Disneyland for Yuppies

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that San Francisco’s middle class is leaving, priced out of the housing market. Unfortunately, they got the reason for it wrong.

Click for a larger version. Flickr photo by (nz)dave.

“The trend of well-heeled and upwardly mobile young professionals moving into cities across the country, drawn by a newfound affection for the amenities of urban life, is by now well documented. It’s led to many benefits: Cities are revitalizing aging downtowns with new buildings and businesses, people are walking and using transit instead of making long commutes in polluting autos,” says the Chronicle. “But it’s also been putting pressure on housing prices for existing stock and, many argue, steering much of the new development toward the high end.”


It improves the functioning generic cialis uk of testicles and improves secretion of testosterone. He learned to read which was a great accomplishment, in that time and place. viagra usa mastercard One of levitra online usa http://donssite.com/Bug-eyed-Purple-dragonfly-in-Micco-Florida.htm the most normal complaints I hear from many of my over-45 age patients is that their love-battery seems to be permanently low and they just can’t seem to re-charge it. A better thought would be to compare price with other supplements in the category. cialis usa buy
If this were true, then only San Francisco and other “walkable” communities in the Bay Area, such as Berkeley, would be getting expensive. But the Bay Area has plenty of pedestrian-unfriendly, auto-liberated cities such as San Jose, San Ramon, and San Raphael. Guess what: housing in these cities is nearly as expensive as in San Francisco, and they are losing their lower and middle classes too.

The real problem is all the growth regulations that prevent home builders from meeting the demand for housing, particularly single-family homes with a yard. Only 17 percent of the Bay Area has been urbanized; 23 percent has been permanently protected in parks. The remaining 60 percent is private but outside of county urban-growth boundaries, most of which haven’t been significantly expanded in decades. That has made housing expensive throughout the Bay Area.

One result is a rapid decline in San Francisco’s black population. That’s why Joseph Perkins, head of the Northern California Home Building Association (who happens to be black) says that “smart growth is the new Jim Crow.”

San Francisco is a beautiful and romantic city. The Antiplanner even supports subsidies for rail transit in San Francisco (cable cars only, not light rail or BART). If it weren’t for growth-regulating rules, San Francisco would still be a little more expensive than most cities in the rest of the country, just as it was in 1969, before counties in the Bay Area started drawing urban-growth boundaries. But those who wanted to live in a walkable city could afford to move to San Francisco even if they didn’t earn $350,000 a year.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

47 Responses to Disneyland for Yuppies

  1. Dan says:

    I ask again, Randal: not including the open space on hillsides (purchased on the market), what is the shortage of available housing stock, in units? Then how much would those units decrease current prices, in a non-equilibrium world (fantasy, but let’s play)?

    As a discussion item, maybe someone else can tell us how much more air, water pollution from the additional good rent-seeking folk there will be, and what the cost will be to clean it up, per person (additional taxes on gas, property, etc).

    Thank you ever so much in advance.

    Now back to the real world, where places with copious amenities cost more than other places.

    DS

  2. Why wont the antiplanner argue against traditionally restrictive single family zoning? I would think that relaxing density controls in single family zones would help a lot with affordability.

  3. prk166 says:

    “I would think that relaxing density controls in single family zones would help a lot with affordability.” — sustainibertarian

    Based on what?

  4. prk166 says:

    When I get random head hunters sending me an email (BTW come on you pimps, how seriously do you think I’m taking to take your interest when you don’t even call?) that are for the bay area I thank them for their interest and let them know what my hourly rate would have to be to make up for the outrageous cost of living in the area.

  5. TexanOkie says:

    Relaxing the density standards in zoning regulations (or just removing the zoning regulations in their entirety) would allow for more housing units similar to expanding the growth boundary would with the [low] density zoning regs. Or, you could relax both and truly let the market take care of housing unencumbered either way, both total land area available and what you can place in that area.

  6. sustainibertarian:

    The Antiplanner opposes all zoning, so it is disingenuous for you to claim that the Antiplanner somehow support single-family zoning.

  7. Dan says:

    I ask again, Randal: not including the open space on hillsides (purchased on the market), what is the shortage of available housing stock, in units, from, say, 35 miles from the CBD of SFO or Silicon Valley?

    Then how much would those additional units decrease current prices, in a non-equilibrium world (fantasy, but let’s play)?

    DS

  8. So, in the SF metro area, what’s the proportion of land with restrictions on it, and what are those restrictions? You say that it’s the fault of UGBs, but you don’t really back that up with data – how much land is restricted, and under what restrictions? In areas with an UGB, is there land similar to the land outside of the UGB that is in high demand (which would indicate that the UGB is very restrictive), or is there land similar to land outside the UGB that sits undeveloped (indicating that the UGB doesn’t do much to alter development patterns)? Outside of the CBD but within these UGBs, is there a lot of developable land that is under maximum density restrictions (either explicit or implicit through things like parking requirements)? In places with maximum density restrictions, does the density actually developed approach the limit (indicating that the restrictions matter), or do people rarely touch up against the limit (indicating that the restrictions are irrelevant)?

    I’m beginning to get bored of the Antiplanner’s blog, because he constantly makes these assertions without really giving us enough evidence to believe him.

  9. Ettinger says:

    Unfortunately, there is no constitutional agreement (or is there?) stating that people who move into a nice area cannot proceed to close the door behind them (ie. pass protectionist regulations that preclude others from moving into the area). Bay area residents have done just that. “Now that we built our homes in this nice place, let’s close the door and try to keep the promise land to ourselves”. And the way the electoral system works, this door is only lockable from the inside. Outsiders get locked out and have no say.
    The people who should be most angry about this are not primarily the bay area residents but everybody else in the country who has lost yet another nice place to move to, due to local protectionist policies. But like most protectionism, ultimately the protected get hurt too.

  10. Dan says:

    he constantly makes these assertions without really giving us enough evidence to believe him.

    The idea is to take what such folk say on poetic faith: ‘it must be true, see, because it agrees with my ideology’.

    Those who disagree can pony up the buildable vacant or underdeveloped land (less, remember, due to seismic, substrate [slate slippage], open space purchases, parks, etc), calculate acreage, then DUs, then what that additional supply will do to home prices (remember to calculate infrastructure upgrades!). It’s your claim, lets see the numbers.

    Not much of a net gain, is it, after infrastructure?

    DS

  11. Ettinger says:

    Rationalitate: Go on Google Earth and it is pretty obvious where the restrictions start. You will see a clearly delineated line separating 800K houses from empty fields with one structure per 40-80-160 acres, whose owners cannot develop their land to meet the demand that an 800K median housing price creates.

    “We, the 6 million residents of the Bay Area, having found the promise land, now vote measures that deny the opportunity to another 5-10 million people from across the country to move into our area, and also vote to make our housing 4 times more expensive thus making it extremely difficult for our children and for whomever wants to upgrade their house to remain here.”

    But the Bay Area yuppies now have to rent and buy from uncle Ettinger, who left the Bay Area for greener pastures but kept a good real estate presence in the restricted Bay Area housing market. IMHO it is a captive market of suckers. I’ve bet a lot of my money on this statement and I am being handsomely rewarded. So, by all means, keep doing it Bay Area residents! I sit back, profit, and laugh.

  12. msetty says:

    I’m spending too much time replying to the Anti-Planner on various topics (as he knows). But like most things typically oversimplified by libertarians and conservatives, the devil on this question is really in the details. Thus this too long post is necessary for an accurate and thorough discussion of the Bay Area housing dilemma, which I’m extremely familiar with since I’ve lived here for 30 years.

    In the Bay Area, housing prices began to soar in the 1970’s, a generation before anyone had ever conceived of or heard of “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanism.”

    When I was in high school in 1971, my family bought an old Victorian on a 60’X 120′ lot three blocks from the center of Pacific Grove, CA. (130 miles south of S.F. on the tip of the Monterey Peninsula) for $25,000. After some remodeling and drawing of plans for garages and three apartments in the backyard, we sold the house for $65,000 in 1974. Several years later, the apartments were built; by the late 1990’s I recall seeing the property on the market for around $1.5 million, probably over $2 million now even with the current deflated housing bubble. This sort of housing price spikes has also been occurring in the S.F. Bay Area since the 1970’s, driven by several factors similar to the Monterey Peninsula, but “on steroids” in comparison.

    The tendency of many people to stay in their houses after Proposition 13 passed in 1978 also probably was a factor in price runups in the 1980’s.

    The first overwhelming factor in the Bay Area is the topography. Out of 7,000 square miles, I’d roughly guess 70% is mountainous. These are nothing like the rolling hills of Central or Western Tennessee; they are very rugged California Coastal Range, really suitable only for scattered rural housing, though large swaths of the hills have been developed for view housing in Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Marin at usually 1-3 units/acre. But much larger percentages have been taken up by regional parks, which also double as watersheds. I’d roughly guess less than 10% of all hilly and mountainous areas have been developed, mostly for expensive view housing, which is really irrelevant for “affordability” given the high infrastructure costs for such housing.

    Second, of course, there is the Bay. It takes up several hundred square miles. Between the mountains and the Bay, there is relatively little flat land, even in Santa Clara County. What agriculture is left there is a few dozen square miles south of IBM in South San Jose, e.g., where Routes 85 and 101 converge.

    A third big factor is “downzoning” e.g., mandates for mostly single family zoning. This is particularly the case in Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, all of which are close to “buildout” based on this metric. If the housing market was allowed to function, places like Palo Alto and Menlo Park would be undergoing wholesale conversion of single family neighborhoods to condominiums and apartments. But no such thing is allowed; so a typical SF house in those areas is over $1 million each. In contrast, the next town over, Mountain View, did allow a lot of high density units, resulting in population growth from about 55,000 in 1980 to about 70,000 in 2000, and probably more now.

    The fourth and I think by far the biggest factor is the huge job imbalance between the West Bay, East Bay and North Bay (excluding Marin). The four West Bay Counties–Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara–in July 2006 collectively had 56% of the Bay Area’s 3.265 million jobs, e.g., 1.830 million jobs for 3.5 million people, e.g., 56% of the jobs vs. 49% of the population.

    In contrast, the remaining East and North Bay Counties–Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma, had 1.435 million jobs but 3.7 million people, 44% of the jobs but 51% of the population. This imbalance–along with the West Bay’s more attractive coastal location, better weather, and mostly built-out status (sans movement to allow more dense development near all those excess jobs), explains most of the differential in housing prices. I don’t think “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanism” have anything really to do with it! Rather, the “Old Urbanism” and “20th Century Downzoned Suburbanism!”

    In my view, San Francisco proper could quickly absorb 40,000 new housing units, since housing demand is so great. If most of these were built along the new 3rd Street LRT line, the aburdly high cost of that project–$700 million+ for 5.6 miles–might even be justified!

    For the data the above analysis is based on, see MTC Job Summary, July 2006. The crazy thing about the housing price bubble between 2000 and 2006 is that total Bay Area jobs DECLINED by about 10% in this same period in the wake of the Dot.Com Bubble bursting!

  13. Builder says:

    Dan:

    This is getting annoying. Whenever anyone points out the development is severely restricted in the Bay Area, or anywhere else, you immediately demand an exhaustive study examining all the restrictions and their effects. Since no one has a year or two to spare to meet your request, you declare victory. Let’s try something else. Go on Google Earth and look at all the undeveloped land in the Bay Area. Then, complete an exhaustive study showing why a lot of it can’t be developed. NIMBY regulations don’t count. They are the problem we are discussing. The lack of roads, sewers, power, etc. don’t count either. In other areas these facilities are built and homes still cost far less than they do in the Bay Area.

    It also isn’t fair to demand to know exactly how much the increased housing supply will decrease housing costs. Economics is not precise enough to make such calculations possible. However, it is clear that restricted supply has greatly increased housing costs in the Bay Area and more supply will greatly reduce costs. Denying this does not mean it isn’t true.

  14. msetty says:

    Ettinger spake:
    You will see a clearly delineated line separating 800K houses from empty fields with one structure per 40-80-160 acres, whose owners cannot develop their land to meet the demand that an 800K median housing price creates.

    Hey, buddy, it is wet noodles at 20 yards between you and me if you want to develop the 90,000 acres+ of vineyards in Sonoma, Marin and Solano Counties for housing. These vineyards are directly responsible for the local $6 billion+ wine and tourism industry, so they are more valuable for that in the long run, particularly as the need for “sustainability” grows.

    The ONLY place that “40-80-160 acre” parcels may be applicable in the West Bay is south of IBM in San Jose through Gilroy.

    I wouldn’t oppose the South San Jose/Coyote Valley development as New Urbanist development with 20,000-30,000 units+, provided Caltrain is electrified and the development received 10-minute frequencies all day to/from San Jose and the rest of Silicon Valley (US 101 through that area is already 8 lanes; you’d otherwise need at least 2 more lanes each way without frequent transit).

    I’d also like to see 100,000+ additional housing units along the currently forlorn VTA LRT network, including another new 6-7 miles along Stevens Creek Blvd to DeAnza College IF 15,000-20,000 of those units were in that area–they certainly have the commercial land in that corridor, and without the need to “disrupt” existing single family neighborhoods. This would put VTA LRT patronage into the range of 120,000-150,000 riders daily, vs. a bit short of 40,000 daily now. Also some form of beefed up connection to BART, but only BART if it runs straight rather than the $6 billion dogleg through East San Jose and subway to Santa Clara University.

    As for West Marin, the only other “West Bay” area where your acreage claim may be valid, where’s the infrastructure and water supply??)

  15. Dan says:

    5-10M people in the Bay Area. That will make it a sh*thole for sure and reduce prices.

    Where ya gonna get the infrastructure for 4M DUs? You’re living in cloud cuckooland.

    Funny.

    No one yet has said where the prices will go nor where the infrastructure will come from.

    Sounds like empty wishing to me.

    DS

  16. Dan says:

    This is getting annoying. Whenever anyone points out the development is severely restricted in the Bay Area, or anywhere else, you immediately demand an exhaustive study examining all the restrictions and their effects.

    I’m not sure why you have to mischaracterize what I wrote, as it is easy enough for someone to scroll upward.

    I’m asking for the new price of houses if supply is increased. There’s some clues up thread for you to consider.

    Surely some free-market fetishist has found the studies that show capacity. They exist. I have them. They’re not good for your side.

    So, there’s a claim out there that increasing supply would reduce prices.

    Someone back the claim. Let’s see them. Randal’s been making the claim for years – surely he’s run the numbers and can share them with his readership to show just how amazingly wrong Dan is. Let’s show the world that Dan knows not what he says.

    DS

  17. lgrattan says:

    San Jose UGB: there is land in large parcels that can be purchased for $50,000 an acre but not developable. Across the street land cost is one to three million an acre, developable. Also, adjacent is Coyote Valley, 7,500 acres flat that has been trying to develop for 30 years with no success.
    An Old Timer

  18. msetty says:

    Dan thus spaken:
    I’m asking for the new price of houses if supply is increased. There’s some clues up thread for you to consider.

    In the West Bay, the ONLY feasible strategy I see is wholesale construction of at least 100,000 additional condominiums, townhouses, and flats in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, in the short term plus a lot more in the long term.

    The prospect for affordable single family houses in the four West Bay counties is essentially nil, given the land limits, the strong desire in Santa Clara County to retain the 20% left of the Santa Clara Valley south of San Jose, and the tremendous expense of providing infrastructure and water to West Marin.

    The ONLY long-term, realistic strategy to allow Santa Clara workers to have relatively affordable housing in the face of high gasoline prices and the need to reduce GHG emissions is spending $3-$ billion on 100-110 mph regional rail service, to wit: upgrading the current ACE train to frequent & fast electrified corridor service, spreading this SF housing demand deliberately to San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. Second, extending electrified Caltrain service to San Benito County, with perhaps a run several miles south of Hollister to open country where lots of grazing land is avaiable. Third, consider the same treatment for Caltrain service to Monterey County, but with less prospects of affordability.

    In all areas, water supply is a huge concern, particularly in San Benito and Monterey Counties.

    Dan also das skaken:
    Surely some free-market fetishist has found the studies that show capacity. They exist. I have them. They’re not good for your side.

    I’d like to see those. What are the links?

  19. msetty says:

    lgratten spake:
    San Jose UGB: there is land in large parcels that can be purchased for $50,000 an acre but not developable.
    Yes, but where and how much of this type of land? How flat, too?

    Across the street land cost is one to three million an acre, developable. Also, adjacent is Coyote Valley, 7,500 acres flat that has been trying to develop for 30 years with no success.
    An Old Timer

    Again, yes, but where and how much of this type of land? How flat, too?

    I suspect some housing demand could be met, but not tens of thousands of “affordable” single family. I agree with you about Coyote Valley, but the vast majority of units would have to be non-SF. 3,000 acres of SF might yield a net of 10,000-12,000 SF units, but overall SF housing demand is far short of that. Also water issues.

  20. BrooksImp says:

    I agree with Builder. Dan is a one way street. But I doubt that increased supply of Bay Area housing would substantially lower prices because demand will still far outweigh supply, just a little less so. Like most coastal areas, the Bay Area is a gem. Demand will always exceed supply for these places. , Now, is it moral, ethical, or wise to erect and uphold barriers to entry into those places? No on all counts. It is self-destructive on a grand scale, and much of the Bay Area, to take one example, exhibits the decrepit results of that protectionism.

  21. Dan says:

    But I doubt that increased supply of Bay Area housing would substantially lower prices because demand will still far outweigh supply, just a little less so

    My point exactly. And the cost of additional infrastructure and water purchases will further cut into housing prices, as will reduced QOL.

    Now, is it moral, ethical, or wise to erect and uphold barriers to entry into those places? No on all counts.

    Ah, the crux.

    Put another way, should individual localities have self-determination to decide to stop growing, on grounds that ethically they can no longer brook any more reduction in QOL?

    So many easy answers…

    DS

  22. BrooksImp says:

    The answer may not be so easy since many bright people such as yourself consistently fail to see it, however, we don’t live in a zero-sum world. Human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit will solve any problem provided those forces are allowed to work. Artificial limits that preclude invention, forestall innovation, limit competition, penalize creativity, and that enforce the presumption that things will get no better, pretty much become self-fulfilling prophecies that determine that things will in fact get no better. The arrogance of this presumption astounds me. Determinism is not natural. It’s a downward spiral that reinforces entropy. Sure you can engage in it, regulate for it, but why in the world any reasonable person would want to is a mystery.

  23. Put another way, should individual localities have self-determination to decide to stop growing, on grounds that ethically they can no longer brook any more reduction in QOL?

    I think a more interesting question is why are localities often treated as private, singular entities capable of unanimously reaching a decision (“Well, the residents don’t want any more development!”) whereas larger population centers (say, the modern nation-state) are treated as government. What is it about a mob of 2,000 people that makes it act like a profit-seeking individual, whereas a mob of 20,000,000 is just a government which can’t possibly reflect the will of its citizenry properly?

    (For me, the answer is easy: unless a decision regarding land owned by many people is truly unanimous [in which case, what’s the point of the law, anyway?], it’s a government-made decision.)

  24. Ettinger says:

    BrooksImp: ”I agree with Builder. Dan is a one way street. But I doubt that increased supply of Bay Area housing would substantially lower prices because demand will still far outweigh supply, just a little less so. Like most coastal areas, the Bay Area is a gem. Demand will always exceed supply for these places. , Now, is it moral, ethical, or wise to erect and uphold barriers to entry into those places? No on all counts. It is self-destructive on a grand scale, and much of the Bay Area, to take one example, exhibits the decrepit results of that protectionism.”

    I agree that if the Bay Area were the only place to relax restrictions (as opposed to, say, the entire west coast) and were to, say, even double its population in the next 30 years, housing prices would fall, but not to Houston levels. There are probably more than 6 million Americans who want to move to the Bay Area. That is why it is not only a matter of housing prices but perhaps primarily a matter of denial of opportunity. Why do 6 million residents deny another 6 million Americans the opportunity to move into the Bay Area?

    In my opinion, the legal issue is this: Within the US, do residents of a certain area own only the individual land that they hold title to, or do they collectively own their entire area and thus can pass protectionist legislation that essentially closes the door to outsiders so that they can retain unobstructed exclusive access to their paradise?

    That aside, I’m not sure that protectionist happy residents themselves are fully aware of the negative effect that protectionism brings on their own lives.

  25. Dan says:

    I wasn’t implying I said there were easy answers; rather, my question – contra yours and unanswered presumably because it’s hard – means your easy judgment about morality fits the oversimplified pat ideological answers found here.

    So I restate the basic, underlying issue again: should individual communities have self-determination to decide to stop growing, on grounds that ethically they can no longer brook any more reduction in QOL?

    IOW: YOU tell communities that they can’t determine what’s best for them [the implication being your pat ‘barriers’ takes away their freedom to determine their own solution, and masks the larger issue of population growth and consumption]. I hear a lot of denigrating of that sort of thing on this site, yet here we find it being used to justify an ideological position…how odd, no?

    Moreover, nobody here is advocating restricting innovation, just pointing out the problems with oversimplified Simonian Cornucopian solutions. See, I have an ecological education and, having an education in the natural sciences, I’m more of an Ecological Economist that acknowledges that finite spheres have limits.

    We are seeing the beginnings of Peak Water, Peak Oil, and Peak Ecosystems, and I hope your wish for innovation, competition, and creativity hurry the h*ll up and get here, because our track record so far for figgerin’ out how to solve these issues isn’t real good.

    DS

  26. Dan says:

    23:

    I think a more interesting question is why are localities often treated as private, singular entities capable of unanimously reaching a decision

    Unanimity? That’s the criterion? Pshaw.

    Here on earth, no societies over, say, hunter-gatherer size use that criterion to reach decisions.

    We have mores, rules, and laws to try to reach agreement and cooperation, not unanimity.

    Often, in my line of work, you’ll get folk saying ‘I don’t personally agree, but it’s for the good of the community’. That’s how the world works. The ideological adherents here want to forget that when they offer their oversimplistic solutioning.

    DS

  27. BrooksImp says:

    The Population Bomb was a dud and worldwide standards of living have never been better. Peak shmeak, my money is on human creativity. What is simple is the way groups of people conspire through governmental means to expropriate property rights over large land areas to serve some expression of the common good. How many of those same people could legitimately succeed in life to the point where they could purchase those property rights in a voluntary exchange? Very few. Success is complicated. The morality of governmental regulatory barriers to free property control is essentially corrupt. They take by force what they could never achieve through voluntary consent.

  28. msetty says:

    BrooksImp forthspaken:
    The Population Bomb was a dud and worldwide standards of living have never been better. Peak shmeak, my money is on human creativity.

    So would my money, provided a lot of that “human creativity” is directed at dramatically reducing our negative impacts and debasement of the natural environment, on which we all depend for our very existence–which in a nutshell is Dan’s point. Now please, folks, get back on topic…this discussion can wait until The AntiPlanner talks again about the “economy vs. environment” or more “global” issues, if you will…

  29. Ettinger says:

    Dan: IOW: YOU tell communities that they can’t determine what’s best for them [the implication being your pat ‘barriers’ takes away their freedom to determine their own solution, and masks the larger issue of population growth and consumption]. I hear a lot of denigrating of that sort of thing on this site, yet here we find it being used to justify an ideological position…how odd, no

    It is not odd, because the overriding issue here is that most of the land that the residents want to exert control over (ie. prevent growth) belongs to a minority of local residents who do want to develop it.

    If vineyard owners want to keep growing grapes on their land rather than develop it (and perhaps have some New Yorkers move there) then there is no problem. But that is not the case. Owners of very low density land (ie. vineyards farms etc.) overwhelmingly want to retain the right to develop their land, but the local NIMBY majority, who does not want to see more people move in, has other plans.

  30. BrooksImp says:

    IOW, so long as human creativity is directed the way you want it to be directed. King, potentate, regulator, planner, whatever, collectivism had nothing to do with our growth out of a “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” existence, but it certainly could return us to those conditions.

  31. Dan says:

    Ah. So you are saying communities have no business choosing their own self-determination. They cannot limit growth to preserve quality of life, they must throw their community open to the whims of others. I see.

    Well, welcome to earth. They can, and do. That’s how humans work, like it or not. And society determines what is property, and what rights are attached thereto. Property rights are not handed down on stone tablets from the clouds, they are written in sand, and our Constitution doesn’t even define property or just compensation. Because it changes.

    And thanks for your book report. Share your “knowledge” with Australian, African, Indian, Andean, Chinese and western US** water managers, as they are under the mistaken impression that their water resources are dwindling. And fisheries managers across the planet need not worry, despite widespread collapse (why, we’ll just think real hard and fish will appear!!). You need to tell them to put those fears aside, as their living standards have never been better. Sure.

    DS

    ** Large .pdf, summary here.

  32. Dan says:

    Oops – my 31 was in reply to 27.

    29:

    Owners of very low density land (ie. vineyards farms etc.) overwhelmingly want to retain the right to develop their land, but the local NIMBY majority, who does not want to see more people move in, has other plans.

    Gregoire in WA State has tried to address this. I also argued in WA during the overwhelming I-933 defeat that something must be done to allow folk to be able to make money on their land, while preserving farmland for future generations.

    Individual rights vs societal rights – there is a solution out there and I think WA State is moving in the right direction.

    DS

  33. BrooksImp says:

    From what I’ve personally seen in the past 6 months in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, China and Taiwan, things have never been better, people have never been happier.

    I’m saying communities, or anyone for that matter, have no right to expropriate property rights without paying for them. Might is definitely not right. Communities have every right to self-determination provided they pay for it. The mere ability to act collectively, in itself, conveys no rights. While the form and substance of property continues to change, the constitutional and common law rights to bargain for and voluntarily consent to the exchange of property rights and be protected from expropriation have not changed much.

  34. Ettinger says:

    Dan: ”Ah. So you are saying communities have no business choosing their own self-determination. They cannot limit growth to preserve quality of life, they must throw their community open to the whims of others. I see.”

    No, they do not have to throw their community open to the whims of others. It would simply suffice if they allowed those of their neighbors who want to develop their land, the freedom to do so.

  35. msetty says:

    BrooksImp spewed forth:
    I’m saying communities, or anyone for that matter, have no right to expropriate property rights without paying for them.

    Ettinger spaken thus:
    No, they do not have to throw their community open to the whims of others.

    So do you see some right to “collective rights” by society on a local basis, let alone on a national basis, then?

    It would simply suffice if they allowed those of their neighbors who want to develop their land, the freedom to do so.

    Subject to the limits brought forth in the U.S. Constitution, which was written by a bunch of agnostic white men two centuries ago, not from God brought down from the mountain? (sic)

    Or do you two prefer a Randian overlordship system rather than representative democracy that (I think) puts reasonable limits on property and other rights for the collective good?

    Looks like this theoretical philosophical discussion (such as it is…) is getting off the specifics of Randal’s topic for today again, folks!

  36. Ettinger says:

    Msetty ”The tendency of many people to stay in their houses after Proposition 13 passed in 1978 also probably was a factor in price runups in the 1980’s.”

    Can you explain that a little better?
    How does the incentive to not move, that is not buy a more expensive house, that is not pour more money into real estate put pressure on housing prices? In my view the opposite is true – it would tend to dampen prices. But this dampening effect is dwarfed by the inflation caused by a market characterized by an artificially inelastic housing supply.

    ”Out of 7,000 square miles, I’d roughly guess 70% is mountainous. These are nothing like the rolling hills of Central or Western Tennessee; they are very rugged California Coastal Range, really suitable only for scattered rural housing, though large swaths of the hills have been developed for view housing in Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Marin at usually 1-3 units/acre.”

    And so? We lack the technological know how to build on hills? When was the densely built steep and rugged Lombard Street in SF built? Isn’t that steep? If it was built then, we certainly have the technology to do it now.

    Besides, my guess is that maybe ¼ of Bay Area terrain is rugged, the rest is rolling hills 20% grade or less. Certainly many of the hills in San Francisco are steeper than 80% of the Bay Area, yet they are developed – and densely so. West Belmont is densely built on rather steep hills from what I recall. Building technology can take that in strides nowadays. Building technology is not the restraining factor here.

  37. Ettinger says:

    Msetty ”Hey, buddy, it is wet noodles at 20 yards between you and me if you want to develop the 90,000 acres+ of vineyards in Sonoma, Marin and Solano Counties for housing. These vineyards are directly responsible for the local $6 billion+ wine and tourism industry, so they are more valuable for that in the long run, particularly as the need for “sustainability” grows.”

    Are you afraid to let the vineyard owners decide what is most valuable in the long run? Can’t take care of their long term interests so you have to intervene for their own good?

    Even with your numbers that is 66K per acre which sounds very high for just growing grapes. But in any case, don’t you think housing may be more lucrative?

    Besides, I like the rent seeking, wealth transferring hypocrisy of hotel owners (and others in the Napa/Sonoma tourism industry) who lobby government to use the neighbor’s vineyard in order to attract tourists while at the same time eliminating competition by not letting the vineyard owner build a hotel or tourism business similar to theirs (vintners having connections to city hall excluded). Hypocrisy has no bounds.

  38. Dan says:

    Building technology can take that in strides nowadays. Building technology is not the restraining factor here.

    But the engineering and material for slope stabilization and seismic resilience increase the cost of the house, as does the paving of the grade, the pumping stations to get heavy water up hill, the space for the curve radii for life safety equipment, prevailing wage in Bay Area to ensure quality workmanship in a seismic zone, the distance of travel for sewer/storm…so you’re likely going to get fewer but higher-end homes for the premium, and do nothing for affordable housing.

    Not to mention that housing is a revenue drain on local treasuries and you have to have concurrent space for jobs and revenue-generating activities. And there may be a net negative on surrounding home values if the open space is developed poorly and the view is degraded.

    DS

  39. msetty says:

    Ettinger spaken:
    Besides, I like the rent seeking, wealth transferring hypocrisy of hotel owners (and others in the Napa/Sonoma tourism industry) who lobby government to use the neighbor’s vineyard in order to attract tourists…

    Yeah, I wish I owned some property within a half-mile or so of the $200 million Napa 30-room Ritz Carleton, for which the skids have been greased due to $5 million+ in TOT taxes annually…I also don’t see anyway of directly charging for the scenery short of “charging admission” to the Napa Valley at its entrances, like they do at Yosemite…

    …while at the same time eliminating competition by not letting the vineyard owner build a hotel or tourism business similar to theirs (vintners having connections to city hall excluded). Hypocrisy has no bounds.

    A truckload of wet noodles for you, buddy! We already have hundreds of industrial-type sprawl facilities mixed in with the vineyards, e.g., called “wineries.”

    Given the traffic problems that already exist all over the Napa Valley, I would run, not walk, away from volunteering to tell “Up Valley” and everyone else living here that they need to extend the current freeway ending in Yountville past St. Helena and Calistoga, let alone widen all the “charming wine roads” so vineyard owners can “compete” with hotel owners. If you were lucky in this utterly hopeless, suicidal tilting at windmills, they might be magnanimous enough to let you “choose the tree.”

    Actually, the State of California does have a “farm visit” law that overrides local zoning and allows “farmers” (I suppose including those with a 1- or 2-acre hobby vineyard–lots of these around here…) to have up to six guest units. But as far as I know, no one yet in Napa County has taken advantage of this interesting law.

  40. msetty says:

    That is, the 350-room Ritz…

  41. Ettinger says:

    ”But the engineering and material for slope stabilization and seismic resilience increase the cost of the house, as does the paving of the grade, the pumping stations to get heavy water up hill, the space for the curve radii for life safety equipment, prevailing wage in Bay Area to ensure quality workmanship in a seismic zone, the distance of travel for sewer/storm…so you’re likely going to get fewer but higher-end homes for the premium, and do nothing for affordable housing.

    You are grossly exaggerating the additional costs. Between $150k and $800k there is room for not overly regulated builders to do plenty of fancy infrastructure. So you can build affordable housing on hills. There are large portions of the Oakland hills where the majority of houses sell below the median.

    And in any case, building houses for… yes those evil rich too, also takes a lot of pressure of the entire housing market. As is, the rich are comperting with the poor for houses on the valley floor. Who do you think will win the bidding war? The Ettingers or the guys who drive the Civics? And what do you think that does for housing prices?

    But in the end, you are right in some things. We are talking mostly about ideas. In the real world, Ettinger rides the regulation wave one step ahead of the masses (he’s seen this movie before in Europe), makes money, and laughs from far away at Bay Area residents who now fester in their self created predicament and have to pay him $800K a piece for each one of their children’s modest dwellings. Indeed, if I thought that my comments on this blog had a serious chance to induce significant changes, I’d stop.

  42. Dan says:

    You are grossly exaggerating the additional costs.

    As I’ve given no dollar figure, one wonders why you must characterize my argument in this way.

    But ultimately we reach somewhat of an agreement: it is hard to build affordable housing in the Bay Area. Especially as long as equilibrium rents remain a fact of life.

    DS

  43. BrooksImp says:

    RE: #35
    So, two centuries ago agnostic white men brought forth a Constitution of limits? You must mean the federal government of enumerated powers, an odd formulation indeed for enforcing “society’s collective rights on a local basis.” Collective rights? Announced by who? Enjoyed by who? Enforced by who? The collective of course. The overlords who dictate limits. The Souters, Ginsburgs, Breyers, Stevens and their living constitution ilk who discover “objective indicia of consensus [to] demonstrate…opinion[s]” for us. (See Kennedy v. Louisiana.) How on earth could we get along without overlords to write pop culture into the Constitution for us? We traded the rule of law for the rule of objective indicia. We got gypped. You deserve better. Really.

  44. sustainibertarian:

    The Antiplanner opposes all zoning, so it is disingenuous for you to claim that the Antiplanner somehow support single-family zoning.

    It is not disingenuous, because you clearly stated in your above argument that the problem was that there was not enough land being developed for single family residences due to zoning restrictions. Whereas I and several others on this blog post argue that denser housing would be a much more effective measure in both regulatory relaxation and the potential for creating more affordable housing. Please refer me to some posts where you discuss the housing development oppression caused by areas restricted to single family zoning. I have seen none. It is always the growth boundaries this and that, but they cannot be discussed without discussing the need for regulations to allow more density in single family areas than otherwise is permitted. I would like a detailed post on the perils of single family regulatory restrictions from you, but am not aware of any. Please direct me to such a post or get on it post haste to prove me wrong and I would consider retracting my previous statement.

    Thanks.

    “I would think that relaxing density controls in single family zones would help a lot with affordability.” — sustainibertarian

    Based on what?

    Well economics for starters, as many others here have explained in great detail and clarity. So why do you accept the growth boundary component so easily, while the idea of allowing developers to develop more housing on expensive land is somehow mysterious to you, or am I wrong about your opinion on that matter?

  45. msetty says:

    No. 43:
    The overlords who dictate limits. The Souters, Ginsburgs, Breyers, Stevens and their living constitution ilk who discover “objective indicia of consensus [to] demonstrate…opinion[s]” for us. (See Kennedy v. Louisiana.)

    So are the Supremes “activist judges” when they rule (1) that the denizens of Gitmo have a right to habius corpus, or (2) when they uphold the 2nd Amendment and overturn handgun bans, or (3) when they overturn a state death penalty case, placing limits on the right of the government to kill criminals who raped children? Which is it?

    I really at a loss to understand your point. I wonder how you would deal with such issues since you don’t seem to think the Supreme Court is really a “Supreme Court.” Sheesh.

  46. Dan says:

    I really at a loss to understand your point.

    Anger that the planet practices majority rule and tries to enforce laws.

    DS

  47. BrooksImp says:

    No #45 & #46. When the Court practices majority rule and makes new laws it usurps the role of elected representatives. Under Marbury, the Court’s first venture into constitutional interpretation, the limit of it’s power was to interpret the constitutionality of other laws, not make new ones. Not satisfied with that limited role, a couple decades later the Court drove us into a Civil War. The Court is not the voice of the planet, nor is it the enforcement branch of government. Look to the executive branch for that. The blind statism running around this blog is amazing.