Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the build-it-up-instead-of-out dept.

Apple wants affordable housing in California—but laws stand in the way

Apple has pledged $2.5 billion to help address California's affordable-housing crisis, the company announced on Monday. In recent years, the San Francisco Bay Area has become the most expensive housing market in America. Los Angeles also suffers from housing costs far above the national average.

Apple's $2.5 billion package includes several different initiatives. Apple will offer a $1 billion line of credit to organizations building housing for low-income people.

[...] Apple's commitment follows on the heels of similar announcements by other technology giants:

  • In January, Microsoft said it would provide $500 million in grants and loans to promote affordable housing in the Seattle area and aid the homeless.
  • In June, Google announced a $1 billion initiative, including $750 million worth of Google-owned land, to support the development of at least 20,000 new housing units "at all income levels" in the San Francisco Bay Area.
  • In October, Facebook unveiled its own initiative to offer $1 billion in grants and loans to support the construction of 20,000 housing units in the region.

Apple's initiative is larger than the other programs and appears to be more focused on low-income housing.

But there are some problems that can't be immediately solved with money:

These efforts to promote affordable housing are laudable, but corporate initiatives alone are unlikely to solve California's housing crisis. The Golden State's fundamental housing problem is that state and local laws simply don't allow developers to build enough housing to accommodate rising demand.

In the 20th century, cities could accommodate growing demand for housing by pushing suburbs outwards. But in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco and Los Angeles, that process has largely run its course. Most of the land within a reasonable driving distance of job centers has been developed. Which means that the only way to accommodate further growth is by increasing density: replacing single-family homes with duplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings.

The problem is that the law doesn't allow this in most areas. A Los Angeles Times analysis found that 62% of land in Los Angeles is zoned for single-family homes only. In San Francisco, 75% of the land is zoned not to allow anything denser than a duplex. Laws in suburban Silicon Valley are even stricter.

Previously: Google Pledges to Build 15,000+ Homes in San Francisco

Related: Soaring Rents in Portland, Oregon Cause Homelessness Crisis
"It's a Perfect Storm": Homeless Spike in Rural California Linked to Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley Charter Buses Vandalized by Pellet/BB Guns or Rocks
In San Francisco, Making a Living from Your Billionaire Neighbor's Trash
SF Facebook Office Worth More Than $1 Billion in Sale - City Gets $0 in Taxes


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:29PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:29PM (#916547)

    Mitigate... Rent control, etc is what caused this problem. More of it is not going to mitigate anything.

    You'll see, absent a housing crash real estate prices will go up in the Bay Area. If you don't think people will front run free money to pump real estate... No wonder this shit keeps happening. There is some type of common person who seems incapable of accurately predicting the consequences of their actions. I don't think it is stupidity, just some deeply ingrained false premise.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:33PM (7 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:33PM (#916550) Journal

    That's weird, your core point was totally and completely wrong on it's own merits, but I'm not hearing an admission of being wrong.

    Instead I'm hearing more garbage stated with absolutely certainty.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:42PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:42PM (#916554)

      My core point is not wrong, you just assumed it was wrong.

      More money chasing real estate -> higher real estate prices. That is the core point, and it is what always happens. If they wanted more affordable housing they should get rid of the zoning laws that prevent it from being profitable to build. Very simple.

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:46PM (1 child)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:46PM (#916556) Journal

        It was totally and completely wrong. Holy Shit.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:06PM (#916569)

          It was? Interesting because this hasn't happened yet so that would be impossible for you to know.

          We will see who had the right assumptions once this construction is built. I predict the exact same thing that always happens like a law of nature will occur, and this will drive real estate upwards.

          You have some elaborate theory as to why not, ok. Watch, real estate will continue rising there, not become more affordable... until there is a big crash.

      • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:28PM (3 children)

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:28PM (#916603) Homepage Journal

        Provide money without increasing supply -> higher prices indeed, but
        Increase supply -> lower prices.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:39PM (1 child)

          by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:39PM (#916607) Homepage Journal

          But looking at the article, and the links from it, it appears that Apple is providing loans to promote housebuilding (loans that presumably will have to be paid back, so it's not really a subsidy) and also loans to help people buy houses (thereby increasing the money that's chasing houses).

          If they were indeed to spend two billion dollars building houses, it would help.

          But that is *not* what they are doing.

          -- hendrik

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:44PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:44PM (#916783) Journal

            loans that presumably will have to be paid back, so it's not really a subsidy

            "Presumably". Why would the loans not be provided in the absence of Apple's efforts? That's where the subsidy is.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:11AM (#916615)

          There is no increase in real estate supply.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:38AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:38AM (#916628) Journal

    You'll see, absent a housing crash real estate prices will go up in the Bay Area.

    Are you sure they wouldn't go up anyway, even in the absence of new "human docking space" being build?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:26PM (#916799)

      I am certain that they would continue rising without this new forcing.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:36PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:36PM (#916986) Journal

        Then raising house prices cannot be cited as a proof for the hypothesis of "money injection into new houses will increase house prices."

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford