Housing market distortions

Any and all Government intervention creates winners, looser, and inequality. Sounds like some like to deny science and others like to deny economics.

Mr. Olbert - the basic premise that developers must also include low income units in their buildings is false to begin with. This is a typical example of social engineering with unintended consequences. Thus, the recently enacted housing bills that do nothing but upset current homeowners and would force the destruction of residential neighborhoods. We should look at how Northern European countries handle these issues instead of making it a political football. There, low income housing is not equated with poverty and poor maintenance. Eligible renters are periodically means-tested, their dwellings are inspected for cleanliness and internal upkeep is the responsibility of the renter. Any violation that the renter refuses to correct is subject to the renter's eviction. Housing is built using low government sponsored loans that appear to cover all debt service. Let's not kid ourselves, developers should not be held responsible for economic distress caused by poor government policy. Instead have them offer viable solutions and let them build on vacant property already owned by the State of the cities.

Perhaps, Mr. Olbert, if tacked on fees and taxes for building affordable housing were reduced then perhaps developers, instead of just showing interest, would actually build affordable housing. Developers aren’t going to build housing for no, or little, profit when they can make more money in commercial buildings.

On another note, perhaps you could inform us as to what happens to property taxes if a homeowner decides to take advantage of new state laws and modify their existing structure. Will the homeowner’s property tax base be reassessed to current values, forever losing their original property tax base? If so, this homeowner may see their property tax balloon when they can do nothing and keep their existing base. Does it make sense to remodel for potential income from a renter (assuming they can ever get the renter evicted if said renter decides to stop paying rent)? Maybe for a relative, it may make sense, but one must remember that this new property tax base rate will go on forever, even if the relative leaves. For individual homeowner’s, it may not make financial sense to modify their properties. For investors, it makes sense as they’ll pass on their costs and make a profit.

The high price of housing in the bay area is mostly due to the high cost of land and SB9 has added to this rate of increase. Instead of "stacking and pack people" we should be investing in high speed commuter transportation to far more affordable housing in Livermore, Mountain House, Modesto, Stockton, Holster, Salinas etc. It'd save people making 5 hr daily commutes, reduce highway constructions and reduce the rate of increase in land prices closer in.