Housing is one of those issues where the political paradigm is so complex, it's impenetrable. Everyone has their own opinions about what the main engine is and it's hard to get anywhere.<p>Here's my own perspective, it has nothing to do with any city in particular.<p>(A) Housing is not a free market. Supply and demand exist, but that is not enough to make a market free. It's never a free market because decisions are (necessarily or not) always made at the political level. This covers things from planning, interest rate policies, bankruptcy laws tenancy laws, and even things like bank bailouts. Housing is unavoidably political.<p>(B) There is a conflict of interests between home owners and renters. One wants high prices, low availability, the other wants low prices.<p>(C) There are lots of interests that fall on the rising prices side. Rising prices make it easier to make money on loans, building, etc. They make it easier to raise tax revenue that funds public services that all sorts of parties have an interest in.<p>(D) Owner-occupiers should be neutral. They own one house, regardless of market price. But because of financing, and a lot of incorrect but persistent psychology about personal wealth they usually feel firmly on the high prices side. No one wants their house to lose value.<p>(E) Nominal increase in property value is inflation. Inflation has real impact on the "real" economy (as economists use the term). This has to do with the value of outstanding loans and annuities.<p>We are looking at problems that are mostly political and cultural as if they are economic. Ultimately a lot of the things that drive demand for houses are the same as the things that drive demand for universities. Demand for elite universities is not about competing for education as a scarce resource. Same with housing. It's not about competition and scarcity . It's about culture and politics.
<i>"If you need an example of how intense this is, over the summer, 71,421 people, or 8 percent of San Franciscans, decided that we should all vote on every single project over the existing height limits on the waterfront by passing a ballot initiative. It was funded primarily by a single wealthy couple that didn’t want to lose their views, and they put it through in one of the lowest turnout elections in city history."</i><p>What she doesn't say, really matters: that initiative was primarily about <i>stopping a massive government handout to the multimillionaire owners of a professional basketball team</i>, which would essentially give away a choice bit of public property in order to build an arena in a part of town where no arena should exist. The ballot initiative was put in place to make it much more difficult for that land-grab to go through.<p>This stuff isn't just about people being ridiculous NIMBYs. Honestly, I think it's <i>more</i> ridiculous to look at San Francisco and claim that the problem is that we aren't building enough, when you can walk up to just about any live/work space in SOMA (i.e. the new construction), and see that the tenant list is mostly startups. That's what happens when you let developers build whatever they want -- they build for the most lucrative allowed use of the land. And that usually isn't residential construction.<p>Is there NIMBYism in the bay area? Absolutely. But the biggest problem, by far, is that there's a massive technology bubble inflating everything from real estate to salaries in a very tiny slice of livable property. The price increases are being driven by greed and speculation as much as any sort of sustainable demand.
Another interesting article from Kim-Mai Cutler on the absolutely fascinating Bay Area housing market. In case you missed her last one and the discussion in HN:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590250" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590250</a><p>One correction is needed: tenancies in common (TICs) ARE NOT a method of avoiding SF rent control rules. It has absolutely no effect on whether or not a particular unit is subject to rent control. It is simply a way that people can share ownership of a multi-unit building - like a coop. On the other hand condo conversion does remove many of the burdens of the SF rent control. That in turn is why the SF government had to essentially outlaw condo conversions. The rules are very complex and constantly changing - educate yourself and then talk to a lawyer.
The problems mentioned in the article certainly are not unique to SF, though the scale is pretty large.<p>Sidney, MT, which is in the Bakken oilfield, has such a shortage of housing that workers there spent last winter sleeping in campers and trucks on the side of the road. In the winter, the temperature can dip to -30 degrees. The dept of transportation (DOT) bottled up a housing projected for almost a year over a right of way dispute. In this case the developer agreed to pay for the improvements, but the DOT insisted on overseeing the process, which increased the cost 2x.<p>In my experience:<p>1. Homeowners fear change because they usually like their neighborhood, have most of their assets "at stake", and envision worst case scenarios.<p>2. Too many elected officials categorize themselves into a soundbite. They don't just campaign by the soundbite, but they govern by it. Project details and reality be damned, I'm pro-parks!<p>3. Top municipal employees almost always have too much power. When a new elected official comes in, they listen to his/her goals and then put new processes in place, while seldom removing old processes. This adds unreasonable amounts of time, complexity and cost to projects.<p>The first and second problem can frequently be worked out but the third problem is crippling. If you want to fix the housing crisis, start there.
Just moved to SF (with two kids so renting a 3br was a required expense).<p>Why aren't the big tech and VC firms spending a lot more on lobbying, redevelopment, etc?<p>Though I'm the beneficiary of the rapidly increasing salaries, some relief on the housing side would remove a lot of the pressure for wage increases. A lot of really talented engineers won't even bother taking interviews for bay area jobs due to the housing situation. It seems a bit unsustainable to me.
"Fix it, but, uh, not until I leave."<p>As a homeowner in the Bay Area, my politics are: "Let's fix it!" But with as much equity as I've got pulling in the other direction, it is damn hard to toe that line.
I can't find any reason to be optimistic after reading this article.<p>Is there any reason to even consider moving to the Bay Area after graduating? It seems like any other city would be more manageable.
I might feel bad for people dealing with housing in SF.. But I live in Auckland. Considering moving back to Texas so I can feel sorry for people dealing with both cities' housing.<p>Most aren't familiar so I'll paint a picture(in NZD). The average selling price for a home just this past September was 683,101. What will 683k get you? Pretty much a shack by US standards. Probably no insulation. No central AC. It's actually pretty hard to describe just how little you get. Sure, you can buy lower but even at 550k homes come with descriptive words like "Real potential", "A real do-up", "Great starting point", "Fringe", "A foot on the ladder". Oh, and did I mention the 20% DP you need for a mortgage now? And the interest rates will have you paying double unless you pay it off fast. Meanwhile, median household income is about 60K(USD).<p>Renting? Anything under 400/week will most likely be unsuitable for a couple. You really don't start hitting "descent" until you're closing in on 500/week and they come with more bedrooms than you need.. Almost no good one bedrooms. There is this threshold you have to cross before you start finding places that have been kept up. See, there is a tremendous housing shortage. This causes much of the low end stuff to go barely maintained through decades of renter churn because they are sure to find another renter regardless. You might search months for a suitable place to rent, and then have to contend with many others after the same place. Often between the time a listing goes up and you can call, same day, it's mysteriously gone. A lot of the choice places don't schedule appointments; they herd groups of 20 through at designated times on viewing days. The property management agents, which you'll most likely be dealing with because you're renting a property from some guys portfolio of like 5(corporate owned apartment complexes are almost unheard of), are often times very unhelpful and even rude.<p>A lot of the points about renting are mirrored in buying. Most homes go to auction because the shortage. People get desperate and end up bidding high to secure a place and be done with the process.<p>In the US people absolutely hate packing and moving. In Auckland simply finding a suitable place to live is so bad, you don't really pay any mind to the actual moving:|<p>End Rant.
Stockton is bankrupt. Go build and live there for 20% of the price, you can still come to SF for meeting VCs. Or somewhere across the bay.<p>"Oh but they don't have my favourite vegan frozen yogurt there, and in Starbucks all I see is PCs" grow up.<p>They think of themselves as the most innovative people of this generation and use the internet yet they can't manage to have their team 10mi from where they think it should be. Pathetic.