Thanks to high housing prices and a poor economy (which is also partly due to high housing prices), more Americans are leaving California than are moving to the state. In the last decade, 1.5 million more people moved out than moved in from other states, and the poor economy is also reducing foreign immigration, leaving the state’s future in doubt. For the first time in more than a century, a majority of the state’s population was actually born in California.
Back in the 1970s, when California cities were adopting anti-growth policies, it was all the rage for people to talk about a “steady-state” economy rather than a growth economy. But, says historian Mike Davis, “A steady-state California is both a contradiction in terms and a recipe for decline.”
Oatmeal is the best snack before sexual activity! Grapefruit Is a https://pdxcommercial.com/multnomah-ahead-wapato-sale/ cialis tablets 20mg Big NO! Consumption of grapefruit is generally not recommended safe for consumption with highly acidic foods including citruses, tomatoes, and vinegar. + The grapefruit is to be done? Think to yourself for a moment. In uncommon cases, Generic Visit This Link purchase generic viagra offers ascent to some unending sick impacts too. Causes of online order viagra Sexual Problems in Women: The causes of erectile dysfunction and finding treatments to reverse its effects. A browsing of a playboy center page where photos of undressed beautiful ladies nevertheless may possibly generate cialis online mastercard stimulation and sexual thoughts. High housing prices are “driving out working-class families,” says a representative of the center-left Public Policy Institute of California. Not just working-class families: young college graduates find lower living costs in other states and so the state is suffering a “brain drain.”
California Governor Jerry Brown persuaded the state legislature to eliminate local redevelopment agencies, and now the state is trying to seize $1.7 billion in assets held by those agencies. If the state is willing to take such drastic action to save itself, maybe it will also be willing to revoke some of the insane land-use laws that are the underlying cause of its economic doldrums.
Depopulation would not be a terrible thing in California’s case. Experts still predict that it’s overall population will be 40-50 million people by mid century. It’s far worse in the Midwestern United States. And there are advantages to some parts of America having fewer or no people there…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Commons
If some small parts of California could be restored like the famous Chaparral.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Back in the 1970s, when California cities were adopting anti-growth policies, it was all the rage for people to talk about a “steady-state†economy rather than a growth economy. But, says historian Mike Davis, “A steady-state California is both a contradiction in terms and a recipe for decline.â€
The only time when living things have a “steady-state” is when they die.
I believe the same holds true for communities, large and small (and California is a pretty large community in terms of both geography and population). “Steady-state” means dead.
This also connects to claims made by boosters of rail projects (including California’s high-speed rail). They nearly always assume a static future, which is not going to happen.
People that push highways are pushing a static future for that matter.
I left in the early naughties. There were too many people then for the ecosystems to support. I do agree that places like the southern peninsula and parts of East Bay have too many McSuburbs and the zoning could be loosened to allow density. That will help the commutes over Altamont and others a tiny bit. But I still don’t see any specifics here or in the years past on this site about any meaningful strategy to curb demand in some of the most beautiful land on earth.
DS
“I still don’t see any specifics here or in the years past on this site about any meaningful strategy to curb demand in some of the most beautiful land on earth”
Actually, Dan, the state and various municipalities have already effected a strategy to curb demand. Forty years of restrictive land use controls and anti-business legislation have made the cost of living and doing business there intolerable. Hence the exodus.
The point was, Jardinero, that I repeatedly ask folks about how many homes would lower prices and by how much, and where would they go. I never, ever get an answer. The point being equilibrium rents drive the prices, and localities keeping people out to preserve their quality of life are second (and Marin Co keeping out a few thousand houses isn’t the reason for the prices – the American Dream of a large suburban lot has much more to do with it). Again. For the 745th time.
DS
I disagree that equilibrium rents drive prices. That might be the case if rentals were perfect substitutes for bought homes. A rented home and a purchased home are not substitutes for each other in the way that Cheerios can be substituted with Toastie-o’s. Home buyers don’t make purchase decisions by comparing the cost of owning with renting and then substituting as needed.
Prices rise when demand exceeds supply, all else being equal. If legal mechanisms are in place which constrain supply while demand grows then prices will rise, like Marin County. If there are few constraints on supply and it is allowed to keep pace with demand then prices will fall or remain steady, like Harris County.
If Marin County developers were permitted to develop in the same manner as Harris County developer, then prices would surely fall. Both because there would be vastly more houses and the increased number of houses would make Marin County, well not Marin County anymore, and it would not be nearly as desirable.
I disagree that equilibrium rents drive prices.
Oh, wow! You’ll want to publish this result. It will revolutionize several branches of Economics. One of my econ profs still publishes, do you need a name to get a foot in the door? I can introduce you…
DS
Reference to authority is not an argument, in fact, it is a classic fallacy. I stated why equilibrium rents are not a factor. Refering to authority, there are numerous economists and market analysts who agree. My statement was not original, it was cribbed from the “experts”.
Aside from that, there is the additional reason that the supply of rentals is driven by the same constraints on supply as that of owner occupied housing. The same legal authority that constrains supply and drives the price of owned houses up will also constrain supply and drive up the price of rentals. So while the price of both may rise or fall together over time; one should not be considered a proxy or substitute for the other. Correlation is not causation.
I referenced no authority. I implied that you have some new knowledge that will overturn several branches of existing knowledge, and asked you if you needed help sharing this new knowledge with the discipline. That is: no one knows about this new knowledge you claim to have.
DS
Danny Boy is back to being Coo-Coo for Cocoa Puffs today!!!
P.S. to high school flunkout Danny Boy: “rent” has a different meaning than you think it does.
Dan, your handwaving statement that my analysis defies the conventional wisdom is a reference to authority.
If you can refute my earlier statements with logic or facts, I welcome the opportunity. Please no handwaving, ad hominem attacks or references to authority:
I disagree that equilibrium rents drive prices. That might be the case if rentals were perfect substitutes for bought homes. A rented home and a purchased home are not substitutes for each other in the way that Cheerios can be substituted with Toastie-O’s. Home buyers don’t make purchase decisions by comparing the cost of owning with renting and then substituting as needed.
The supply of rentals is driven by the same constraints as that of owner occupied housing. The same legal authority that constrains supply and drives the price of owner occupied houses up will also constrain supply and drive up the price of rentals. So while the price of both may rise or fall together over time; one should not be considered a substitute for the other.
Dan, your handwaving statement that my analysis defies the conventional wisdom is a reference to authority.
I made no such statement. I expressed surprise at your result [I disagree that equilibrium rents drive prices], because it is unknown, and offered help to get you published – as I am excited at the prospect of several* branches of economics** being revolutionized.
DS
* https://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=udY&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1440&bih=713&q=define%3A+equilibrium+rents&btnG=Search
** http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882183
Thanks for the linked references to authority. I was really more curious about what you had to say about what I had to say.
Thanks for the linked references to authority.
Again, I made exactly zero appeals to authority, as is easily seen by scrolling a very, very, very short distance upthread. Easily verified.
What I actually did was:
o I provided you much needed definitions for the term ‘equilibrium rent’, and then
o I provided references that helpfully provided you some examples (references of papers using the term ‘equilibrium rent’), in different branches of econ. This helpfulness provided you the information you need to know that helpfully verifies for you that your new knowledge is revolutionary. Revolutionary, I say.
o I then stated if you want to publish your findings that will revolutionize these several branches of economics (that disagree with your unknown findings), let me know and I’ll help you.
o I then finally stated I’m interested in your unshared findings that will revolutionize several branches of econ, and simply want to see whether folks who do this for a living will agree that your unknown and unshared findings will revolutionize several branches of econ, as you imply.
Again, all of this is easily verified by scrolling a very, very, very short distance upthread. Anyone can do this. Easily verified. Nothing new, just reminding what I wrote.
So this is new and not reiterated from a very, very, very short distance upthread: let us know if you have the courage of your convictions to do the work to revolutionize several branches of econ, and (this is reiterated) if you want some help publishing your unknown and unshared revolutionary secret findings. Randal can pass along your draft manuscript (this is new).
Thanks!
DS
So Dan deliberately tries to run off on a different definition of “rent”, trying to bait someone to point out his ignorance, then he spends a couple hours trying to show how professorial he is.
Can you spell “C-O-N-C-E-I-T-E-D”?
Dan, you ain’t very intelligent, and your constantly faux pretension in academia belies your intellectual insecurity.
So Dan deliberately tries to run off on a different definition of “rentâ€,
Can you spell n-o-I-d-i-d-n-‘t or m-a-k-i-n-g-i-t-u-p or c-a-n-‘t-c-o-m-p-r-e-h-n-d-E-n-g-l-i-s-h? We knew you could.
DS
See #11 above, Danny Boy. I not only know your Community College brain better than you know yourself, but I can mock your posts before you even write them!!!
Score a touchdown for Andy!!!!
Lol @ 18. Dan thinks everyone is hanging on every word he says, every word! What an ego! They probably told him in planner school that they would looked up to as experts in every area of life.
Metrosucks, you only like urban planning that is just for automobiles.
If urban planners include provisions for pedestrians, bikes & rail lines then you’re against it.
No one is against reasonable provisions for bikes & pedestrians, which are built in for all construction. But you want outdated, expensive rail which is mostly paid for by auto drivers. Don’t worry poor baby, that era is over.
Rail isn’t expensive or outdated, you just want a loaded transport policy deck that favors big oil & the auto industry.
Roads have been around for thousands of years, but I wouldn’t say that they’re “outdated”.
Metrosucks, you’re no different than O’Toole, you’re just a sociopathic liar and crook!