Buy Now - Part II
The math hits home faster when you realize the 96,000 residents were evicted in LA County last year due to inability to pay higher rents. That, obviously, is a huge problem - impacting homelessness, overcrowding, children and education, among other things.
But the issues have been on the table for a while now. Back during to the mayoral election, part of Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign platform included his ideas for addressing LA’s housing needs. “One of the biggest challenges we face as a city is providing affordable housing for our growing workforce. Los Angeles has one of the lowest rates of homeownership in the nation. I want to change that.” Part of his campaign plan included building of new housing along transit corridors - known as “transit-oriented development” - and over retail space on commercial streets.
This brings us back to Boyle Heights, which is currently constructing the East LA Gold Line extension, set to open in 2009. In conjunction with the “transit-oriented” development, is the proposed renovation of the historic Sears building on the south end of Boyle Heights, mixing multi-class housing options with a multiplex movie theater and shopping center.
In Boyle Heights, this is the development dilema. On the positive end, transit-oriented development will bring new revenue into the neighborhood and more resources that can increase education & reduce crime and gang activity. On the downside, the loss of affordable units hurts the poor and even the middle class, who are already facing a huge shortage of affordable housing.
READ: “Buy Now - part III“
August 17th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Hey Scott,
While there is a floor cost because of supply and demand, there are several costs associated with house prices in California that does not have to do with supply and demand.
Democrats, especially when they have a large control of an area, are known to enact all sorts of policies that artificially raise the costs of homes and thereby primarily hurt the poor. They have heavy environmental regulations that add significant costs to developers, who thereby pass that cost onto the consumer. They have added several layers of ’safety’ regulations that also add significant costs to developers, who again pass that cost onto the consumer. In addition to these, they have open land space regulations that limit the supply, again thereby increasing cost for the same demand. They also have failed affordable housing programs and so forth. Or take the regulations that limit how high a condo complex can be built, that also decreases supply and increases costs. In addition, Democrats in California sued so many condo manufactures in the early 90’s that many left that field altogether, at whose expense, at the poor person who could use a condo to enter into the home market, but is now left with much fewer options. This is all without even mentioning rent control laws and so forth, that all multiply this problem.
Just compare, say San Francisco house prices with say, Florida, or Texas, and so forth. You have to be a millionaire in some of these high democratic areas just to afford a two-bedroom home.
While there is a floor price because California is so crowded, so beautiful and so prosperous, there is still a much higher percentage initiated by Sacramento that must not be ignored.