Editor,
In Keith Weber’s “The real cost of upzoning” letter in the Monday, April 2, edition, he is concerned that if single-family lots are upzoned to allow 2, 3,or 4 units per lot, corporations will buy the property and increase home prices. I question the premise of this concern.
Whether a home is owned by an individual homeowner or a corporation, the market value remains constant. It is based on supply and demand, not who owns it. It is not corporate ownership that is driving up the price of housing, it is the lack of housing at all income levels areawide that is increasing the cost of housing.
Many cities across the nation are considering allowing lot-splits, and duplex, triplex and fourplex housing in existing single-family neighborhoods to increase the overall supply of housing to increase competition which should, per the law of supply and demand, reduce overall housing prices.
It can further provide a wider range of housing choices for would-be homeowners who now have a limited choice of trying to buy an overpriced single-family home or renting an apartment in an existing older building or a new multistory building. There are no options in between. There is no (what the planners call) “middle housing.”
We have a serious housing shortage on the Peninsula and minor upzoning of single-family lots is a way to reduce this shortfall without making a major impact on the overall character of a city. It is an alternative to constructing tall new buildings that would otherwise be needed to meet city housing goals.
David Crabbe
San Carlos
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(4) comments
David - there is no such thing as an 'overpriced' house. You mentioned yourself that prices are set by the market. One solution would have been for many of us in these now expensive homes to sell and not have to pay the exorbitant taxes that would result from the stepped-up value. over which, BTW, we had no control. The SF Chronicle had an article about this issue some time ago. It showed clearly that under today's tax structure, it would be more expensive for long term homeowners to downsize than to stay put. Perhaps our tax and spend politicians can take a look at an option that would make selling more attractive, thereby increasing the supply of homes.
Dirk - Very astute answer! Thanks for commenting!
But, Mr. Crabbe, why would we bother with all these –plex lots when we can build more efficient, and numerous, housing on the San Mateo County fairgrounds, or Bing Crosby’s Hillsborough home? Or better yet, as Mr. Isoardi has suggested in another letter, let’s turn office buildings into housing. Since Oracle is moving to Texas, let’s allow a developer to buy their towers in Belmont and retrofit into housing. I recall some of the towers did go on sale earlier this year (all my money is in the stock market so I’m unable to buy). And as a plus, there’s already a parking garage. Win-win.
"While 80 percent of the population would prefer to live in a single-family home, seven in ten Americans (70 percent) actually do. Apartment and condo living is only preferred by 8 percent of the population, yet two in 10 Americans (17 percent) live in an apartment or condo" per a google search.
Up zoning family properties will drive our best employment talent elsewhere. The way to increase the availability of single family homes is with high speed mass transit to areas with affordable homes.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
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.