Thanks Andy for sharing your knowledge and experience. My view from 30,000 feet is that regulator regulate. Google indicates that California has well over 200 state agencies and some estimates are as high as 518, while it indicates that Florida has 28.
Why are homes in California unaffordable for many of its citizens? One main reason is the control the California Coastal Commission has on anything and virtually everything within 5 miles of the coast.
Its members, exclusively liberal Democrat activists, based in San Francisco, are in lock step with radical environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Center, Surf Rider, Coast keepers and the Audubon Society.
How is it the partisan commission, which is dominated by liberal Democrats, can be so powerful and not an elected body? All political appointees. What other body has the ability to investigate, sit in judgment of others and can impose crippling fines?
How is it that SB City Council Member, Meagan Harmon, can represent the needs of the citizens of Santa Barbara and serve as Chair for the CCC?
Is this not a conflict of interest?
Meanwhile, the SB Land Trust continues to gobble up local parcels involving thousands of acres of farmland, while managing in keeping housing development out. All while removing the land from the tax base and keeping the public out from accessing the thousands of acres it controls. This, while giving huge tax breaks to family trusts which in many cases, owned the property for generations.
eliminate property taxes for owner occupied housing (all others carry the tax burden) + 50-year mortgages with interest rate discounts for owner occupied primary residences + Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go public for public financing…
I agree with Andy about the local and state entities culpability regarding affordability issues.
However, the desire (demand) to live in Paradise will never disappear...and increases exponentially if living here is subsidized by other people's money under the ruse of "affordable housing". There is not enough space and/or land to satiate that demand. Once open spaces like Gaviota Coast are carved up...and gone forever...the demand will remain. If development is to take place there, I would encourage a minimum of 20 to 40 acre parcels minimum. It would generating significant tax dollars...the sweet spot for government. Think Hollister Ranch. it would available to anyone...who could afford it. Welcome to America. (Note to Socialists: deep breaths...deep, deep breaths).
Paradoxically, the same geniuses who want to preserve open spaces for quality of life issues (I agree) who then proceed to butcher the already developed areas with hideous and egregiously dense Soviet style units while unabashedly patting each other's back with toothy smiles during ribbon cutting ceremonies claiming they are doing something about "affordable housing".
Beyond stupid and shameful. Government needs to radically reduce its role in housing by limiting itself to health and safety issues and have the residents of each community have greater role in planning and how their community will look going forward. How many local citizens support the size and scale of monstrosities that are currently popping up all over town and in the pipeline? Are they NIMBYs ? Perhaps...good for them caring about their community!
How about we deport those who are illegally in the county? According to the county’s medical records we are funding over 7,500 individuals on Medicade who shouldn’t be here! How many of our tax dollars are paying for their affordable housing?
Of course any argument about housing has to bring up the obvious point that if all the illegals were deported there would be plenty of rentals. But we want them here to pick vegetables and wash dishes and use leafblowers. So for now, streamline a Guest Worker program that legalizes their residence but does not give them all the rights of citizens. As for land annexation, I'm imagining that land next to Santa Maria filled with a Grapes of Wrath shanty town with casitas for the agricultural workers. Think of it as a Mexican version of Solvang, I'm sure it could be quite the tourist attraction !
"Another huge problem? Whereas, our local progressives are loath to build along the Gaviota Coast"
Wouldn't you be against building on land that removes the natural beauty of Santa Barbara as a conservative? Wouldn't the smaller unincorporated communities in general oppose any large scale developments for housing? And wouldn't adding housing along side the coast, just increase the risk of accidents and traffic waiting times?
Also let's say you remove all the obstacles you name from the equation, now what? Will housing magically appear? What happens if/when these impediments are gone? How much housing would be built, where, and for who? Would these units be for renting or for ownership? How large would they be - would they be only fit for small families?
The author shares the common view that keeping a car is as important as breathing. I claim that in order to avoid a 2-hour per workday commute, many would prefer going without a car
I think the realistic answer to the "and" is that those that are making bundles of money pushing the "15 minute village" concept with the "affordable housing" are either blind to the inevitable reality that these structures they are creating will soon become ghettos or they don;t give a damn. The idea that a car is used only for commuting to and from work is very shortsighted. Shopping, traveling to friends (that is if you live out of the 15 minute village your friends live in), family vacations, etc.makes a car pretty essential. Not everyone can or wants to ride their bicycle everywhere and not everyone wants an electric car. These proposals, under the guise of helping the citizenry, are actually taking away the American dream of home ownership which I still believe is owning their own home with a yard where they can actually see nature and not some cement structure whose view is the neighbor's balcony
The Funk Zone thrives, because it allows cars. State Street languishes because it does not. One offers autonomy; the other requires you be their slave.
Excellent breakdown of how regulatory layering compounds unaffordability. Your LAFCO revenue neutrality example is particulary instructive because it shows how inter-governmental rent seeking creates deadweight loss that developers ultimately pass to buyers. The Goleta incorporation case giving 50% of property taxes to the county in perpetuity is essentially a permanent tax on growth that makes every new home more expensive. When time is money for developers and each approval layer adds moths to timelines, we're not just blocking housing supply but actively subsidizing the exisitng housing stock's value.
Don't vote in Laura Capps again. That's a start. The Capps have been governing Santa Barbara for too long.
No Kings.
Thanks Andy for sharing your knowledge and experience. My view from 30,000 feet is that regulator regulate. Google indicates that California has well over 200 state agencies and some estimates are as high as 518, while it indicates that Florida has 28.
Governments have a vested interest maintaining higher and higher property taxes that result from low inventory and higher home sales prices.
What other reliable, predictable revenue stream do they have today besides higher property taxes from higher home sale prices?
Why are homes in California unaffordable for many of its citizens? One main reason is the control the California Coastal Commission has on anything and virtually everything within 5 miles of the coast.
Its members, exclusively liberal Democrat activists, based in San Francisco, are in lock step with radical environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Center, Surf Rider, Coast keepers and the Audubon Society.
How is it the partisan commission, which is dominated by liberal Democrats, can be so powerful and not an elected body? All political appointees. What other body has the ability to investigate, sit in judgment of others and can impose crippling fines?
How is it that SB City Council Member, Meagan Harmon, can represent the needs of the citizens of Santa Barbara and serve as Chair for the CCC?
Is this not a conflict of interest?
Meanwhile, the SB Land Trust continues to gobble up local parcels involving thousands of acres of farmland, while managing in keeping housing development out. All while removing the land from the tax base and keeping the public out from accessing the thousands of acres it controls. This, while giving huge tax breaks to family trusts which in many cases, owned the property for generations.
https://www.noozhawk.com/meagan-harmon-appointed-chair-of-powerful-california-coastal-commission/
https://www.sblandtrust.org/
So many rules and fees.
If it sells, it is affordable. The market just spoke. The rest of this argument is social engineering.
The Santa Barbara Land Trust now controls over 58,000, TAX FREE acres in SB County. How does this help our housing crisis?
https://www.sblandtrust.org/about/#:~:text=The%20Land%20Trust's%20vision%20is%20to%20conserve,**Educating%20people**%20About%20ecology%2C%20agriculture%2C%20and%20conservation
eliminate property taxes for owner occupied housing (all others carry the tax burden) + 50-year mortgages with interest rate discounts for owner occupied primary residences + Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go public for public financing…
Add some stiffer definitions for primary home ( only 1 at a time and no flipping allowed- you must live in it 10 yr min….not 2) and I’m with you
I agree with Andy about the local and state entities culpability regarding affordability issues.
However, the desire (demand) to live in Paradise will never disappear...and increases exponentially if living here is subsidized by other people's money under the ruse of "affordable housing". There is not enough space and/or land to satiate that demand. Once open spaces like Gaviota Coast are carved up...and gone forever...the demand will remain. If development is to take place there, I would encourage a minimum of 20 to 40 acre parcels minimum. It would generating significant tax dollars...the sweet spot for government. Think Hollister Ranch. it would available to anyone...who could afford it. Welcome to America. (Note to Socialists: deep breaths...deep, deep breaths).
Paradoxically, the same geniuses who want to preserve open spaces for quality of life issues (I agree) who then proceed to butcher the already developed areas with hideous and egregiously dense Soviet style units while unabashedly patting each other's back with toothy smiles during ribbon cutting ceremonies claiming they are doing something about "affordable housing".
Beyond stupid and shameful. Government needs to radically reduce its role in housing by limiting itself to health and safety issues and have the residents of each community have greater role in planning and how their community will look going forward. How many local citizens support the size and scale of monstrosities that are currently popping up all over town and in the pipeline? Are they NIMBYs ? Perhaps...good for them caring about their community!
How about we deport those who are illegally in the county? According to the county’s medical records we are funding over 7,500 individuals on Medicade who shouldn’t be here! How many of our tax dollars are paying for their affordable housing?
Of course any argument about housing has to bring up the obvious point that if all the illegals were deported there would be plenty of rentals. But we want them here to pick vegetables and wash dishes and use leafblowers. So for now, streamline a Guest Worker program that legalizes their residence but does not give them all the rights of citizens. As for land annexation, I'm imagining that land next to Santa Maria filled with a Grapes of Wrath shanty town with casitas for the agricultural workers. Think of it as a Mexican version of Solvang, I'm sure it could be quite the tourist attraction !
"Another huge problem? Whereas, our local progressives are loath to build along the Gaviota Coast"
Wouldn't you be against building on land that removes the natural beauty of Santa Barbara as a conservative? Wouldn't the smaller unincorporated communities in general oppose any large scale developments for housing? And wouldn't adding housing along side the coast, just increase the risk of accidents and traffic waiting times?
Also let's say you remove all the obstacles you name from the equation, now what? Will housing magically appear? What happens if/when these impediments are gone? How much housing would be built, where, and for who? Would these units be for renting or for ownership? How large would they be - would they be only fit for small families?
The author shares the common view that keeping a car is as important as breathing. I claim that in order to avoid a 2-hour per workday commute, many would prefer going without a car
...and...?
I think the realistic answer to the "and" is that those that are making bundles of money pushing the "15 minute village" concept with the "affordable housing" are either blind to the inevitable reality that these structures they are creating will soon become ghettos or they don;t give a damn. The idea that a car is used only for commuting to and from work is very shortsighted. Shopping, traveling to friends (that is if you live out of the 15 minute village your friends live in), family vacations, etc.makes a car pretty essential. Not everyone can or wants to ride their bicycle everywhere and not everyone wants an electric car. These proposals, under the guise of helping the citizenry, are actually taking away the American dream of home ownership which I still believe is owning their own home with a yard where they can actually see nature and not some cement structure whose view is the neighbor's balcony
The Funk Zone thrives, because it allows cars. State Street languishes because it does not. One offers autonomy; the other requires you be their slave.
100 to a thousand battery bikes flying all over town or over people, would solve the no car parking spaces in new "affordable" domiciles
Excellent breakdown of how regulatory layering compounds unaffordability. Your LAFCO revenue neutrality example is particulary instructive because it shows how inter-governmental rent seeking creates deadweight loss that developers ultimately pass to buyers. The Goleta incorporation case giving 50% of property taxes to the county in perpetuity is essentially a permanent tax on growth that makes every new home more expensive. When time is money for developers and each approval layer adds moths to timelines, we're not just blocking housing supply but actively subsidizing the exisitng housing stock's value.