building of homes, the more people will come here, esp in the desirable parts of Bay Area.
So all these new laws are only going to make prime RBA land more coveted and expensive. It presents a dilemma for homeowners like me. Already the Zillow/Redfin algorithms value my humble abode at nearly $3M, and if the annual appreciation rate of 6-8% holds up (which it likely will, thanks to the new laws and densification push), then by the time I reach retirement age, the house will be worth over 6M. The cost to sell (cap gains tax and realtor commissions) will exceed well over $1M, creating a powerful disincentive to move anyplace cheaperā¦
