Hacker News Reader

Comment by dba7dba | Hacker News Reader

In the case of silicon beach, it is the tech companies that sparked this. They moved in to Santa monice and nearby areas. In a matter of 5 years or so price of detached houses in near by cities (with decent commute meaning no driving on 405 freeway) jumped up 100%. When google and other tech companied moved in,'investors' saw the sign and started gobbling up houses to raze or remodel to flip. And you also have Chinese from China following the trend.

Some higher density condo/apartment were built nearby but I really don't see a sign they are even half occupied. It is definitely the tech companies that sparked it. Not their fault necessarily.

View on HN

Sorry, but that's just not the case. I grew up in Santa Monica / Venice. My family moved there in 98 or 99. Houses were 300k. That area has been consistently rising since then. You'd be hard pressed to find a house in Santa Monica for less than 1 million five years ago. Well before Snapchat showed up. There has been so much wealth in that area for a long time.

I see people on FB complaining about rental prices then turning around and complaining about the parking structure and high density housing being built around them. It's one of the most plesant (climate) places on the planet. Tech didn't drive the demand.

I agree Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, and other cities directly bordering Pacific beach were already expensive and rising steadily. But the cities I was talking are places like Westchester, El Segundo, and Culver City.

Detached house price in Culver City definitely doubled in 5 years.

Tech didn't drive the demand for all of Southern California but for local markets that I mentioned, it definitely did.

Here's a chart from The Economist[1]:

http://imgur.com/a/5DfUi

Across all the other charts for other cities (outside Detroit) you can see variations of the pattern of things just skyrocketing in the late 90s. There was a dip when in '08 but things are getting back to the way they in the mid-aughts.

I don't think it's all tech thought that might have had a greater effect in certain areas (such as the changes in Venice). Median income for the city is still around 28k yet house and rental prices are insane. We're in the middle of a building boom but it hasn't really added "value" apartments - the rates are still top of the market.

Now we have anti-development measures hitting elections right and left.

I really don't get it. If was able to buy a home in 80s, and I still had had steady employment throughout, raised kids, etc. and saw the value of my house skyrocket, what does it matter if someone builds more apartments or condos and the value goes down a little? I don't get dividends from owning that house. And I'll most likely die in it.

The whole fight seems to not be about home values when the value really only matters if you plan on moving, which, as others have stated, can be pretty rare due to family and other ties to communities.

This might also beg another questions: When looking at places like the anti-gentrification efforts in Boyle Heights, is it about being priced out of the neighborhood (because of Prop 13, your tax rate is set right?) or something more than that?

I debate every day whether it's worth staying in this city and I have it much better than other folks that might not have a choice.

[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-c...

It was happening well before the tech boom. Venice was the last stretch of cheap sand in 200 miles, it was going to gentrify with or without Google or snap or any particular industry.

The retail explosion of Abbot Kinney, for example, predates any tech presence. Venice became cool (and safe) and then the tech companies moved in, along with everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com