Last year, someone bought a house in San Francisco “for an almost unheard of price of $525,000.” By “almost unheard of” they mean “incredibly low,” so low that the San Francisco Examiner called it the “cheapest house on the market.” (The house was sold at an auction with bids starting at $400,000.)
You have to live in a pretty warped world to think that $525,000 is a low price for a house. Especially this house. It was only 870 square feet and so dilapidated that the real estate listing warned of “unstable building, floors, dry-rot and foundations. Enter at your own risk.”
You are advised to consume these herbal pills for curing sexual dysfunctions. cheapest viagra 100mg You possible were told that after gallbladder removal, when there generic sildenafil tablets is no abnormality in the ordinary tests. A lower level of albumin is a sign of impotence condition. cialis australia online But if you feel with orden viagra viagra the purpose of treatment. Looks like the buyers should have heeded the warning. While trying to fix up the fixer upper without the help of a professional contractor, the house collapsed.
“They were just a wonderful young couple trying to do the American Dream thing and may have gotten in over their heads,” said a neighbor. So the American dream vanishes in a cloud of dust for one more young family. Hope they had good insurance, especially since the house damaged the next-door home as well.
Being Kentucky Derby season and all, stuff naturally gets trotted out.
I see the implied lack of supply argument is trotted out here.
Supply arguments for the Bay Area would be cogent if there were flat, cheap land left upon which to build. Let’s find out if this is the case. This will tell us if the implication is valid.
What is left out of the argument is whether there is actually, truly buildable land left, hence the 2.25 hr commute from Tracy or the 1.5 hr commute from Livermore or the 2 hr commute from Sacto.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone supply real numbers backing their claim.
Let’s see some.
Numbers:
o Supply us with acreage of vacant, buildable land within an hour from SFO and Silicon Valley.
o Then do numbers for us for net 4 DU/ac (what the Murrican dream is: 1/4 ac lots for ever’body [except the many who don’t want those]).
o Then show us how that will provide even close to adequate supply and drive down prices to be, say, 50% more than lovely Bakersfield with it’s booming high-paying job market and benign climate.
Let’s see those numbers to judge for ourselves the veracity of the argument. Numbers. Numbers. Numbers.
Numbers:
o What is possible, now, at build-out with extant vacant land.
o Then give us non-teardown infill numbers at the standard 2%/yr (say, 50% of 1+ac substandard potential, or 10% of parcels under 10,000 sf supply for the next 7 years).
Potential supply numbers. Let’s get them out on the table.
What is the actual supply. Numbers.
Let’s see the numbers showing adequate supply, both now and potential. Numbers.
Show the numbers to back the implied claim.
DS
hmmm. ol shows in preview, but not now. [as does sup and sub]. I’ll use blockquote.
DS
There’s quite a bit of vacant land, but none of it is buildable, by which I mean “building is permittable” not “building isn’t technically feasible at reasonable price”. The problem is political not technical. There’s also lots of land available if you could assemble parcels and build high, but most of SF is under 3-story max zoning so infill development is pretty dead. Can’t allow those quaint victorian row homes (typically a garage on the ground + 2 living floors above) to be torn down no matter how old and ratty they’re getting. Given SF’s density, geography, and land prices such a zoning restriction is absurd. If SF wants affordable housing it should Manhattanize itself.
This is a good point, arg.
Folks who live there like their 2- and 3- and 4- story just fine. That’s the character of the area. Tourists like it. Residents like it.
Of course there are side effects, but residents like the quality of life. Same with open space – OS adds to quality of life for residents. All that takes away buildable land. Pushing out people to the ‘burbs.
So, what about this implied argument again?
What’s the vacant and redevelopable potential to drrrrive these high prices down?
Numbers.
DS
How about that decommissione military base? Hundreds/thousand of acres. The elete want it for a golf corse or some such instead of housing.
Don’t recall the name. Alamedia? Persideo?
Thanks
JK
Gosh – Reason or other such pubs haven’t published a story telling us how much lower prices would be ififif? I wonder why.
All we get is no numbers, just what ifs.
Alameda Point and other such infill – will it drrrrive those dirty prices down?
Where are the numbers backing the implicit claim that there’s supply.
DS
“If SF wants affordable housing it should Manhattanize itself”
Manhattan has affordable housing??
By “Manhattanize” I meant “build tall”. Turn SF into a city of highrises like Manhattan. SF’s problem is lack of supply, which could be ameliorated if you could build enough units. The only way that can happen is if you maximize units/acre, which can’t happen under SF’s current zoning. By ripping out old row homes and replacing them with 40+ story buildings you can add thousands of units to the available supply without touching “green space”. And if I recall correctly SF is more expensive than Manhattan.
By ripping out old row homes and replacing them with 40+ story buildings you can add thousands of units to the available supply without touching “green spaceâ€Â.
Let’s hope the neighbors don’t object to ruining the ambience of the area.
DS
Dan
According to the Greenbelt Alliance, more than 1 million acres of SF Bay Area land have been protected as open space, while only 761,000 acres have been developed.
The alliance worries that another 400,000 acres are “at risk” of being developed. Most of these acres are outside of UGBs but not in regional parks or other protected areas. I would worry that these acres are at risk of being permanently removed from potential development.
Yes, some of the acres in regional parks are not flat. Who said housing has to be on flat acres? I have walked and cycled through and around many of the Bay Area’s regional parks. They are not particularly steep (at least by Oregon Coast standards) and anyone familiar with the Oakland Hills would know that builders could easily build upon them if they were allowed to do so.
California is the nation’s most densely urbanized state. 95 percent of its people live on just 5 percent of its land. There is plenty of land to develop if government would just get out of the way.
The government is in the way, eh?
See, the gummint is in the way because the people have told the government that it should preserve open space. That’s what has happened. Thus, the people are in the way. Tell them they have to give up their quality of life so there can be some houses to look at rather than oaks. Tell us how you fare in this campaign.
BTW, affordable houses are rarely built on steep slopes. I’m sure your riding around in the open space allowed you to notice that there’s a bunch of nice houses near the open space.
DS
Dan said: “BTW, affordable houses are rarely built on steep slopes. I’m sure your riding around in the open space allowed you to notice that there’s a bunch of nice houses near the open space.”
People can move out of old houses on flat land into the less “affordable” new houses in the hills. This takes pressure off of the market for old houses on flat land leading to them being more affordable than they otherwise would be if the affluent were also bidding on them.
Randal, thanks for answering Dan’s repeated questions about available land in the SF Bay Area. It is there and building on it would not force Califonians to give up their quality of life. Unless you include in that “quality” the price of a starter house being in the 7 figure range in a few years.
I asked for numbers, johng. I see none. No one can provide numbers like I asked for. I wonder why. You would think that someone would have looked at the numbers by now.
Perhaps you can point out some numbers for me since no one else can.
Please include the numbers of how many times the communities voted to keep the open space. You may, for context, also want to include numbers from surveys on how many residents want to keep the open space.
And the proximate principle: tell us how much higher home values are near the greenspace. Tell us the numbers of how much you’ll have to pay the homeowners in lost value by placing homes in the greenspace. Regulatory taking, see, is what I’d cry if someone tried to pull that on me.
Lastly, provide us the numbers for other uses that create uh…”artificial shortages” of wall-to-wall roofs. For example, around here the market for golf courses has created an “artificial shortage” of space for residential uses. Provisioning water has created an “artificial shortage” of residential space by impounding water. I see these big ol’ vertical, one-story parking lots that create “artificial shortages” of residential space. Those parks full of that cr*ppy looking green grass and dog poop: “artificial shortage” wastelands of verdure. I mean: who wouldn’t rather look at a McSuburb out their window rather than a park with all those yelling brats and happy people laying on the grass? Surely one can look out the window with satisfaction knowing those houses are driving down home costs for everyone – why, how outward-looking! How community-oriented! How delightfully justice-seeking!
Simply marvelous, that overcoming everyone’s wish for greenspaces. They simply don’t understand that roofs as far as the eye can see will lower their home value, to the benefit of everyone! And having to jump in the SUV to take little Trevor and Britney to a park, not a problem. Far better to have your home price fall a few thousand dollars than to walk to a park. Yup, best for everyone indeed.
Thank you ever so much for providing actual numbers to show the resultant price fall for provisioning X number of DUs on Y amount of land, johng.
DS
Adjacent and to the south of San Jose/Silicon Valley is the flat Coyote Valley of 7,500 acres which has been in planning for over 20 years. Property owners have spent over 15 million in plans and development if ever is years away. Smart Growth at its worse. Average homeprice now $755,000 and increasing.
Dan said:
“I asked for numbers, johng. I see none.”
Randal said:
“more than 1 million acres of SF Bay Area land have been protected as open space, while only 761,000 acres have been developed.The alliance worries that another 400,000 acres are “at risk†of being developed.”
I count three numbers here…
Oh, so he gives you number Dan and you want “other” numbers…
Anyone wondering, johng, whether this is an adequate number(s) need merely to consider comment 1 to see what constitutes the components of an adequate answer.
No one has shown, calculated, referenced, cited, copied from a website, shown scribblings on a napkin how the development-no-one-will-approve will lower housing prices, and how the resultant lower values from the lost open space will be paid for or factored into the new prices.
But as I said, there’s all kinds of made-up-for-our-argument “artificial shortages†out there, but no one is showing how this made-up-for-our-argument “artificial shortage†will affect housing prices.
See, all those shopping malls create artificial housing shortages too; how come there are no arguments to put residences on them to alleviate our shortage? Parking lots create artificial housing shortages. Automalls lining I-80 to Tahoe (to raise revenue) create artificial housing shortages. Parks to walk the dog so it can take a cr*p create artificial housing shortages. School playgrounds create artificial housing shortages. And so does open space.
But guess what: they are all components of cities. Every single one.
Paving open space for McSuburbs? Forget it. Non-starter. The vast majority have asked for these to be preserved. Only a tiny minority even thinks this is a starter.
People want it. You can’t take it away from them. Whining about lush, verdurous open space not having roofs all over it sounds more like a comedy skit than a serious proposal.
DS
Isnt’ the “development-no-one-will-approve” the point here. I’m sure the vacant and underutilized land owners would approve of a lot of development if given the opportunity.
Isnt’ the “development-no-one-will-approve†the point here. I’m sure the vacant and underutilized land owners…
No.
No one is opposing developing actual vacant and underutilized land, which is why I asked for their numbers.
The point is that the Bay Area open space system is protected via outright purchase or conservation easements. The people have bought these lands to protect them as open space.
It is not vacant or underutilized land.
It is a component of the cities just as parking lots, playgrounds and shopping malls are a component of cities. The people have bought these lands to protect them as open space.
Which is why the fake argument about “artificial shortage†is akin to a comedy skit. The people have bought these lands to protect them as open space.
Who here among us will volunteer to go down there and propose carpeting the hills with roofs, on the argument that this will lower housing costs by…by…well, no one here wants to tell us by how much, do they?
DS