Matt Grocott

I recently finished reading a book on the history of California, written by Robert Glass Cleland. It’s titled, “California Pageant; The Story of Four Centuries.” Printed in 1946 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., the book was intended for a young audience. Nevertheless, it was a delight to read and very informative. One of the issues the book relates was California’s housing shortage at intervals during her early history. It first became a problem when the 49ers stampeded into Northern California during the Gold Rush. Along with “want-to-be miners” came all sorts of other people looking to profit from them. The sudden influx of citizens drove up real estate prices in cities like San Francisco and Sacramento. A vacant parcel in Sacramento for example was bought for $200 before the Gold Rush and sold for $30,000 a year later! During the same period, a simple room with zero amenities rented for $1,000 per month.

The next housing shortage focused on Southern California and was brought about by people moving west directly after the Civil War. With the war’s end came the expansion of the railroad. Moving to California suddenly became much, much easier. But unlike the northern part of the state which had a number of major cities, Southern California had few. It was primarily agricultural. To meet the demands of the population influx, cities and towns sprang up quickly. Growth and expansion persisted through the mid 1880s and real estate speculation went wild. To lure gullible newcomers from the east into buying, prospects were shown parcels in subdivisions with oranges neatly placed in the branches of Joshua trees.

Recommended for you

(9) comments

Christopher Conway

When Democrats can't afford something it is called a crisis or racism. Their problems become the communities problem with the help of the media and public union representation.

SB

Do you charge the Democrats rent for all the space they take up in your head?

Christopher Conway

No, they charge me. That is my point

kevinburke

I don’t understand this. Housing was easy to find in the 1980’s because we added a lot of new housing in the 1980’s. Then we largely stopped adding new housing.

See the chart on page 10 here - in California’s best year in the 2010’s we didn’t even build as many units as we did in the worst year in the 80’s. The worst years were far worse. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/California%27s-Housing-Future-Full-Public-Draft.pdf

I don’t expect elected officials to choose my policy positions but I at least expect them to have a grasp of the facts.

Thomas Morgan

Or perhaps, there was so much building happened in the 1940-1970's (Bay Area's housing supply was almost double the national average.) that it took about 30-35 years for prices to rise to a point where it is somewhat profitable to add new supply. The economics of new housing no matter how much everyone wants it simply does not work, which is why office space is winning. Unless someone is will to give up their land or encroach on open space. Mandating all govt land go to housing first is not the best use of their limited land and housing is not the only need.

David C

I was gratified to read Matt Grocott's opinion piece and the way he put today's housing shortage in historic context. I look forward to see what he proposes in his next piece to address the current housing crisis.

JME

Perhaps Mr. Grocott should take out more recent books on this subject from the library.
When Mr. Grocott was on the City Council of San Carlos, he endorsed programs of new housing for the city adding to it's population. This housing was to attract more affluent residents. Now there are fewer grocery markets near these new buildings
It was stated that these new residential buildings would alleviate car use in the city already with many existing auto problems. New resident's cars will now be needed for daily shopping. This cannot be blamed on the state or a political party.

Lou

Today's Daily Post newspaper has an article "Growth on Minds of Residents" which outlines results of a survey given by a pollster to San Carlos residents. Changes to improve San Carlos...
#1 Limit Growth, development...33%,
#2 Reduce traffic congestion...24%,
#3 Improve parking...15%
#4 Improve infrastructure, roads etc. ...9%
#5 Provide more affordable housing...5%
and more......

Thanks, Matt, for a most interesting and helpful article.

vincent wei

Matt, there is plenty of housing available in San Mateo County (nearly 3000 available today, rentals and for sale, today Google it).

So the problem is not availability rather it's affordability, and so I eagerly look forward to your next article to find real solutions to solve our affordability crisis.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here