By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (Includes audio)
Want to solve California’s affordability crisis? The popular answer these days is to allow developers to build more homes. Supporters say it’s an intuitive solution that follows the basic logic of supply and demand laid out in Economics 101.
But as San Francisco city officials move forward with a controversial plan to allow much denser housing development across large swaths of The City, some residents who oppose that effort are embracing a heterodox housing researcher who argues that the mainstream housing consensus is simply wrong.
On a Saturday afternoon last month, a crowd of about 200 massed inside Noe Valley Ministry to hear the housing homily delivered by Patrick Condon, a professor of urban design at The University of British Columbia. Condon had come all the way from Vancouver to offer up a warning: “You’re in for a big disappointment.”
A former city planner, Condon has become a prominent voice in Vancouver’s own housing debate. He told the gathered crowd he has seen firsthand how increasing density doesn’t solve the problem of housing unaffordability. Despite a massive development boom in recent decades that has made Vancouver one of the densest cities in North America, housing prices there are among the highest on the continent.
“Unfortunately, it will take 30 years for you to realize that you were wrong,” he said...(more)
The Harris platform calls for huge government spending on affordable housing—along with strict market regulation.
The real estate industry-dominated press is busy claiming that Vice President Kamala Harris has fully embraced the industry’s front group (aka Yimbys) position and that that position has swept the entire Democratic Party (for example, see The Atlantic). The argument goes that since Harris has laid out a housing position and since that position makes the common-sense claim that we need to build more affordablehousing, it is a Yimby position.
But when we look at the details of the Harris (actually Biden) position on housing, it differs in fundamental ways from the classic Yimby position, at least as practiced in the Yimbys adopted hometown, San Francisco—and is most different from the policies of the Yimby’s San Francisco favorite, London Breed.
In fact, the Harris program, as outlined on her web page and press releases, far more resembles the program of her kindergarten schoolmate Sup. Aaron Peskin than the “build housing at all income levels” mantra of Breed…
The details of the Harris (Biden) program can be found here ( Harris Walz Housing Plan), here (Harris market controls ) and here (Lower Housing Costs). These are the most detailed housing proposals made by a national party since Harry Truman’s proposals in the 1948 election. They commit some $40 billion in new federal funding for affordable housing development—in stark contrast to the Obama Administration, which simply failed to appropriate new federal funding after the housing crash in 2008, choosing to bail out banks and Wall Street instead, allowing the banks to foreclose on tens of thousands of homeowners…(more)
We just posted a series of clips from a meeting with President Peskin that cover his ideas about housing, finance and governance that are on the November ballot:
No easy way to return Canada’s residential real estate markets to ‘normal’
It’s a puzzle. Whatever its answer, its consequences are likely to foment an upheaval in Canada that the coming defeat of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and the election of a Conservative government should not be expected to forestall.
The puzzle, by the reckoning of urban planner, landscape architect, author and University of British Columbia professor Patrick Condon, can be put this way.
Many, if not most, Canadians under the age of 35 are unlikely to ever own a place of their own. Canadians earn a bit better than $57,000 annually, on average. But you need more than three times that income to afford the mortgage on a typical Toronto condo.
Average house prices in Canada have gone from $435,000 to $794,000 since Trudeau’s Liberals were elected in 2015, and average rents have risen from $966 to $2,187.
Here’s the puzzle, according to Condon: “For leaders across the entire political spectrum to have landed on a response to this critical problem that is essentially the same, and is entirely wrong, is unprecedented. It’s a very unique circumstance, when you think about it.”
The responses to the “housing crisis” from the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats differ in their polemics and their particulars, but they all land on the same square: Do nothing to undermine the market value of residential real estate, pour everything into boosting supply, and hey presto, housing becomes more affordable.
The housing crisis might be fixed if the government gets out of the way.
In my opinion governments killed the free market when they stepped into the role of planning our futures for us by trying to control the market. Things did not go according to their predictions, but they refuse to accept responsibility for the economy they created and forced on us. Not everyone supported their theories and now there is upheaval around the world because people don’t trust governments to fix what they broke.
We have heard a lot about the problems cities are facing with speculation and rising costs of living that is killing the middle class. Patrick Condon seems to have put his finger on what many are calling out as the major culprit. Every city in the world is doing the same thing. There are no variables left for comparison. No room to experiment with other ways of operating a city. We are caught in a mire of our own making that is turning into an AI nightmare. Government has removed too many options for the market to experiment with different methods for driving down costs by eleviating options.
None of the markets under similar legal constraints have succeeded in bringing down the costs of real estate so far. Perhaps it is time for some new options. If California wants to be the leader they claim to be, perhaps starting to remove the state overloads from the picture to allow new options would be the first step in discovering a more balanced approach. Voters have at least one state bill that could shift the state control mechanism. In voters in California remove the state rent control to allow more flexibility among cities, we might start to see a shift in how people determine where they live and for how long. The bottleneck may be open if some cities choose more control and others choose less. We need variable options to see what works.
Next we might try to remove some other state controls that have created a frozen market, such as the density demands that are plaguing cities world wide and not creating any so far perceived improvements in the market. Once the controls are deregulated, one might start to see some improvement in some areas while others may lag behind. At least there will be more choices and more options and that alone should create a less stale market. – Mari Eliza
Planner and professor says massive increase in density and new housing didn’t bring costs down; in fact, costs are way up
Patrick Condon was once what they now call a Yimby. A landscape architect, urban planner, and professor at the University of British Columbia, he worked with hundreds of others to build a sustainable, affordable city in Vancouver, BC.
For years, Vancouver was a case study for city planning. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association used to take local officials on tours of the Canadian city, talking about the “slender towers” and grand amenities that they said come with orderly but aggressive growth.
In fact, Condon told me, Vancouver has allowed and seen built more new housing compared to its population than any other city in North America. And it was all what’s known as “infill housing,” not suburban sprawl.
So, if the Yimby doctrine is right, and removing “obstacles” to growth and adding more infill housing results in prices coming down, Vancouver “ought to be the most affordable city in North America,” Condon said.
Except it’s not; it’s the most expensive. He has 30 years of solid data: The Yimby approach didn’t work. It backfired… (more)
If Balaji Srinivasan is any guide, then the Silicon Valley plutocrats are definitely not OK.
To fully grasp the current situation in San Francisco, where venture capitalists are trying to take control of City Hall, you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan. Before you do, steel yourself for what’s to come: A normal person could easily mistake his rambling train wrecks of thought for a crackpot’s ravings, but influential Silicon Valley billionaires regard him as a genius.
“Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I’ve ever met,” wrote Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the V.C. firm Andreessen-Horowitz, in a blurb for Balaji’s 2022 book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The book outlines a plan for tech plutocrats to exit democracy and establish new sovereign territories. I mentioned Balaji’s ideas in two previous stories about Network State–related efforts in California—a proposed tech colony called California Forever and the tech-funded campaign to capture San Francisco’s government.
Balaji, a 43-year-old Long Island native who goes by his first name, has a solid Valley pedigree: He earned multiple degrees from Stanford University, founded multiple startups, became a partner at Andreessen-Horowitz and then served as chief technology officer at Coinbase. He is also the leader of a cultish and increasingly strident neo-reactionary tech political movement that sees American democracy as an enemy. In 2013, a New York Times story headlined “Silicon Valley Roused by Secession Call” described a speech in which he “told a group of young entrepreneurs that the United States had become ‘the Microsoft of nations’: outdated and obsolescent.”
“The [speech below] won roars from the audience at Y Combinator, a leading start-up incubator,” reported the Times. Balaji paints a bleak picture of a dystopian future in a U.S. in chaos and decline, but his prophecies sometimes fall short. Last year, he lost $1 million in a public bet after wrongly predicting a massive surge in the price of Bitcoin.
Still, his appetite for autocracy is bottomless. Last October, Balaji hosted the first-ever Network State Conference. Garry Tan—the current Y Combinator CEO who’s attempting to spearhead a political takeover of San Francisco—participated in an interview with Balaji and cast the effort as part of the Network State movement. Tan, who made headlines in January after tweeting “die slow motherfuckers” at local progressive politicians, frames his campaign as an experiment in “moderate” politics. But in a podcast interview one month before the conference, Balaji laid out a more disturbing and extreme vision…
“Mission Local besmirches the city with unbalanced coverage that only emboldens Preston, Peskin, Chan,” he wrote in November, name-checking three of the elected officials upon whom he would later wish a “slow death.”…
Amid his drunken tweet scandal, Tan paused such attacks. He hired a public relations consultant, apologized, and ceased sending out caustic tweets—temporarily. Then, on March 29, the Times published a favorable profile of him. Written by former Chronicle columnist Heather Knight, it characterized him as a “middle-of-the-road” Democrat agitating for “common sense” ideas. Tan came across as contrite and humble, a civic-minded centimillionaire who let his passion for political change get the best of him. “Mr. Tan has tried to learn from his online mess—or says he has,” wrote Knight. “In person, he speaks kindly and calmly and smiles often, frequently bowing to people while making a prayer gesture with his hands.”
Progressives groaned at what they saw as a conspicuous whitewashing of Tan’s behavior. Tan proudly shared the piece on social media. He has nevertheless returned to his old antics. “SF legacy media is dishonest and lies to you,” he wrote to his 428,000 followers on April 1.…
In the aftermath of Tan’s death threat tweets, both the Chronicle and the Standard hesitated for at least a day before publishing full stories. For a moment, it seemed unclear whether they would cover it at all. Yet despite the local media’s generally fair approach and the puffy Times glow-up, Tan continues to rage against the press. Nothing less than absolute control and fealty seems acceptable to the Network State types.
“Do not hire PR,” tweeted Balaji on April 4, days after Tan’s P.R.-wrangled Times profile. “They want to ‘train’ you to talk to journos. But journos hate you! So this is an obsolete model. Instead, just hire influencers. Build your own channel. And go direct.”
These guys are serving up a new brand of Kool-Aide to their followers. Just how far they will go remains to be seen. How far some of our less friendly politicians will bend. To their will is another big question. If they intend to dominate, they will have to curb their obvious appetite for power and revenge long enough to slip into the mire and mingle unseen among the political influencers. This is not very likely to happen soon in the Bay Area. They are too obvious to hide here. They may have better luck elsewhere.
Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…
Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.
In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.
The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.
Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)
San Francisco – This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.
Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity. Said Mattammal, “Actually working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California, a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden, is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes. That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”
Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for now, many other expensive proposals remain on the ballot, and the $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay.
About Gus Mattammal – Gus is an entrepreneur and educator who has lived and worked in the Bay Area for over 17 years. He is proud to work with the committed Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who seek to ensure that the public’s money is wisely spent. Learn more at: 20billionreasons.com
TRI-VALLEY — Thirteen Bay Area residents opposed to a $20 billion regional housing bond measure filed a lawsuit last week that alleges the question to be placed on November ballots as Regional Measure 4 (RM4) is slanted to prejudice voters to approve it.
The group contends the official name of the measure, “Bay Area Affordable Plan,” is deceptive and the ballot question voters will consider contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The residents’ group is asking the court to rename the measure to “Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond,” because they contend it will cost residents more in property taxes.
“This lawsuit is all about the 75 words maximum that will be in the Regional Measure 4 ballot question,” said Jason Bezis, an attorney for the residents, a list of electors for the Nov. 5 election, members of county taxpayers’ associations, and a former San Jose City Council member.
Bezis’ office filed a petition in Santa Clara Superior Court on Aug. 8, demanding it be rewritten. The filing came six days after sending a “pre-litigation” letter to the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), which placed the measure on the ballot.The lawsuit targets BAHFA and election officials in Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties, along with the city and county of San Francisco… (more)
Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production
San Francisco Has Implemented Key Actions Required by HCD’s Housing Policy and Practice Review
In response to last year’s release of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review (PPR), San Francisco has implemented significant reforms that will make it easier to build housing at all income levels.
The PPR – a first of its kind investigation into a local government’s barriers to housing production – required San Francisco to implement 18 required actions beginning immediately and through 2026 that resolve inconsistencies with state law, accelerate housing production, and reduce barriers beyond the strong commitments already being made through San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Since the release of the PPR, HCD has continuously monitored San Francisco’s progress. As a result of this technical assistance from HCD and San Francisco’s actions, they are currently up to date on required actions and, in some cases, implementing actions ahead of schedule. The PPR accelerated the passage of reforms already underway and supported the early completion of several actions proposed in San Francisco’s Housing Element.
These policy and practice changes can now begin to translate into real impact and results for development in San Francisco.
Some of the most significant reforms San Francisco has made to address their required actions include:
Approving the Constraints Reduction Ordinance, which was proposed shortly after the adoption of the Housing Element and was passed following HCD technical assistance
Restructuring processes so that developments that already received planning approval cannot be subject to subsequent building permit appeals
Reducing procedural hurdles for code-compliant projects
Removing hearing requirements for most State Density Bonus Law requests.
Together, these actions help cut red tape and uncertainty, clarify opaque processes, and ensure compliance with state housing laws. For a more detailed summary of these actions, click here.
These changes represent important steps in the right direction and reflect a commitment to achieving a new status quo in San Francisco. Nevertheless, to ensure full implementation of the actions in both the PPR and the housing element – and to achieve housing production in San Francisco that truly meets the need – HCD will continue to provide ongoing support and monitor San Francisco’s progress on their 6 remaining PPR actions as they come due.
By staying on track with these remaining items, San Francisco will continue to demonstrate its commitment to facilitating housing production at all income levels and ensure compliance with its obligations.
Everyone in Canada will soon be able to afford a home. We just need investors to build more and rates to be cut, right? Anyone that can do basic math has probably been skeptical of that narrative and with good reason—even the people making those statements don’t believe it. Internal messages from the CMHC make very brief but important notes that challenge the exact narrative its leadership has been publicly spinning. More supply won’t bring down home prices, and lower rates won’t make them more affordable. Higher prices will make more supply feasible and lower rates will help boost prices.
CMHC Internal Chats Claim Higher Prices Will Improve Supply: The public is frequently told that housing is expensive because of a shortage. People will often say, “it’s simple supply and demand.” Messages shared between the agency’s communications staff and economists in 2021 show the circumstances are a little more complicated.
“Higher price level will improve development feasibility, so starts will remain elevated over the forecast horizon,” read a suggested point discussing a released forecast…
Central Banks Lower Rates To Raise Prices, Not Improve Affordabilty: Understanding how interest rates work also provides a little more context in this area. The Bank of Canada (BoC) is in charge of maintaining an ideal decay in the value of money (i.e. inflation). Their primary and most important tool to do this are interest rates…
CMHC Attributes Higher Prices To Cheap Mortgages In Passing: Higher prices are often blamed on population growth, especially in Canada with its recent record surge since 2022. Home prices made a record move in January 2022, but 2021 was the lowest annual population growth for the country going back to at least the 1970s. That was also the year Canada was completing 18 homes per person the population grew by. …(more)
Stephen Punwasi: Co-Founder and chief data nerd at Better Dwelling. Named a top influencer in finance and risk by Thomson-Reuters.
The more we hear about YIMBY economic theories they more evidence we find that they do not pan out as promised.
You must be logged in to post a comment.