Skip to comments.Map: It may take centuries to reach housing goals in Bay Area
Posted on 06/29/2018 9:33:09 AM PDT by NohSpinZone
At its current level of housing construction, it would take the East Bay city of Concord until 2984 almost the next millennia to reach its 2040 housing goals, according to a new map from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
Oakland residents would have to wait until 2295 before enough housing is built for its projected 2040 population. San Jose and San Francisco residents have it better off; residents grandchildren would see an adequate supply of housing for its 2040 population in 2066 and 2063, respectively.
The map, released last month, highlights the continued challenges of building housing in the Bay Area. Comparing Department of Finance housing production data from January 2010 to December 2017 with the state-mandated housing goals outline in MTCs Plan Bay Area 2040 forecast, it shows the year in which each city or town would meet its housing goal for 2040 if it continues at the current pace of construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Flooding earthquakes global warming starvation ebola and infertile relationships will do the job sooner than that. By design.
Longer, if the All Powerful State helps.
“These ridiculous projections do not seem to be factoring how badly many people want to get out and find greener pastures. “
Even if people DO leave the illegals pouring in,that they want,will need a place to live.
They deserve this problem in The Bay Area.
Or they could get government out of the housing business and let free enterprise work and then the population of 2040 would have adequate housing in...2040.
Send millions back home and we have plenty of housing.
Spot on! They have a mix of problems in the liberal bastion that exacerbates a geographic problem. RENT CONTROL and squatters rights (homelessness). It's risky to be a landlord in that area and the motivation to add inventory to an over-regulated, very expensive, landlocked, old neighborhood is low.
The market price of housing in most of the bay area has cut the middle class out of "ownership". The middle class rents. Owners & Landlords are either VERY wealthy or are in the 3rd and 4th generation of ownership (or live in a stick dumpster). Add in government assistance and rent control and landlords can't afford to pay the insurance and maintenance for their properties. If you have a vacant property, there is a danger that homeless people will move in. And that can take months to get them out. After that, you may as well raze the site and sell the ground.
It's ironic that in a market where the investment in new housing should make folks rich is precisely where nobody can afford the risk.
(Disclaimer: I haven't lived in the Bay area since 2000. Experience could be outdated.)
The whole notion of a government agency setting “housing goals” for cities is preposterous. It smacks of top-down government diktat just like the Soviet Union.
The problem is indeed self correcting if left to markets to fix. Jobs and people are leaving because the Bay Area quality of life is in the crapper. Forcing cities and towns to add even more housing ruins life even more with people crammed into high density housing. Traffic is at a standstill everywhere. It often takes an hour to an hour and a half to drive 15 miles.
There is plenty of room on the sidewalks and under bridges and in the parks etc.
Everybody wants to live in areas that are likely to be destroyed by natural disaster tomorrow or 1000 years from now.
As far as the California coast is concerned, I’ll visit for the scenery, marvel at the garbage and leave while spending as little as possible. Those are my principles regarding this area.
What portion of the population IS leaving, what is the population coming in and what is the portion of the population that is growing. Depending on the answers, the problem is possibly without a solution (those that are leaving can afford to but leave majorities that want to leave and cannot afoord to, and newcomers are dominated by illegals, and population growth is tied to the lower ecnomic strata), or not as bad as it seems (middle and lower class remain stable, as high prices induce enough to leave, which in time lowers housing price demands and raises affordability, while population growth moderates).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.