YIMBY movement is gaining momentum

There will be people with good pay moving out but I am talking about the characteristics of the whole population moving out of CA.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California is out with research addressing those questions based on the 2020 census.

Some of the key takeaways:

  • The people moving to California have higher incomes than those moving away.
  • California has been losing lower and middle-income residents to other states.
  • In the past five years, the flow of middle-income residents out of the state has accelerated

Look at it after considering cost of living.

I don’t know whether gdp and population growth can be compared since population growth has upper limit, isn’t it? land area is finite and we can’t assemble more ppl after certain limit right?

Pricing is a complex matter. In the last year of so, FED has pushed about 25% extra Dollars into the market. That is enough inflation to overcome the loss of demand.

CA housing affordability problem has been there a long time not just last yr. What was the reason before? Since you mentioned FED it’s common to whole USA right? then why many other places are affordable?

Expectation vs reality was the point I was making whether it’s population growth OR gdp growth.

Although in this case it’s just not the expectation, but after digging deeper the reality(data) is also bad when compared/relative to other states.

1 Like

You asked me about pricing. I answered about pricing and why they went up nationwide. Now affordability is basically an income issue. Someone unable to earn enough will have trouble affording a home or any other good anywhere in the world. Homes in the Bay area are expensive because there is not enough land to build a home for everyone at the price they can afford and the home they would want to raise a family in and at a location of their liking. One way to ease housing pressure from the Bay area would be for the jobs to move to places where the housing and other needs can be met at less. The bay area has been losing jobs for the last two decades. First came offshoring, then online, and then wfh.

Historically, a population boom results in new colonization. Something that has not happened in CA/USA for a long time. Unfortunately, some in CA think densification will solve the problem.

Yup. It will. More supply allows more people live in a city.

Densification degrades the existing neighborhood and people have to live reduced quality of life.

A more detailed look at SB9.

Single-family zoning, which SB 9 seeks to eliminate, has deeply racist roots. Originally introduced in Berkeley in 1916, the designation was used to block a Black-owned dance hall from moving into a primarily white neighborhood. The zoning not only precluded the dance hall, but also multifamily units more commonly occupied by people of color.

When people talk about ā€œinterlopersā€ of their towns, maybe that’s what they have in mind.

Very funny. For left, everything in California/World is racially motivated. For example, stock market is racially bad/rigged because it has fewer participation of blacks and minorities, and stock market affects blacks and minorities disproportionately in a downturn.

I have seen some say more houses built will attract more new ppl and thus home prices will never come down. Is that true?

One way to look at it will be this way. You are paying the same but you are getting less and inferior.

More supply will raise prices? They should publish their research to earn their Nobel prize in Economics.

:rofl:

It’s not just the number of houses. It’s also the type of housing. In the article I linked to, a woman talked about how she could afford a home in the expensive East Sacramento area only because it’s a duplex, not a mansion size house with acres of lawn. The SF multti-fam that NIMBYs fought against has lots of tiny studios with shared common space instead of full-sized kitchens. All these will sell for lower price than a standard SFH on a 6k lot.

1 Like

so do you support keeping teachers housing away if you were a resident there? If yes how does having teacher as neighbor reduce quality of living?

To attempt to keep more teachers from leaving the district, the San Jose Unified School District considered building affordable rental units for teachers on some of their current school sites. However, this idea was met with extreme backlash when residents learned that two high school located in Almaden Valley, an extremely affluent region of the county, faced demolition and relocation in order for the housing units to be built. To some residents in the area, the building of affordable housing units represents an influx of lower-income, uneducated residents and a stark devaluation of their home values. Surprisingly, these residents do not seem to care that these ā€œlow-incomeā€ residents are the very teachers that teach their children, and the new students that enter the school districts are the children of these teachers — hardly the demographic NIMBY proponents should be worried about. McMahon, the deputy superintendent for SJUSD, quotes a teacher saying, ā€œI’m a person who works with your kid every day — you trust me with your student in my classroom but I’m not good enough to be your neighbor?ā€ Cupertino, a city with the average home price of over $2 million, faced similar opposition when an abandoned mall was proposed to be turned into affordable housing units. Residents worried about the ā€œlack of educationā€ of the new population of residents and the cultural divide that would draw in the city

More supply with increased demand may raise prices if demand exceeds supply, and demand pool has affordability to push the price up.

If more crappy, and undesirable houses are built, demand may go away and prices will come down for those properties.

People moving out is worse. Look at all the ghost towns in rural America and the Midwest. Thrive or die. Densification is the only way to grow a city.

Cities die due to complex reasons. Politics is always the reason. look at Detriot and its history. Same with Chicago and other cities in rust belt states around lakes.(PA, OH, MI)

That is why you do not need densification. Once you add a one unit of home, you will need 5 more to support that extra unit. There is plenty of land in the USA to build new cities rather than raiding the existing ones.

Huh?

If there are 100 houses on market instead of 10, you are telling me price would be higher?

Huge if true.