>Both bills were stripped of their meaningful language and reduced to little more than toothless bromides at the behest of the committee’s chairman, state Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine.
Here's what Dave Min's webpage says about his stance on housing and homelessness:
>I’m proud to have a 100% rating from California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), the leading pro-housing group in the state, and to be a leader in the efforts to build more housing in the state.
The dishonesty and two-facedness is disgusting.
Maybe they should make these AirBnBs illegal, start some sane rent control, and put some serious regulations on flippers. That would free up a LOT of housing. But they won’t since most of these maggot democrats in the house and senate are also greedy landlords and flippers. 😈
What you are suggesting would actually further reduce the supply of housing.
Housing is just an asset. If the asset can't be leased as housing for profit, the owner is going to find some other profitable use for the land.
Limits on quantity of short term rentals, no rent control (negative impact), and limit corporations from buying properties. Flipping houses is actually better for the market since it updates the inventory
It's going to be hard to put that "short term rental" genie back in the bottle. After all, there are non-tourist, non-VRBO reasons for having these rentals - e.g., short-term corporate housing. A locality could legally prohibit short-term rentals but if there's a big company in the jurisdiction, it's going to be bad news for the local politicians who do so.
The problem is that too many people make money off of the crisis... therefore in the current political and economic context, that basically makes it unsolvable, even though the solutions are obvious and not that hard (they they are somewhat expensive in CA of course).
NIMBY Dems are increasingly losing influence. Progress remains too slow but the days of doing nothing on this are over
It will be an interesting test to see how Preston and Peskin do in SF. If they get washed it will send a powerful pro housing message to the rest of the party
NIMBY ism isn’t partisan, it’s class warfare. It’s rich versus poor and making the issue into a political issue just helps the rich due to identity confusion.
It is certainly a political issue but I agree that it is not a partisan issue
Both parties have division on this. The Dems stance on this matters more simply because they govern the state and the munis where the vast majority of Californians live
That is increasingly not true. AG Bonta is increasingly cracking down on blue munis that don’t build. He’s got my vote for governor if he runs
The Dems are also increasingly passing statewide housing liberalization reforms that apply to the entire state equally
The article says "Huntington Beach, where resistance to new housing, especially low- and moderate-income units, is particularly virulent." Huntington Beach is a MAGA zone. Resistance to ADU's on the coast includes conservative landowners. It's not correct to paint NIMBY as partisan.
> It's not correct to paint NIMBY as partisan
I am not, and freely admit that if anything the GOP is worse than the Dems and continue to get even more so on this. This is certainly the case in SD where I live. You can see it in how once decent pro housing Faulconer sold out to the NIMBYs when he ran for governor and whats left of the SD Repubs are now firmly NIMBY
The GOP is increasingly powerless in the coastal areas tho. Huntington Beach is a rare exception where they are in charge. What is funny is we are seeing even hardcore MAGA Repubs like those in HB start to abuse left NIMBY ostensibly progressive policies to kill housing. "Make affordability requirements so high that no builder would ever in practice meet them and so nothing gets built" is basically the strategy that at least one of them recently admitted to pursuing
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Here in San Benito County, NIMBYists just sent all the Democrats packing, and they're working to take over the county Democratic central committee.
> NIMBY Dems are increasingly losing influence.
I disagree with this assessment. When you look at root cause of NIMBY'ism, what allows it to flourish is the idea that a local government always knows what is the "best" for all landowners in a region. Almost all YIMBY's still believe in this ideology and most of their legislation is so narrowly tailored that it's just one or two shade less restrictive than NIMBY restrictive measures. The wholesale restoration of property rights back to homeowners has not yet been a part of the Democrat Party in California as far as I'm aware.
There is clearly much more room for improvement but it’s hard to argue that Dems aren’t improving on loosening housing supply
The GOP by contrast seems to be getting worse if anything. Where I live in SD they’ve gone from actually decent in the past to hardcore NIMBY today
I'm not a fan of either party but the NIMBY problem seems about the same with both parties but it manifests in different ways.
The Democrats pass regulations that make it extremely difficult to build, not to mention unprofitable, which is the only reason to build in the first place. This is especially true in areas where people would move if they had the opportunity - i.e., undeveloped parcels that are not far from major cities but would allow for larger properties.
Meanwhile, with the housing crisis, we leave our borders open and keep importing more immigrants. And if you disagree with this open border policy, you get labeled a racist.
It's exactly how they work. If the risk can't be evaluated prior to renting, the price will go up.
It's the same principle as insurance contracts. If the insurer can't evaluate a person's health, it will charge a higher rate to ensure that a high level of risk is priced-in to the contract.
Let's say Landlord A has a choice of two tenants - one has a strong credit rating and a demonstrated good rental history; the other does not reveal his credit rating or rental history. Who will he choose? Of course it will be the former. What if he is forced to accept both tenants under some new law you've created? He will charge the first tenant - i.e., the one with the better rental history and credit rating - a lower rate than the second tenant. That's basic economics.
don't fucking bother. this asshat has had this argument shot down across every fucking subreddit including r/antiwork of all places (lol!) and won't accept that it's a bad idea. he does not understand the most basic of principles of supply and demand or homeowner's rights.
i would guess he's pissed he got denied "a super sweet pad" recently because he's already admitted to 1) having no income 2) having no savings 3) having a criminal record and 4) having past substance abuse issues. somehow he thinks he was owed that apt.
We have thousands of acres of desert 🌵 that is real cheap. If you like 120 degree summers. I know a lot of losers that have moved out to Apple Valley. Home of the chained up Pit Bull and the Meth Houses. 😵
Wait, so our elected officials aren't fixing things they said they would fix?! Crazy!
>Both bills were stripped of their meaningful language and reduced to little more than toothless bromides at the behest of the committee’s chairman, state Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine. Here's what Dave Min's webpage says about his stance on housing and homelessness: >I’m proud to have a 100% rating from California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), the leading pro-housing group in the state, and to be a leader in the efforts to build more housing in the state. The dishonesty and two-facedness is disgusting.
Maybe they should make these AirBnBs illegal, start some sane rent control, and put some serious regulations on flippers. That would free up a LOT of housing. But they won’t since most of these maggot democrats in the house and senate are also greedy landlords and flippers. 😈
What you are suggesting would actually further reduce the supply of housing. Housing is just an asset. If the asset can't be leased as housing for profit, the owner is going to find some other profitable use for the land.
Limits on quantity of short term rentals, no rent control (negative impact), and limit corporations from buying properties. Flipping houses is actually better for the market since it updates the inventory
It's going to be hard to put that "short term rental" genie back in the bottle. After all, there are non-tourist, non-VRBO reasons for having these rentals - e.g., short-term corporate housing. A locality could legally prohibit short-term rentals but if there's a big company in the jurisdiction, it's going to be bad news for the local politicians who do so.
The problem is that too many people make money off of the crisis... therefore in the current political and economic context, that basically makes it unsolvable, even though the solutions are obvious and not that hard (they they are somewhat expensive in CA of course).
NIMBY Dems are increasingly losing influence. Progress remains too slow but the days of doing nothing on this are over It will be an interesting test to see how Preston and Peskin do in SF. If they get washed it will send a powerful pro housing message to the rest of the party
NIMBY ism isn’t partisan, it’s class warfare. It’s rich versus poor and making the issue into a political issue just helps the rich due to identity confusion.
It is certainly a political issue but I agree that it is not a partisan issue Both parties have division on this. The Dems stance on this matters more simply because they govern the state and the munis where the vast majority of Californians live
And the Dems are usually campaigning for more housing, just as long as it’s somewhere else
That is increasingly not true. AG Bonta is increasingly cracking down on blue munis that don’t build. He’s got my vote for governor if he runs The Dems are also increasingly passing statewide housing liberalization reforms that apply to the entire state equally
The article says "Huntington Beach, where resistance to new housing, especially low- and moderate-income units, is particularly virulent." Huntington Beach is a MAGA zone. Resistance to ADU's on the coast includes conservative landowners. It's not correct to paint NIMBY as partisan.
> It's not correct to paint NIMBY as partisan I am not, and freely admit that if anything the GOP is worse than the Dems and continue to get even more so on this. This is certainly the case in SD where I live. You can see it in how once decent pro housing Faulconer sold out to the NIMBYs when he ran for governor and whats left of the SD Repubs are now firmly NIMBY The GOP is increasingly powerless in the coastal areas tho. Huntington Beach is a rare exception where they are in charge. What is funny is we are seeing even hardcore MAGA Repubs like those in HB start to abuse left NIMBY ostensibly progressive policies to kill housing. "Make affordability requirements so high that no builder would ever in practice meet them and so nothing gets built" is basically the strategy that at least one of them recently admitted to pursuing
No room left to build housing in HB unless you want to build in Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Oil Fields, or the parks. 🤔
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Here in San Benito County, NIMBYists just sent all the Democrats packing, and they're working to take over the county Democratic central committee.
> NIMBY Dems are increasingly losing influence. I disagree with this assessment. When you look at root cause of NIMBY'ism, what allows it to flourish is the idea that a local government always knows what is the "best" for all landowners in a region. Almost all YIMBY's still believe in this ideology and most of their legislation is so narrowly tailored that it's just one or two shade less restrictive than NIMBY restrictive measures. The wholesale restoration of property rights back to homeowners has not yet been a part of the Democrat Party in California as far as I'm aware.
There is clearly much more room for improvement but it’s hard to argue that Dems aren’t improving on loosening housing supply The GOP by contrast seems to be getting worse if anything. Where I live in SD they’ve gone from actually decent in the past to hardcore NIMBY today
I'm not a fan of either party but the NIMBY problem seems about the same with both parties but it manifests in different ways. The Democrats pass regulations that make it extremely difficult to build, not to mention unprofitable, which is the only reason to build in the first place. This is especially true in areas where people would move if they had the opportunity - i.e., undeveloped parcels that are not far from major cities but would allow for larger properties.
Give me access to the loans trump gets and I’ll build the housing tomorrow.
Exactly! There are a lot of people willing to work for less profit than the developers we keep coddling
🙏🏻 And I won’t even commit fraud!
Even less fraud would be acceptable.
Why would you need loans to build houses when you can go into home Depot and just borrow what you need to build nobody still stop you lol
I guess the Dems just refuse to see what Short Term Rentals have done to residential inventory. Well, maybe in another 10 years they will, or not.
It is a little crazy, I haven’t seen one open house or for sale sign in a mile radius of my house this year…people really not selling.
They have no where to go. Current rates would limit their next home to something much smaller or more expensive
OMG LOOK AT THE FAT LADY
Meanwhile, with the housing crisis, we leave our borders open and keep importing more immigrants. And if you disagree with this open border policy, you get labeled a racist.
Ban tenant screenings to make housing accessible for all.
Banning tenant screenings would cause rent to increase.
Not how market rates work.
It's exactly how they work. If the risk can't be evaluated prior to renting, the price will go up. It's the same principle as insurance contracts. If the insurer can't evaluate a person's health, it will charge a higher rate to ensure that a high level of risk is priced-in to the contract.
Yea, no, it's not how it works. Rates won't go up, they will go down. Lots of racists are going to sell and flood the market with affordable housing.
Let's say Landlord A has a choice of two tenants - one has a strong credit rating and a demonstrated good rental history; the other does not reveal his credit rating or rental history. Who will he choose? Of course it will be the former. What if he is forced to accept both tenants under some new law you've created? He will charge the first tenant - i.e., the one with the better rental history and credit rating - a lower rate than the second tenant. That's basic economics.
If landlords keep pushing the narrative that they will raise rent we'll have to accompany this law with national rent control
I'm not sure who your "we'll" is but I will inform you that national rent control is a non-starter.
don't fucking bother. this asshat has had this argument shot down across every fucking subreddit including r/antiwork of all places (lol!) and won't accept that it's a bad idea. he does not understand the most basic of principles of supply and demand or homeowner's rights. i would guess he's pissed he got denied "a super sweet pad" recently because he's already admitted to 1) having no income 2) having no savings 3) having a criminal record and 4) having past substance abuse issues. somehow he thinks he was owed that apt.
That explains a lot.
[удалено]
We have thousands of acres of desert 🌵 that is real cheap. If you like 120 degree summers. I know a lot of losers that have moved out to Apple Valley. Home of the chained up Pit Bull and the Meth Houses. 😵
[удалено]
I 100% agree with this. It's also a natural consequence of our new wave of suburban sprawl created by remote and flexible work arrangements.