Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman (Post 7750245)

While I agree with you 100%, it's been proven that ~50% of housing costs in CA come from regulations.

Originally Posted by embora (Post 7709642)

Someone asked about the Willmark development (on C Street between Park Blvd and 13th Street) that has been blocked off for a while with little to no action, and he said that it turns out that the tectonic fault that was known to be on the site was a bit further east than anticipated, and that the developer was considering going higher with the eastern building. No one present asked how much higher, but I imagine it would be similar to what had been previously approved.

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 7752934)

Source? I believe you, but I'd love to have the data next time I'm arguing this point to someone else :-D

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman (Post 7754186)

From a 2015 UT article:

"The 71-page study, financed with between $50,000 and $100,000 from area builders and the California Homebuilding Foundation, focused on five cities and the unincorporated area of the county.

Based on those cities' building permit processing history over the last three to five years and estimates from about 20 development companies, Reaser's group concluded that regulation could represent up to 55.9 percent or $480,746 of the cost of a new $860,000 apartment or condo in Carlsbad."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

Carlsbad $782,104 $339,214 43.40%
Chula Vista $747,969 $202,167 27.00%
San Diego $969,588 $438,061 45.20%
San Marcos $783,084 $217,051 27.70%
Santee $664,416 $143,002 21.50%
Other cities $830,602 $319,593 38.50%
Uninc. Area $989,319 $305,428 30.90%
Source: Point Loma Nazarene University

Based on homes selling for $600,000 or more.

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 7756979)

Solution for tented homeless? $531M for 2,000 homes proposed by Father Joe's
Roger Showley
March 30, 2017
Union-Tribune
Link to Article

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7750239)

It's an opinion piece that leaves out a lot of complex reasons for differing regulation and planning styles across cities. I mean comparing Houston and SF? One has room to sprawl and the other is confined to a small peninsula. A lot of housing costs comes from desirability to live in certain places. Many more people would find coastal CA more desirable than humid, swampy Houston. That alone will make prices higher here. I just don't buy the notion that cities like SF could follow the "Houston model" and cure all their problems. Seems like a naive piece.

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7757710)

https://www-nbcsandiego-com.cdn.ampp...p=y&amp_js_v=9

I think this could be the coolest thing coming to SD. I really hope it happens

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7749547)

True, but that street (PCH) is wide because it used to be a "highway" before the 5 Freeway was built in the early 60's.

Originally Posted by dtell04 (Post 7759100)

It's almost like there is some sort of pre-programmed Californian response (like yours) when anyone says "maybe we can do this better"

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7750239)

It's an opinion piece that leaves out a lot of complex reasons for differing regulation and planning styles across cities. I mean comparing Houston and SF? One has room to sprawl and the other is confined to a small peninsula.

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 7760763)

Yes, the land areas are different. But SF's zoning has deliberately prevented moving towards the kind of density that would relieve prices. The point the article was making is that SF's zoning is poor and Houston's is not. And that point can be made regardless. Most of SF is zoned for the kind of 2 level, single family housing that should be reserved for distant suburbs. Here's what the article said:

"In its most extreme form, cities like San Francisco continue to enforce startlingly low densities in and around downtown despite burgeoning demand."



Do you have any data to support that? Because I would argue that a more desirable area does not have to suffer rapidly rising housing costs; instead, it can maintain affordability by allowing density to rise to meet demand. And SF has absolutely failed on this. Existing home owners fight hard to keep density low and prices high, and then sooth their own consciences by supporting affordable housing projects who help a few hundred people annually at the expense of everyone else but themselves. They screw hundreds of thousands of people into paying higher prices, and then throw a subsidized housing bone to a lucky few.

Aside from that I would argue most people's choice of where to live comes from personal ties and their job, not avoiding humidity and distance from the ocean.

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7761341)

You've never heard of the concept of a "sunshine tax"? People live in places for a whole host of reasons, and climate is a factor for some. You apparently don't realize San Francisco is already the second densest city in the country with 6,266 people per square mile. How much denser does it need to become before all its problems suddenly vanish and housing prices come down like magic as you think they would? I'm not arguing that the current model works, I'm arguing that the article someone posted that I read doesn't seem to offer much that would actually solve the problems just by replicating what Houston does.

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7761341)

You've never heard of the concept of a "sunshine tax"? People live in places for a whole host of reasons, and climate is a factor for some. You apparently don't realize San Francisco is already the second densest city in the country with 6,266 people per square mile. How much denser does it need to become before all its problems suddenly vanish and housing prices come down like magic as you think they would? I'm not arguing that the current model works, I'm arguing that the article someone posted that I read doesn't seem to offer much that would actually solve the problems just by replicating what Houston does.

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7762574)

I don't know how I feel about Soccer City just yet, and please, please, please approve the CA Theater project. That eyesore needs to go.