rafamonsta.bsky.social
65 posts
137 followers
272 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
What was his answer? Something something hedge funds and evil corporations?
comment in response to
post
With Newsom? That tracks…
comment in response to
post
Is this what happens when the speaker and governor actually throw their weight behind a bill!?
comment in response to
post
Johnny Guitar en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_...
comment in response to
post
Which city council agenda item number was this?
comment in response to
post
How much rezoning would that actually require though? It might not be any depending on the math for what the city claims this current proposed rezoning accomplishes.
comment in response to
post
I assume he’s talked to a lot of builders who point out that infill housing is more expensive to build, especially for-sale condos. Getting the per unit costs under control so that a lot more infill pencils will change perceptions about how much sprawl is needed, but right now it’s a necessary evil.
comment in response to
post
Exactly. People mistake prices for affordability. Gentrifying areas can actually have higher prices and more ‘affordability’ when lower income folks are displaced by higher income people, pushing up median incomes. Homes with dropping prices aren’t affordable if people are losing jobs and savings.
comment in response to
post
This doesn’t just destroy capitalism, it destroys the allocation of goods and services via a market economy.
comment in response to
post
Yep. Technically, if it bans any “process” that “collects…information on price…or supply level of a good from two or more” people/databases and then “analyzes” that info, you’ve essentially banned using any data at all to determine a price. Loophole: use only one data broker to give you info!
comment in response to
post
Would SB 384 also ban used car dealers from using Kelly Blue Book since it uses an algorithm for telling you the value of your car? I think it may also ban algorithmic stock trading.
comment in response to
post
If there were any kind of equity sharing, you’d probably want to accompany it with an updated AB 668 (2015)-like bill so that the assessed value for tax purposes was discounted by a reasonable amount to account for the equity sharing contract. AB 668 reduces tax burdens for Habitat homeowners.
comment in response to
post
Independent appraisers could pull comps from recent sales. I think that part isn’t that difficult to sort out. The county assessor has to figure it out for tax purposes anyways. Wiener’s proposed SB 336 moderate income welfare tax exemption doesn’t apply to for-sale homes.
comment in response to
post
That’s probably right. Yes, it’s complicated, but the alternative is running the TC program as a pure cost w/ either a) homes being built but no benefits of market appreciation for either the homeowner or the state, (permanent deed restrictions) or b) where the homeowners eventually get a windfall
comment in response to
post
The solution then is to require a holding period, and/or allow the state to be the beneficiary of the majority of the appreciation. The first buyer benefits from having affordable housing, but the state should get most of any windfall if it’s sold at a market price, not that first buyer.
comment in response to
post
The size of the tax credit program could be limited by its funding. If there’s enough demand for it that tax credits become “awarded” in a competitive bidding process like other tax credits are in CA, then allowing the program to be funded via equity sharing could help it to build more housing.
comment in response to
post
If the state shared in equity for the property, then the deed restrictions would limit the potential return on that equity sharing. It just means the tax credit program would probably result in less overall production since it would be more expensive to run without those returns.
comment in response to
post
It doesn’t make sense to subsidize demand or deed restrict them because the state would just be throwing money away, but if this program created new homes that were at least temporarily affordable for moderate income, and shared equity when they were sold at market rate, that seems fine to me.
comment in response to
post
Maybe it’s a combination: tax credits for the builder and the state shares in equity for the homes with a loan program to purchase the homes built with those tax credits. Maybe the equity sharing can help subsidize the tax credit program long term.
comment in response to
post
The absurd program would be where, for some reason, the govt limited the first resale price (and its own potential return as an equity holder) but there was no deed restriction: the 2nd owner would benefit more than the first. It’s just a dumb thought I had that’s “consistent” with CalHFA programs
comment in response to
post
Dreams for All is equity sharing. Sorry, limited characters make this discussion difficult to explain succinctly.
comment in response to
post
There are many CalHFA home buyer programs; it could be something as simple as a deed restriction requiring owner occupancy.
comment in response to
post
I was also imagining a silly program, not necessarily like dream for all, where the first resident/owner has a sale price restriction, but the second buyer does not. An equity sharing arrangement to pay back the construction loan makes more sense for financing reasons.
comment in response to
post
That’s true, but my point was that a “deed restriction” is a form of a “resale restriction.” Since deed restrictions limit the seller too. This language could be interpreted to allow a program to be designed either way. I think that’s the point.
comment in response to
post
That’s what I meant, exactly. If the residents live in the home until it’s paid off, there can be a windfall. But not all Habitat affiliates allow this: some have permanent deed restrictions.
comment in response to
post
I think it’s up to the individual Habitat affiliates. I know many do, but I grew up with a friend who lived in one that does not have any deed restrictions. As long as the mortgage gets paid and it’s lived in for the duration of the contract, it’s essentially a windfall if you sell afterwards. See:
comment in response to
post
Aren’t those two different words for the same thing? If not, then it’s kinda Habitat homes where the first people that move in essentially win a lottery by being able to sell at market rate, but in this case it would be the first people to buy at resale.
comment in response to
post
Just hire the AG’s brother as your lawyer! www.thedailybeast.com/trump-pardon...
comment in response to
post
One of Milton’s lawyers in his fraud case is Trump’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi’s, brother, Brad Bondi
comment in response to
post
This is an expansion of rent limits for single family homes and condos owned by individual landlords, not an expansion for mobile homes.
comment in response to
post
AB 1482 already applied to mobile homes. What this bill does is limits rent increases to single family homes and condos that aren’t owner occupied, but still exempts mobilehomes owned by landlords other than corporations, REITs or mobilehome parks from limits on rent increases
comment in response to
post
My local pizza place outsourced delivery to door dash. 😢
comment in response to
post
See:
comment in response to
post
I found this the other day: the national transformer shortage is so severe, domestic production only accounts for 20% of demand. The actual production time for transformers now is 115-130 weeks. storage.pardot.com/131501/16995...
comment in response to
post
If local property tax revenues are high enough though, they get to keep that extra revenue...
comment in response to
post
How much of this is because of the transformer supply shortage vs the utilities prioritizing other work over connections when no transformer is needed. My understanding is you need a new transformer for any project over 10 units or so. Even a single family home might need its own in some cases.
comment in response to
post
Those universities actually do build (a little) state owned housing already, in the form of dorms, but do so off-campus primarily, and those projects are already exempt from local zoning rules.
comment in response to
post
Which parts of UCLA or UC Berkeley do you think should be developed with more housing?
comment in response to
post
Most of the federal owned land in the West is not near existing urban centers. Las Vegas is the only exemption. State land primarily is parks or office buildings. Only the latter would be politically feasible to redevelop.
comment in response to
post
Have you thought about the scale of the problem though? What percentage of the housing shortage should the government fulfill? At 4.5m units, even at just $200k/unit we’re talking $900B, or nearly 3x the once in a generation highway spending of the bipartisan infrastructure law.
comment in response to
post
The state will also need to see similar returns, if at least to manage the risk of the program. If the state were to be “losing money” on development at the rate it costs to maintain other infrastructure like highways, it would require significant tax increases or offsetting cuts.
comment in response to
post
Btw, I’ve had local organizers for higher ed employees tell me that they wouldn’t fight for cheaper university-built housing because it would undermine their efforts to raise wages.
comment in response to
post
Yes, eliminating deed restricted units could be a reasonable trade off for retaining labor standards, unfortunately the non-building labor orgs typically insist on IZ requirements.
comment in response to
post
The trades are members of the AFL-CIO; it would be very unusual for another AFL-CIO member (teachers, city employees, fire fighters, nurses, SEIU service workers, UAW auto workers, UFCW food workers, etc) to step out of solidarity with a fellow union on an issue.
comment in response to
post
These bills have had support from broad coalitions. I think the issue is that getting the types of coalitions that have been supportive has required some compromises that limited their effectiveness. YIMBYs aren’t out-organizing labor, for example, but labor standards do reduce production.
comment in response to
post
Absolutely. Neither of those laws are strictly about “streamlining” but they’ve both had the benefit of years of being put to use, with helpful case law to boot. Most of the laws in the report leverage SDBL and the HAA regardless, with limited impact.
comment in response to
post
NYC has a tax abatement program for projects with 25% of the units being affordable. California only offers property tax relief if 100% of the units are affordable.