New California Laws: Good or Bad?
Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes
The DIY Landlord Book4.7243 Reviews
New California Laws: Good or Bad?
Most Popular Reply
Specialist · San Clemente, CA · Member since 2014 · 50 posts · 75 votes
4yAs an architect and REI investor in California for almost 30 years this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. My view is that California is FINALLY in deregulation mode, albeit selective deregulation with all of these newer housing laws and I think this is a very good thig. Many folks in this country and on this site, including me, are "free market, less regulation" types. However, when it comes to land use many of these same folks follow a contradictory "more government regulation is better" NIMBYism philosophy. Most of the cities and towns throughout the US and Europe that people really enjoy living in, and visiting were substantially developed before there was even a concept of zoning regulations. The development of cities was organic and new projects filled needs as the needs grew and changed. If a corner grocery store was needed, some enterprising individual built one and both the neighborhood and the business were rewarded. If someone built something that was not needed it was a financial failure and abandoned or repurposed. The market determined all of this, not the Zoning Code. When people think that they can successfully "Plan" a city you need look no further than the planned cities of Phoenix, Post WWII Los Angeles, Dallas/Ft Worth and many others as an example of what this over-regulation accomplishes. Who has ever visited the endless suburbs of LA or Phoenix and thought "wow, this is my forever home!". It is inconvenient, resource and land inefficient, and you need to get in a car to do almost anything except go to the bathroom. Riding a bike can be suicide. I am not advocating no zoning; for instance, we would not want a battery factory or porn shop next to a preschool, but we are far over regulated when it comes to land use. Real world examples of my observations of these inefficiencies and the problems with over zoning follow:
1. LA county has many, many areas that were developed post WWII with small 1100 sf 3 bedroom houses on huge (for LA) pieces of land... think 10k to 12k square foot lots in neighborhoods where the population has aged and the schools are CLOSING. Roads are wide, and sewer, water and power are in place. Yet zoning regulations were preventing anything but building a BIGGER single family house! New laws finally allow lot sub-dividing, ADUs, JADUs etc. on these properties and maybe the existing infrastructure will be more efficiently utilized and more supply will reduce housing cost.
2. As an Architect, I have seen firsthand zoning and environmental laws used by project opponents to discriminate economically, religiously and racially or to try to squash business competition or eliminate labor competition more times than I can count.
3. I have been involved in multiple projects where it really made sense to add housing as a component of a large commercial project but it was not allowed by the city. Case in point; we designed two projects in downtown Pasadena 10 years ago; a full block hospitality development and a full block commercial project. It made strong economic sense (because of an unfulfilled need) to incorporate housing into both of these projects but it was denied. Even 10-12 years ago we could see the demise of office space coming (the trend started long before COVID) through reduced demand but the city wanted to protect it's antiquated idea of a "Financial Office District" against the scourge housing.
4. When I sold my business, I moved to the back unit of a duplex in the beach community of San Clemente that I have owned for 20 years. It was single story inefficient, and the land very expensive, but the zoning laws prevented me from doing anything. Along comes the California ADU law and voila, I added a 3rd unit on a new second story with an ocean view, my daughter was able to rent the back unit from us and I have a tenant in the other unit. Yes, we use incrementally more utilities, but the street could handle 10 or 15 more of these without any quality of life degradation.
5. Yes, this next level of deregulation will require infrastructure to be upgraded and more efficient public transportation and some people will not be happy but it is ultimately necessary to let the market forces play out a bit to solve the self-made supply and demand problem that we have. The state is encouraging the highest density development along existing and anticipated public transport corridors so under utilized single story strip malls can be replaced with multi-story mixed use projects. This is a bold de-regulation effort by the state that will better utilize our limited land, water and power resources, allow many people to live closer to their jobs if they choose to do so. Without a doubt, it will make certain areas more densely populated but if people really want "rural", then they are free to move from LA to Ojai and if they want endless seas of single family tract houses on 7,000 square foot lots they are free to move to Phoenix.
6. I have a couple of friends whose parents or in-laws were aging and would possibly have had to go to some sort of low level assisted living facility because living in the same house was not ideal. The ADU laws allowed them to build a back yard apartment that gave everyone a little space for the sake of spousal relations. It was a very affordable option that gave a better quality of life to the family, in no way degraded the neighborhood. It is ridiculous that city zoning did not permit these prior to the state stepping in and de-regulating. All of the ADU projects I have seen have been generally well done and do not degrade neighborhoods and I am surprised that more are not being constructed.
These are but a few firsthand experiences over the course of my career that helped form my view on this subject. I wish that these new laws were even less limiting and that the residential construction on commercial lots could be market driven instead of regulated, zoned, low income housing but at least it is a step in the market driven direction, as I believe that the market is generally the best long term planner.
26 Replies
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes4y
@Nathan G.
I agree, population, density and zoning needs to be thought out and this reads as is if it was one thing that came from the hip.
Allowing people to add adu’s though probably won’t do too much except for investors as most people don’t want renters on their property
What should be done is more master planning around metro areas to incorporate more mixed use properties and review building heights
I was in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago which is beautiful but super expensive because of lack of housing - some very simple fixes but why would people want to fix it because it could impact there life’s and property values (the old NIMBY syndrome)
7e investments53 Reviews - Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes4y
We are pro ADU's as Realtors in DC. We've lobbied, and been successful in getting ADU's legalized in much of our metro area, and continue to lobby to ease regulations on them. ADUs make housing more affordable, which is an always present concern in high cost of living area.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - 4yBjorn AhlbladPro MemberInvestor · Shelton, WA · Member since 2017 · 6k+ posts · 6k+ votes
I was a LL south of San Francisco for many years while living in Silicon Valley. Common household pets is a broad category! LOL. People walk their sheep and pigs in inner cities and have lizards on their shoulders. The ADU's rent for crazy numbers and are really too small for any kinds of pets but people will want them regardless.
- 4yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
@Nathan G.
I agree, population, density and zoning needs to be thought out and this reads as is if it was one thing that came from the hip.
Allowing people to add adu’s though probably won’t do too much except for investors as most people don’t want renters on their property
What should be done is more master planning around metro areas to incorporate more mixed use properties and review building heights
I was in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago which is beautiful but super expensive because of lack of housing - some very simple fixes but why would people want to fix it because it could impact there life’s and property values (the old NIMBY syndrome)
chris actually in Portland its quite popular as ADUs and extreme high density is the law not exception and many put them in to supplement their incomes
to encourarge ADUS in my city lake Oswego you can build an adu and not be charge permit fee's if the occupant is a direct family member.. if its a rental you pay all the fees 50k plus. - 4yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
ADUs are the big new thing, have been for abut a decade. They sound good - "oh, it'll help with the housing shortage", but the downsides are obvious, as @Nathan Gesner pointed out.....big time increase in population density. And that's never a good thing. Crime, Parking and just the psychological negatives of having too many people crammed together.
I lived in a quaint little coastal town where they allowed the zoning to increase density and the 'quality of life' was just ruined.
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
ADUs are the big new thing, have been for abut a decade. They sound good - "oh, it'll help with the housing shortage", but the downsides are obvious, as @Nathan Gesner pointed out.....big time increase in population density. And that's never a good thing. Crime, Parking and just the psychological negatives of having too many people crammed together.
I lived in a quaint little coastal town where they allowed the zoning to increase density and the 'quality of life' was just ruined.
I like housing shortages, it means higher rents.
And there might no't be a real hosing shortage, some people in here may own over 70 SFH', that's not a shortage of homes.
i think some areas may have a shortage of jobs that pay enough to buy a home, too many people chasing too few GOOD PAYING jobs.
Housing shortages keep house prices high, preserving and growing your equity.
Supply vs Demand.
just my 2 cents.
- 4yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votesI don't believe that nationally there is a 'housing shortage'. The number of available rentals exceeds the number of prospective tenants.
Quote from @Scott Mac:
And there might no't be a real hosing shortage, some people in here may own over 70 SFH', that's not a shortage of homes.
i think some areas may have a shortage of jobs that pay enough to buy a home, too many people chasing too few GOOD PAYING jobs.
Housing shortages keep house prices high, preserving and growing your equity.
Supply vs Demand.
just my 2 cents.
What we actually have is a feeling of entitlement - 'I want to live within 20 minutes of where I work'.
Guess what? Too bad, you don't get to....move where you can afford to live, even if that's a different state. Or get a better job...or a second job, nobody cares. But cut out the 'horrible housing crisis crap'.... Just passing laws that allow homeowners to build ADUs at will is extremely lazy and shortsighted. Many people push it as a simple solution to a housing shortage. Our politicians don’t want to put in the hard work and planning that’s necessary before building all this additional housing. We need to take into account the infrastructure, nearby facilities, schools, etc. utilized by those in the community, otherwise we’re creating a whole new set of problems for ourselves. Sewage, water and electrical infrastructure are designed to accommodate a limited number of people. School playgrounds are already being taken over by mobile classrooms in order to accommodate the ever increasing number of students. If the plan is to increase housing, then first build up the foundation. Make sure we have enough electricity, water and sewage capacity for the population increase. Make room at the local school for more kids and be prepared to hire more teachers. Schools are already short staffed and under funded as it is.
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
There are some improvements here, like reusable applications and protections for domestic violence victims.
One of my greatest concerns is population density. By adding these ADUs in already-dense neighborhoods, I would anticipate an increase in crime, heavier traffic, the inability to keep up with utility demand, and other problems. I just don't see how this can be a good thing. The state is also mandating Landlords accept common household pets.
Mandating of common pets is only in the affordable housing. In general, affordable housing is an agreement between the developer and the jurisdiction where the developer agrees to supply some affordable units in exchange for other concessions such as getting waiver for unit count above what the zoning mandates be allowed.
My view on affordable housing is that it benefits too few and has loopholes that prevent wealth creation. For example, the affordable housing often is owned by someone who has connections to the developer who basically by deed restriction must set rent at a certain affordable level (usually a percentage of the median household income) for a certain amount of years. The demand for renting such housing is such that it is like winning the lottery and the owner of the property is the one that ends up with the wealth creation. After the agreed period is up, the unit is no longer classified as affordable and the LL can charge market rents.
My view is instead of policies that benefit so few, more effort should be exerted to help everyone. This help could consist of encouraging relocation to areas that could benefit from population increase. I heard a stat at BPCon that only 2 states had natural population increase, Utah and N Dakota. I have not verified the stat, but it seems like it could be accurate. The immigrants therefore are required to avoid declining population. So why is there so many places with a housing crisis? It is because people want to live in desired locations whether they can afford to live there or not.
The current regulations that try to accommodate everyone that want to live in various blue states, take away choice of low density areas in the nice areas in those states.
The US does not have a housing crisis. Certain areas in the US does and it is in large part due to trying to accommodate everyone who wants to live there.
- 4yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
Quote from @Dan H.:
The US does not have a housing crisis. Certain areas in the US does and it is in large part due to trying to accommodate everyone who wants to live there.
In comment #1, I assume you mean legal immigrants.
Comment #2 is spot-on!
- Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes4y
If people need assistance to afford housing, why are they buying pets? Each animal could cost $1000 or more per year.
I completely agree that people want to live in expensive communities they can't afford, as if somehow society is cheating them. If you want top healthcare, want to drive a Tesla, or want to live in San Diego, work for it like everyone else. Don't think you can stick with your low-paying job, spend all your money on tattoos and marijuana, and live next door to the 50-year-old that has worked 80 hour weeks for decades to get where he is today.
The DIY Landlord Book4.7243 Reviews - I suspect both immigrants where used in the counts as I suspect the source was the census. Seeing I am not the original source of the data, I do not know if legal immigration alone would prevent a population decline. My view is we should discourage illegal immigrants and if we need more immigrants, legalize more immigrants (I am against immigrant amnesty but exception for DACA).
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Dan H.:
The US does not have a housing crisis. Certain areas in the US does and it is in large part due to trying to accommodate everyone who wants to live there.
In comment #1, I assume you mean legal immigrants.
Comment #2 is spot-on!
not sure which comment you were referring to as my comment 2 (I had more than 2 comments). - 4yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
"The US does not have a housing crisis. Certain areas in the US does and it is in large part due to trying to accommodate everyone who wants to live there."
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
If people need assistance to afford housing, why are they buying pets? Each animal could cost $1000 or more per year.
I completely agree that people want to live in expensive communities they can't afford, as if somehow society is cheating them. If you want top healthcare, want to drive a Tesla, or want to live in San Diego, work for it like everyone else. Don't think you can stick with your low-paying job, spend all your money on tattoos and marijuana, and live next door to the 50-year-old that has worked 80 hour weeks for decades to get where he is today.
When I was real young I lived in one of the poorest areas in San Diego (and it is still one of the poorest areas in San Diego - other areas have been revitalized but not Encanto). We had a dog. Everything was cheaper with the pets than upper middle class or upper class spend. A lot more home care. When it was time to euthanize a pet you did it yourself. More like what is done on farms. Cheap dog food and table scraps. We spent no where near $1/year even counting for inflation. In college (mid 1980s). I almost put down a dog for a $600 broken leg. We took out a personal loan to pay the vet. It was more money than we had in reserve
My pets now sees the vet for slight infections, get premium pet food (I have a fat cat that is on prescription pet food that would not be cheap compared to human food). They get pet sitters that spend time with them. They get expensive snacks and have a pile of toys. Very spoiled. I suspect I spend far more than $1k/year on average per pet.
The people with little money often spend little on their pets and sometimes it shows.- 4yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votesNathan one issue we must address is work force housing. Even with minimum wage at 15 to 20 an hour. most they can pay for rent living solo is wht 700 to 800 a month you cant rent pretty much any city on the west cost for that little.. other wise you have monster commute and with gas that does not work and public transportation is not like East cost upper mid west cities where its actually functional. Portland public transportation is semi functional and there are a ton of bike lanes so lots of folks bike etc.. I believe this is the folks they are trying to house.
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
If people need assistance to afford housing, why are they buying pets? Each animal could cost $1000 or more per year.
I completely agree that people want to live in expensive communities they can't afford, as if somehow society is cheating them. If you want top healthcare, want to drive a Tesla, or want to live in San Diego, work for it like everyone else. Don't think you can stick with your low-paying job, spend all your money on tattoos and marijuana, and live next door to the 50-year-old that has worked 80 hour weeks for decades to get where he is today.
- 4yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
If people need assistance to afford housing, why are they buying pets? Each animal could cost $1000 or more per year.
I completely agree that people want to live in expensive communities they can't afford, as if somehow society is cheating them. If you want top healthcare, want to drive a Tesla, or want to live in San Diego, work for it like everyone else. Don't think you can stick with your low-paying job, spend all your money on tattoos and marijuana, and live next door to the 50-year-old that has worked 80 hour weeks for decades to get where he is today.
When I was real young I lived in one of the poorest areas in San Diego (and it is still one of the poorest areas in San Diego - other areas have been revitalized but not Encanto). We had a dog. Everything was cheaper with the pets than upper middle class or upper class spend. A lot more home care. When it was time to euthanize a pet you did it yourself. More like what is done on farms. Cheap dog food and table scraps. We spent no where near $1/year even counting for inflation. In college (mid 1980s). I almost put down a dog for a $600 broken leg. We took out a personal loan to pay the vet. It was more money than we had in reserve
My pets now sees the vet for slight infections, get premium pet food (I have a fat cat that is on prescription pet food that would not be cheap compared to human food). They get pet sitters that spend time with them. They get expensive snacks and have a pile of toys. Very spoiled. I suspect I spend far more than $1k/year on average per pet.
The people with little money often spend little on their pets and sometimes it shows.I have to chuckle a little just took my chiwawa to the vet for itching problem and to check his ears always getting infections add in the flea and tic pill for him and the Labrador and its a cool 550 bucks.. I cant seem to get out of there for less than 500 most visits.. and when you travel Kennels are now 30 to 40 bucks a day and board two dogs for 10 days well thats 800 plus you have to bath them when they are done another 100 .. chiwawa has a heart murmur so he is on two pills a day those cost about 250 bucks per 90 days.. Our old cat had diabetes and needed shots daily and it goes on and on. Of course not to mention the best food available for all three.
- Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes4y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
I don't disagree, but we have to look at the whole picture. Why do we have so many able-bodied adults on welfare for years and even decades? I regularly see two young, healthy adults sharing an apartment that costume less than $500 each per month. My high school kids have no problem finding a job that pays three times that amount per month, so there's no reason why adults can't earn more and afford to live a comfortable life. And if people want something of greater value, the right thing to do is work hard and sacrifice for it. We don't expect everyone to afford a Ford F-350 or Tesla, but for some reason we feel everyone should be able to live wherever they want.
When able-bodied adults do the bare minimum, they eat up the low-income housing inventory and leave nothing for those struggling to make a better life. When you create income based housing, it's quickly eaten up by those who do the bare minimum to get by and they have no incentive to work harder because a higher paycheck requires them to pay more in rent or possibly move and take full responsibility for their welfare.
Of course, I'm talking generalities. I know there are good people out there trying to get by.
The DIY Landlord Book4.7243 Reviews - 4yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
I don't disagree, but we have to look at the whole picture. Why do we have so many able-bodied adults on welfare for years and even decades? I regularly see two young, healthy adults sharing an apartment that costume less than $500 each per month. My high school kids have no problem finding a job that pays three times that amount per month, so there's no reason why adults can't earn more and afford to live a comfortable life. And if people want something of greater value, the right thing to do is work hard and sacrifice for it. We don't expect everyone to afford a Ford F-350 or Tesla, but for some reason we feel everyone should be able to live wherever they want.
When able-bodied adults do the bare minimum, they eat up the low-income housing inventory and leave nothing for those struggling to make a better life. When you create income based housing, it's quickly eaten up by those who do the bare minimum to get by and they have no incentive to work harder because a higher paycheck requires them to pay more in rent or possibly move and take full responsibility for their welfare.
Of course, I'm talking generalities. I know there are good people out there trying to get by.
I hear ya on living off the govmit teat its generational and systemic .. the year i spent in Jackson MS some of my clients that were raised there said that about 7 out of 10 residents of the city got some sort of govmit help .. from housing to food to medical to who knows what else.
my point was the starbucks barista who risks scalding them selves daily where do they live. ?? :)
- Specialist · San Clemente, CA · Member since 2014 · 50 posts · 75 votes4y
As an architect and REI investor in California for almost 30 years this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. My view is that California is FINALLY in deregulation mode, albeit selective deregulation with all of these newer housing laws and I think this is a very good thig. Many folks in this country and on this site, including me, are "free market, less regulation" types. However, when it comes to land use many of these same folks follow a contradictory "more government regulation is better" NIMBYism philosophy. Most of the cities and towns throughout the US and Europe that people really enjoy living in, and visiting were substantially developed before there was even a concept of zoning regulations. The development of cities was organic and new projects filled needs as the needs grew and changed. If a corner grocery store was needed, some enterprising individual built one and both the neighborhood and the business were rewarded. If someone built something that was not needed it was a financial failure and abandoned or repurposed. The market determined all of this, not the Zoning Code. When people think that they can successfully "Plan" a city you need look no further than the planned cities of Phoenix, Post WWII Los Angeles, Dallas/Ft Worth and many others as an example of what this over-regulation accomplishes. Who has ever visited the endless suburbs of LA or Phoenix and thought "wow, this is my forever home!". It is inconvenient, resource and land inefficient, and you need to get in a car to do almost anything except go to the bathroom. Riding a bike can be suicide. I am not advocating no zoning; for instance, we would not want a battery factory or porn shop next to a preschool, but we are far over regulated when it comes to land use. Real world examples of my observations of these inefficiencies and the problems with over zoning follow:
1. LA county has many, many areas that were developed post WWII with small 1100 sf 3 bedroom houses on huge (for LA) pieces of land... think 10k to 12k square foot lots in neighborhoods where the population has aged and the schools are CLOSING. Roads are wide, and sewer, water and power are in place. Yet zoning regulations were preventing anything but building a BIGGER single family house! New laws finally allow lot sub-dividing, ADUs, JADUs etc. on these properties and maybe the existing infrastructure will be more efficiently utilized and more supply will reduce housing cost.
2. As an Architect, I have seen firsthand zoning and environmental laws used by project opponents to discriminate economically, religiously and racially or to try to squash business competition or eliminate labor competition more times than I can count.
3. I have been involved in multiple projects where it really made sense to add housing as a component of a large commercial project but it was not allowed by the city. Case in point; we designed two projects in downtown Pasadena 10 years ago; a full block hospitality development and a full block commercial project. It made strong economic sense (because of an unfulfilled need) to incorporate housing into both of these projects but it was denied. Even 10-12 years ago we could see the demise of office space coming (the trend started long before COVID) through reduced demand but the city wanted to protect it's antiquated idea of a "Financial Office District" against the scourge housing.
4. When I sold my business, I moved to the back unit of a duplex in the beach community of San Clemente that I have owned for 20 years. It was single story inefficient, and the land very expensive, but the zoning laws prevented me from doing anything. Along comes the California ADU law and voila, I added a 3rd unit on a new second story with an ocean view, my daughter was able to rent the back unit from us and I have a tenant in the other unit. Yes, we use incrementally more utilities, but the street could handle 10 or 15 more of these without any quality of life degradation.5. Yes, this next level of deregulation will require infrastructure to be upgraded and more efficient public transportation and some people will not be happy but it is ultimately necessary to let the market forces play out a bit to solve the self-made supply and demand problem that we have. The state is encouraging the highest density development along existing and anticipated public transport corridors so under utilized single story strip malls can be replaced with multi-story mixed use projects. This is a bold de-regulation effort by the state that will better utilize our limited land, water and power resources, allow many people to live closer to their jobs if they choose to do so. Without a doubt, it will make certain areas more densely populated but if people really want "rural", then they are free to move from LA to Ojai and if they want endless seas of single family tract houses on 7,000 square foot lots they are free to move to Phoenix.
6. I have a couple of friends whose parents or in-laws were aging and would possibly have had to go to some sort of low level assisted living facility because living in the same house was not ideal. The ADU laws allowed them to build a back yard apartment that gave everyone a little space for the sake of spousal relations. It was a very affordable option that gave a better quality of life to the family, in no way degraded the neighborhood. It is ridiculous that city zoning did not permit these prior to the state stepping in and de-regulating. All of the ADU projects I have seen have been generally well done and do not degrade neighborhoods and I am surprised that more are not being constructed.
These are but a few firsthand experiences over the course of my career that helped form my view on this subject. I wish that these new laws were even less limiting and that the residential construction on commercial lots could be market driven instead of regulated, zoned, low income housing but at least it is a step in the market driven direction, as I believe that the market is generally the best long term planner.
- 4yBruce WoodruffPro MemberContractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votesPoor barista...... I don't really care where they live. They can figure it our or get another job. Or 2 or 3 other jobs. Not my problem, nor is it yours....
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
my point was the starbucks barista who risks scalding them selves daily where do they live. ?? :)
- Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes4y
Great insight, Bob! He brought up some good points I hadn't thought of. I still believe most of these ADUs will be used as rental properties rather than housing multi-generational families, but my opinion is just one of many and I can't predict the future any more than the next guy.
The DIY Landlord Book4.7243 Reviews - Specialist · San Clemente, CA · Member since 2014 · 50 posts · 75 votes4y
Yes, Nathan, I agree with you that a large percentage will be also be rentals in single family neighborhoods, but I am hoping to jump on that band wagon if if prices come down a bit from their current levels! It has yet to be seen if this will happen on a large enough scale to be noticed or have an impact positively or negatively.
Quote from @Nathan Gesner:
There are some improvements here, like reusable applications and protections for domestic violence victims.
One of my greatest concerns is population density. By adding these ADUs in already-dense neighborhoods, I would anticipate an increase in crime, heavier traffic, the inability to keep up with utility demand, and other problems. I just don't see how this can be a good thing. The state is also mandating Landlords accept common household pets.
I have mixed thoughts about the easing of parking requirements. From a developer/investor standpoint, yes, it makes it much easier/cheaper to produce a building within restrictive zoning. But the reality is that people still want their vehicles outside of the big cities, because the transportation infrastructure isn't keeping up. For the time being, if you build to rent, you still need adequate parking to lease easily. Maybe that will change, but I think the transition will be bumpy.
My other thought is that ADU's are not cheap, and cities are taking their pound of flesh and then some. Get this - I just added 8 ADU's to one apartment building, and the city forced me to pull 8 separate permits so they could max out fees ($4500 per permit). However, when it came to the school district, they decided to charge everything together, because they impose fees based on a per square footage calculation over a base amount of square footage (just over $16k). About $52k in fees when you add it up! So much for no impact fees - they are basically charging impact fees but not calling them impact fees. I'm pretty sure what they did to me isn't exactly kosher... but did I fight it... no.
Construction costs around the Bay Area are hitting crazy highs, so whether it's ADU's or affordable housing bonuses, it's tough to make numbers work right now. Something has to equalize between construction costs/rents/wages for the housing to get built.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.