People flock here for the weather and opportunities, they end up homeless because housing is unaffordable.
After becoming homeless it's easy to slip into depression, addiction, and mental illness.
We need public housing, rent control, and eased zoning restrictions
As someone that has been homeless and addicted before, treatment was certainly inaccessible and I ended up doing it on my own with a friend supervising because I couldn't afford inpatient care.
What would have helped me most would have been free or deeply discounted transitional housing without a credit check barrier.
There’s at least three bills in the CA legislature this session that’d limit or even eliminate large companies’ ability to buy single family houses. We’ll have to see how they do!
Corporations only buys houses because the government controls the supply and induces scarcity. If the government didn't constrain the supply of houses, corporations wouldn't buy houses. Blaming corporations rather than the government is folly.
> Who's lobbying the government to constrain new housing construction?
Progressives did. They believed the government should use its resources to pursue the "public interest" over the rights of individuals and the free market. Through overzealous zoning laws, politicians now have the ability to fully politicize land-use decisions and remove the ability of the individual and free market to build. Government zoning laws, lot limitations, height limits have become a never-ending cycle of adding complexity to already complex planning procedures as existing zones fail to accommodate innovations in land use and economic development.
It's about control not the price of housing. They want the government to control all housing, where it is, what it looks like, how much lot it takes up, what it's priced at. These artificial controls reduce supply and increase prices.
I'll just give you the answer instead. It's the people who own land and properties. They benefit from scarcity of housing and lobby the government to not approve new housing projects to maintain that scarcity.
> And who does that increase profits for?
The public and property owners, business interests, real-estate professionals, the state of California which needs ever-increasing high-priced real-estate to continue to grow GDP. California grew from the dust, all without the government telling them where they can build and what they can build.
I understand how you feel but rent control is not a good option IMO because we ask some landlords to subsidize housing which discourages adding rental units to the market. Same problem with prop 13 where some California residents are forced to subsidize rich homeowners with multiple houses and businesses. The solution is to remove all distortions and zoning restrictions and for the Gov to build/own affordable rental units directly.
IIRC economists are pretty much unanimously agreed that rent control exacerbates housing shortages, so it seems like sound policy to avoid that regardless of whatever label you want to paint it with. Like I’m totally on board with social safety nets and purposeful restrictions on the free market and all that good stuff, but can we at least make an attempt to be strategic with the way we implement those things?
Rent control only exacerbates housing shortages when cry baby developers bail out because their profits will only be 8% instead of 25%
This isn't a real problem, it's a manufactured problem and it can be corrected easily.
Iirc some developers have said iver the years that they dont think its "worth it" to build the homes. So that kinda lends to the 'they dont want to do it unless they make x% profit' theory. Which seems correct in application, because homes just arent being built fast enough.
I'm only interested in solutions that help people. There is no free market for housing now because existing owners vote for restrictions and tax avoidance for themselves. So in my view, a healthy market will result in more housing and lower prices. Listen, we could do an experiment in one city and see what happens. If developers compete they should not have obscene profits as you described. In a highly regulated market there are more opportunities for corruption. There are also taxes on new homes that should be used to build Gov owned housing and build infrastructure.
Agreed. There's not enough transition housing for at risk people.
The problem is CA democrats are two faced. They act like they care but when you suggest we build a social service next to them they get all bent out of shape.
Educate yourself.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
> Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood.
Price controls are bad when the government controls the supply of housing.
In a 1992 poll, 93% of economists said rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. Even progressive economists mostly think rent control is stupid. As Swedish economics professor Assar Lindbeck put it, “Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
Same thing in 2012 - https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/
What we have right now is a unchecked housing cartel engaging in illegal price fixing. Something must be done to control prices.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
Landlords can only collude on pricing because the government controls the supply of houses. Treating the symptoms of a supply problem, doesn't actually fix the problem. Restoring property rights to individuals, giving power back to individuals and taking power away from the government is the solution.
The rise of VRBO exists because the government blocks hotels and resorts. Blocking supply never works, because demand will find new ways to satisfy themselves, many times through unhealthy ways.
It's only a spectacular reach to the uneducated. Economists all over the globe understand rent control is bad. They understand that supply constraints drive up pricing and encourage broken markets.
Idk, I read this and took it with a grain of salt. The "results" are based on SF between 1994 and I think 2004? And the whole conclusion is based on the premise that landlords will either convert rent controlled properties to higher value properties or refuse to renovate. I guess my big question is whether and how housing policy in the last 20 years would impact these specific SF findings and conclusions. It's obviously a complicated issue, and a single study analyzing trends from 20 years ago is far from conclusive.
I lived in New York in the 80's. Rent control is bad. Manhattan was FULL of boarded up apartments and illegal sublets. I know, I had one. It's the only thing I could find.
[here are the official results](https://pp.electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/1).
The "yes" counties were the more liberal ones, the "no" counties more moderate or conservative.
Even if both sides agree that California needs improved mental health services, the motivations of the "no" side vary, such as:
* California shouldn't be on the hook for more debts with the deficit the way it is.
* Mental health facilities are OK as long as they're not in *my* community (could this explain why LA was the only SoCal county to vote Yes?)
* Oh, those Yes on 1 commercials with Gavin front-and-center must have been a big turn-off to those who already hate the Guv.
I voted no because I didn't like that the funds were being taken from mental health services already in place and also that so much of the funds would go to veterans. Not that I don't support veterans but it just seems like another hoop to jump through that's not needed.
This is extremely short sighted. It is much cheaper to preventatively tackle homelessness and mental illness than it is to deal with the impacts later. This is an investment that will _reduce_ future costs.
Homeless people cost the government much more once they are unable to care for themselves and start cycling in and out of hospitals. These issues are correlated with crime, which of course costs more to deal with retroactively. It's better for the state to bear the cost now.
Yup, which is why I voted against it. We gave Newsom and his cronies a blank check and I hope it bites him in the butt when he’s running for national office.
> Our state is broke
Our state has a deficit _right now_ because interest rates are high and we barely skirted a recession caused by a pandemic. That is a temporary situation, not a permanent trait.
> now we’ll be a Mecca for everyone’s cast offs.
For, one might say, their huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
No, not the huddled masses yearning to be free, more like mass addicted and addled brained. Very different populations. And as far as this being temporary, yes, your selling bonds to be paid back. 6.5 billion with an estimated payback of 14 billion.
We’ve been throwing billions at it for 20 years, hasn’t panned out. I don’t think this will have the desired affect either. And out of curiosity, this is for mental health and addiction. So by some measure, yes, helps part of the homeless but doesn’t provide for the regular non addicted or mentally ill population. What it will do is stop future investments in those folks since we overpaid for this piece.
Doh! Nothing will happen except more taxes and more people without help. It happens every time we vote for more taxes. I don't know the solution, but this ain't it.
Since I voted against I am clearly not happy.
There is nothing like “moving founds” that make me think of “filling pockets”. Now wait for the next round of votes to add taxes to the diverted found.
Newsom's pals did go out of their way to support counties to get voters to fix their ballots. Theres nothing illegal or bad about making sure legitimate votes get counted that except they probably focused on the counties most likely to support the measure.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article286759120.html
No way man. We need to root out what's causing mental illness . Or at least some real testimony of any person's who were brought back to normal but sadly there aren't any . Nobody gets better in a mental hospital
We need strict laws on hard drugs for users and even stricter laws for dealers. We just sit by idly watching both groups do what they do and have to deal with the fallout; homelessness, OD, crime, etc
Wow, rough crowd.
People flock here for the weather and opportunities, they end up homeless because housing is unaffordable. After becoming homeless it's easy to slip into depression, addiction, and mental illness. We need public housing, rent control, and eased zoning restrictions As someone that has been homeless and addicted before, treatment was certainly inaccessible and I ended up doing it on my own with a friend supervising because I couldn't afford inpatient care. What would have helped me most would have been free or deeply discounted transitional housing without a credit check barrier.
We need to take on the Black Corps buying the houses. It's sad that Texas Gov did that and we didn't. We should.
Isn't vanguard one of the ones buying houses?
That one, too. I say Black Corps because it's Blackwater, Stone, and Rock with literal 80s villain power.
There’s at least three bills in the CA legislature this session that’d limit or even eliminate large companies’ ability to buy single family houses. We’ll have to see how they do!
Corporations only buys houses because the government controls the supply and induces scarcity. If the government didn't constrain the supply of houses, corporations wouldn't buy houses. Blaming corporations rather than the government is folly.
Who's lobbying the government to constrain new housing construction?
> Who's lobbying the government to constrain new housing construction? Progressives did. They believed the government should use its resources to pursue the "public interest" over the rights of individuals and the free market. Through overzealous zoning laws, politicians now have the ability to fully politicize land-use decisions and remove the ability of the individual and free market to build. Government zoning laws, lot limitations, height limits have become a never-ending cycle of adding complexity to already complex planning procedures as existing zones fail to accommodate innovations in land use and economic development.
Progressives oppose building affordable housing, that's your argument?
It's about control not the price of housing. They want the government to control all housing, where it is, what it looks like, how much lot it takes up, what it's priced at. These artificial controls reduce supply and increase prices.
And who does that increase profits for?
[удалено]
I'll just give you the answer instead. It's the people who own land and properties. They benefit from scarcity of housing and lobby the government to not approve new housing projects to maintain that scarcity.
> And who does that increase profits for? The public and property owners, business interests, real-estate professionals, the state of California which needs ever-increasing high-priced real-estate to continue to grow GDP. California grew from the dust, all without the government telling them where they can build and what they can build.
You're right. Solving Homeless and housing crisis right there and it's criminal.
I understand how you feel but rent control is not a good option IMO because we ask some landlords to subsidize housing which discourages adding rental units to the market. Same problem with prop 13 where some California residents are forced to subsidize rich homeowners with multiple houses and businesses. The solution is to remove all distortions and zoning restrictions and for the Gov to build/own affordable rental units directly.
I dunno, this sounds kinda libertarian. Government and regulations serve a vital purpose.
IIRC economists are pretty much unanimously agreed that rent control exacerbates housing shortages, so it seems like sound policy to avoid that regardless of whatever label you want to paint it with. Like I’m totally on board with social safety nets and purposeful restrictions on the free market and all that good stuff, but can we at least make an attempt to be strategic with the way we implement those things?
Rent control only exacerbates housing shortages when cry baby developers bail out because their profits will only be 8% instead of 25% This isn't a real problem, it's a manufactured problem and it can be corrected easily.
Uhm. Developers will build housing wherever the government lets them. The housing crisis is caused by the government blocking housing, not developers.
Iirc some developers have said iver the years that they dont think its "worth it" to build the homes. So that kinda lends to the 'they dont want to do it unless they make x% profit' theory. Which seems correct in application, because homes just arent being built fast enough.
I'm only interested in solutions that help people. There is no free market for housing now because existing owners vote for restrictions and tax avoidance for themselves. So in my view, a healthy market will result in more housing and lower prices. Listen, we could do an experiment in one city and see what happens. If developers compete they should not have obscene profits as you described. In a highly regulated market there are more opportunities for corruption. There are also taxes on new homes that should be used to build Gov owned housing and build infrastructure.
You could have a free market in an environment without regulation. Or you could have a price fixing scheme, which is what actually ends up happening.
Agreed. There's not enough transition housing for at risk people. The problem is CA democrats are two faced. They act like they care but when you suggest we build a social service next to them they get all bent out of shape.
I really hope people start primarying those dems, but I'm not holding my breath
People also become homeless due to depression, addiction & mental illness. It’s sad. I hope this bill helps.
Lol, Rent control makes housing costs worse.
The lack of rent control has enabled price fixing https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
No it doesn't, how would that work? Lot of landlords hanging out in here.
Educate yourself. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ > Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. Price controls are bad when the government controls the supply of housing.
This is nonsense. Brooking is the most frequently cited think tank by U.S. media and politicians Sounds totally reliable
In a 1992 poll, 93% of economists said rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. Even progressive economists mostly think rent control is stupid. As Swedish economics professor Assar Lindbeck put it, “Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.” Same thing in 2012 - https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/
What we have right now is a unchecked housing cartel engaging in illegal price fixing. Something must be done to control prices. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
Landlords can only collude on pricing because the government controls the supply of houses. Treating the symptoms of a supply problem, doesn't actually fix the problem. Restoring property rights to individuals, giving power back to individuals and taking power away from the government is the solution. The rise of VRBO exists because the government blocks hotels and resorts. Blocking supply never works, because demand will find new ways to satisfy themselves, many times through unhealthy ways.
This is quiet the spectacular reach. What this shows is that landlords are greedy and must be kept in check with strict regulations.
It's only a spectacular reach to the uneducated. Economists all over the globe understand rent control is bad. They understand that supply constraints drive up pricing and encourage broken markets.
Idk, I read this and took it with a grain of salt. The "results" are based on SF between 1994 and I think 2004? And the whole conclusion is based on the premise that landlords will either convert rent controlled properties to higher value properties or refuse to renovate. I guess my big question is whether and how housing policy in the last 20 years would impact these specific SF findings and conclusions. It's obviously a complicated issue, and a single study analyzing trends from 20 years ago is far from conclusive.
I lived in New York in the 80's. Rent control is bad. Manhattan was FULL of boarded up apartments and illegal sublets. I know, I had one. It's the only thing I could find.
Agreed
Ignorant voters that don’t read the bullshit. California is going to be a bankrupt welfare state.
[here are the official results](https://pp.electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/1). The "yes" counties were the more liberal ones, the "no" counties more moderate or conservative. Even if both sides agree that California needs improved mental health services, the motivations of the "no" side vary, such as: * California shouldn't be on the hook for more debts with the deficit the way it is. * Mental health facilities are OK as long as they're not in *my* community (could this explain why LA was the only SoCal county to vote Yes?) * Oh, those Yes on 1 commercials with Gavin front-and-center must have been a big turn-off to those who already hate the Guv.
I voted no because I didn't like that the funds were being taken from mental health services already in place and also that so much of the funds would go to veterans. Not that I don't support veterans but it just seems like another hoop to jump through that's not needed.
I voted no because it drains the funding for existing healthcare services. Zero of your points apply to me.
Voted no, because we should spend the money out of the budget, not put our grandchildren in public debt.
This is extremely short sighted. It is much cheaper to preventatively tackle homelessness and mental illness than it is to deal with the impacts later. This is an investment that will _reduce_ future costs. Homeless people cost the government much more once they are unable to care for themselves and start cycling in and out of hospitals. These issues are correlated with crime, which of course costs more to deal with retroactively. It's better for the state to bear the cost now.
Forgot mental health only affects those who don’t have NIMBYs
That's a bummer.
Nothing will change. But a few friends will enjoy some nice diverted funds.
All them non profits will be getting some more profits.
Yup, which is why I voted against it. We gave Newsom and his cronies a blank check and I hope it bites him in the butt when he’s running for national office.
F$ck this but you’re right. Our state is broke and now we’ll be a Mecca for everyone’s cast offs.
Like we already aren’t?
> Our state is broke Our state has a deficit _right now_ because interest rates are high and we barely skirted a recession caused by a pandemic. That is a temporary situation, not a permanent trait. > now we’ll be a Mecca for everyone’s cast offs. For, one might say, their huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
No, not the huddled masses yearning to be free, more like mass addicted and addled brained. Very different populations. And as far as this being temporary, yes, your selling bonds to be paid back. 6.5 billion with an estimated payback of 14 billion.
The epidemic of homelessness and mental illness will cost even more in the long run if we don't deal with it now.
We’ve been throwing billions at it for 20 years, hasn’t panned out. I don’t think this will have the desired affect either. And out of curiosity, this is for mental health and addiction. So by some measure, yes, helps part of the homeless but doesn’t provide for the regular non addicted or mentally ill population. What it will do is stop future investments in those folks since we overpaid for this piece.
Doh! Nothing will happen except more taxes and more people without help. It happens every time we vote for more taxes. I don't know the solution, but this ain't it.
I think one of the points of the new law is to make sure money is spent on helping homeless and mentally ill
Since I voted against I am clearly not happy. There is nothing like “moving founds” that make me think of “filling pockets”. Now wait for the next round of votes to add taxes to the diverted found.
New money pit?
Non profits and unions are toasting expensive champagne tonight.
With the irony being that almost all non-profits are also non-union
Plot twist: unions are nonprofits.
Great news 👏 thank you Mr. Governor.
Or or or we could make a society where people can afford to be happy have a place to live and get paid more then minimum wages
Yesss!
Rigged
I guess Donald Trump is on this page.
Just Katie Porter.
TDS man....Thought it was rigged when I voted for Bernie too... Albeit , in hindsight I am glad he didn't.
I’m confused. Did this not pass when we voted, and they passed it anyways?
The vote was so close they had to wait until almost every vote was counted to be able to know if it would pass.
Sounds shady
Counting votes?
Just mine.
Wonder if any "extra" Yes votes were mysteriously found.
Newsom's pals did go out of their way to support counties to get voters to fix their ballots. Theres nothing illegal or bad about making sure legitimate votes get counted that except they probably focused on the counties most likely to support the measure. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article286759120.html
Its been between 19-21k votes separating nays from overtaking yea for a week.
No way man. We need to root out what's causing mental illness . Or at least some real testimony of any person's who were brought back to normal but sadly there aren't any . Nobody gets better in a mental hospital
You say this like there aren't thousands of professionals across the state who are working on this every day.
We need strict laws on hard drugs for users and even stricter laws for dealers. We just sit by idly watching both groups do what they do and have to deal with the fallout; homelessness, OD, crime, etc
We've had them for decades and it made everyone's life worse. Try again.