Now, younger less settled people also need places to live, and the Bay Area’s solution is to send them to Stockton or something, but not everything is about race.
Now, younger less settled people also need places to live, and the Bay Area’s solution is to send them to Stockton or something, but not everything is about race.
This can be generalized - beyond the housing debate - as "having skin in the game".
As someone who has been (at various times) a short and long term renter, a landlord, and a homeowner ... it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities.
That was certainly the case with me as a renter.
I don't think it's morally negative to segregate neighborhoods on the basis of renting vs. owning. The attempts to link this kind of segregation to past periods of literal racial segregation is, in my opinion, going to find less and less traction - especially as non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors.
What about the rampant housing discrimination in home-buying (without any enforcement) [0]? What about massive racial wealth disparates?
I think it is pretty naïve to suggest that the current backlash against having "renters" has nothing to do with race. Not more naïve than suggesting it only has to do with race, but close.
[0]: https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-...
Or, we could take a shortcut and ask those very people what they think and what they would like.
Which is to say, let's find some non-white stakeholders (homeowners) with skin in the game in their neighborhoods and communities and ask them what they think.
I drive through some very nice, very well ordered, single family zoned nieghborhoods in Fremont - the owners of which are predominantly non-white. The same exists in many other bay area communities.
Are those people vehemently advocating for upzoning and loss of local control ? Do those people have a strong preference for owners over renters ?
Genuinely curious ...
In some cities in California, houses are "earning" more on an hourly - yes, hourly - basis than many people do:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article208678414.html
That's a bit dated, pre-pandemic, but it's likely still happening in places.
Source on real estate prices in SF falling?
Note that this isn't true in locations with actual renter's rights, like Switzerland.
Plenty of people who rent might buy if there were more opportunities to do so, which there would be if housing weren't such an artificially scarce good in the US.
And when you describe 'those neighborhoods', keep in mind that that's probably a policy. If all neighborhoods had a mix of people, you wouldn't have quite so much of a concentration of people who aren't as wealthy.
I don't think this is possible, or even desirable.
A huge part of a home's value is the neighborhood. How much crime is there? How good are the schools? How are the neighbors?
A "fancy" house and an "affordable" house in the same neighborhood are not going to have a large price difference. If you revert every neighborhood to the mean, then you more or less revert all property prices to the mean. Which means you have erased all the "affordable" housing options, and also reduced the QOL of the top 50% of people.
Also, even to the extent that values are dominated by other factors, the intention is to increase housing availability through higher supply and lower prices. All housing becoming as expensive as upper middle class housing would be a problem, but all housing becoming as affordable as existing low income housing would be great.
Your expectation is that a 1000 sq ft "house" on a quarter acre of land would cost on the order of the same amount as a 4000 sq ft "house" on a full acre of land?
Its the same exact reason why houses cost more in Boston than in Wyoming, but on a different scale. The value of a home is heavily influenced by its location.
I think its reasonable to expect this to be more true of houses than apartments. Someone who is buying a house and putting down roots is going to care more about "the neighborhood" than someone who plans to move on in a year or two.
This is unambiguously as a result of zoning. It's rare to divide a one acre plot into four quarter acre plots because it's prohibited.
> Its the same exact reason why houses cost more in Boston than in Wyoming, but on a different scale. The value of a home is heavily influenced by its location.
Nobody is disputing that. But all that means is that a quarter acre plot in Boston costs the same as a full acre plot in Wyoming. It still costs a lot less than a full acre plot in Boston, which is often the only option the existing zoning makes possible.
Where I lived in Italy, you actually had very different homes very close by - big expensive single family units right next to 10 plexes that are far more affordable.
Frankly, I think it was healthier for my kids to go to school there with both some kids from wealthy families as well as Nigerian immigrants. Their schools here are much more homogeneous.
America has the cheapest housing in the Developed world. SF is not cheap, but its still cheaper than big cities in Europe.
Land is mostly cheaper in the US, but Italy and most of Europe provide far more housing options, in large part because they do not impose things like single family zoning.
Padova has twice the population of the town where I live here in the US, in about the same area, and housing is cheaper.
The economy isn't great there, but that's a separate story from housing. If it were hotter, it's a place where you can simply build homes in many shapes and sizes, from small apartments to nice villas.
https://www.accountingbolla.com/blog/property-tax-in-italy-g...
When people of different classes ( not races ) have different opinions on what 'good' means, there is only going to be confusion.
even a good neighborhood, once it is deemed as undesirable, will lose its values, its taxes, and soon, its schools.
While it is true the renter does not have "skin in the game" it is also true that many landlord put in only the absolute bare minimum of resources to maintain the rental property.
For example my grandmother before she passed lived in a aging neighborhood, as the original residents passed the homes where sold off as investment properties. She generally had a good relationship with most of the renters however the owners of homes routinely refused to repair things, refused to have proper tree maintenance done, and other such problems that would not be the responsibility of the renter.
The owners of the properties were not waiting out the poor people hoping to strike it rich like you seem to be implying
Sure, but we're not talking about "everything", we're talking about housing trends in American cities.