So that's why it's so expensive in the SF Bay Area
This is a report on the effects of urban growth planning on real estate prices. The "penalty" in real estate price that buyers have to pay seems to be estimated based on factors such as price-to-income ratio of housing.
For CA, the report's results are dismal. In San Francisco and San Jose, growth planning allegedly cost $850K and $513K respectively. Part of the problem is the government's purchase of land for parks and open space preserves: "Today, parks and preserves in the five-county San Francisco-Oakland area total nearly 550,000 acres, not counting areas outside of urban-growth boundaries that are protected by restrictive zoning. By comparison, the 2000 census found that the urbanized land in these counties (including parks in those urban areas) totaled only 502,000 acres."
The section on San Jose is quite interesting, as I've lived here for 15 years but never knew about this until last year. "San Jose housing was still affordable in 1969. But fears of “Los Angelization” led San Jose and Santa Clara County to impose an urban-growth boundary and other planning restrictions in 1974." That would explain why housing prices here are so high.
The rest of the report covers other areas and offers interesting commentary on various topics related to housing and growth planning. Only one major complaint: the report partly blames the planning penalty on Proposition 13 for restricting property tax revenues and thus forcing city governments to avoid expanding the growth boundaries. The real fault in this chain of events lies with the city governments for establishing those boundaries in the first place.
For CA, the report's results are dismal. In San Francisco and San Jose, growth planning allegedly cost $850K and $513K respectively. Part of the problem is the government's purchase of land for parks and open space preserves: "Today, parks and preserves in the five-county San Francisco-Oakland area total nearly 550,000 acres, not counting areas outside of urban-growth boundaries that are protected by restrictive zoning. By comparison, the 2000 census found that the urbanized land in these counties (including parks in those urban areas) totaled only 502,000 acres."
The section on San Jose is quite interesting, as I've lived here for 15 years but never knew about this until last year. "San Jose housing was still affordable in 1969. But fears of “Los Angelization” led San Jose and Santa Clara County to impose an urban-growth boundary and other planning restrictions in 1974." That would explain why housing prices here are so high.
The rest of the report covers other areas and offers interesting commentary on various topics related to housing and growth planning. Only one major complaint: the report partly blames the planning penalty on Proposition 13 for restricting property tax revenues and thus forcing city governments to avoid expanding the growth boundaries. The real fault in this chain of events lies with the city governments for establishing those boundaries in the first place.
posted by Simon at 10:30 PM
1 Comments:
If growth boundaries aren't accompanied by the lifting of growth restrictions within them, they indeed increase housing prices and cause our affordability crisis. But you can't avoid blaming Prop 13, which forces cities to favor commercial over residential construction and discourages people from moving (like rent control), further limiting supply.
Post a Comment
<< Home