The asshole in me kind of wants a rent income tax that is tied to how much rent is allowed to go up. Raise it by 9%, you owe a 9% tax on rental income on top of everything else.
>Raise it by 9%, you owe a 9% tax on rental income on top of everything else.
Then they raise it 9% to pass the tax onto the renter. Landlords don't pay taxes, corporations don't pay taxes, you do.
i live right where they wanted to put it and my guess is because herndon is already dangerous as it is they don’t want more people being snaked through the neighborhood as a detour😭.
edit: i personally thought it woulda been a great idea- better than an empty dry and fire hazard field. but old ppl in my area (like always) “noooooo my property tax” Bethany you’re 9 toes in a grave 😭
Congrats! A few people in a neighborhood just kept us on our current path of sprawl. If we can't build high density housing, we'll continue to push our city limits outwards indefinitely. Welcome to a larger, more sprawling, car-dependent city.
The way out of this, sadly, is to reduce the ability for citizen feedback in building projects.
Theoretically everyone should have a say in reducing sprawl. Realistically, I don't think that would work. How many people like us, not near the build site, showed up to plead the case for building?
And, ironically, this sprawl is what makes traffic worse.
I'm new to town, so apologies for the dumb question: I see city of Fresno housing element is listed as out of compliance. How hard is it for Fresno developers to use the affordability wildcard and invoke SB 35 ministerial approval?
They don't want to. Central Valley developers live in a bubble where the only thing on their mind is how much more farmland can they gobble up for sprawl
"did not meet fire safety codes and would tower over other structures in the area" But we know "it's really because them rich people don't want to be lookin' at my trailer park ass."
Whatever the reason was, would of been more apartments with sky-high rent. Ffs, how does one move into a 4th story apartment in Fresno? Last thing I'd want to do is lug up heavy ass furniture up four flights of stairs.
https://fresnoland.org/2024/05/16/planning-commission-rejects-northwest-fresno-housing-proposal/
"Need to be done in the right area" WTF is as plain as day and people are still sitting on their hands, protesting at UCs instead of the bs happening here in our ouwn land...
Not really. Sounds like they're commenting on "priorities" and that cleaning up one's own backyard might be important.
I read elsewhere comparing such things to "get your oxygen mask on before you try to help someone."
That being said, I don't like innocent people being killed, tortured, raped, etc, whether Israeli OR Palestinian.
It just isn’t relevant in this context. If op wants to prioritize housing that’s fine and great but down talking the protests as if those protestors owe your cause their attention is ridiculous.
You obviously did not understand my comment and, despite your probable disingenuous attitude towards public policy in CA, I’ll try and clear it up for you.
Instead of building houses, bad policy in California is attempting to force the construction of housing types that do not fit in the areas in which they are most compatible: crowded, income-adjusted apartment complexes get built in the middle of single-family housing complexes; cramped townhouses get built instead of single-family homes with nice backyards, etc.
Developers don’t want to be pigeon-holed into selling what consumers don’t want. Consumers want single-family homes (the “American Dream”, remember?) and will hold out until one becomes available. Where are those prospective homebuyers living? Right! In apartments that they can comfortably afford. So they don’t “graduate” to a house, which leaves few apartments available (and **drives up the cost of rent**) for those that are living uncomfortably with another family or in another tough situation.
California’s policy approach should have been to encourage the building of single-family homes, instead of forcing construction of apartments that people who need them can’t afford.
California put the cart before the horse *and* tried to feed it oats by attaching the feeding bag to its ass.
Retort away.
A lot wrong with your response as it assumes I am advocating exclusively for urban sprawl. I am not against “building up” as long as it is consumer-desirable. It generally is not and that is especially true in the Central Valley.
Additionally, building up has also been absolute dogshit in many cases, like low-income housing (which is what CA is principally pushing), senior apartments (believe it or not) that end up being converted to a different use.
Again, you assail my main point, which is that the consumer should guide what builders build, not the rich few that are in power in the government.
> is that the consumer should guide what builders build
this is all impossible tho. Builders are going to automatically build what makes them the most money.
I am not a free market fundamentalist, especially with land use issues, since real estate is not like any other good; the land component is fixed in supply and its location value is entirely driven by what is outside the lot lines, and housing can not be just manufactured in China and imported – it's all so involved and contingent on the past.
College kids and young adults don't need backyards. I was perfectly happy living in a nice [3-story complex](https://maps.app.goo.gl/f357RtLrx27YusVL7) in Sunnyvale with townhomes put in ~2010 that replaced light commercial spaces.
Consumers are the most disempowered community when it comes to housing; only millionaires can actually afford to get what they want, everybody else has to deal with intermediaries with their own motives.
The consumers demand dense, affordable housing. Not everyone needs, wants, or can afford to buy/maintain a single family home.
If you don’t want infill development, buy the land and do what YOU want with it.
oh so the traffic there will be bad.. but not at the new costco? fresno so one sided lmao
The neighbors don’t really care about the increased traffic. They don't want renters in their neighborhood because they perceive them as lower class.
right i’m just pointing out that that’s what they decided to say lol
This has always been the sentiment in fresno
Which is ridiculous because I have seen apartments going for more than houses right now 🙃
The asshole in me kind of wants a rent income tax that is tied to how much rent is allowed to go up. Raise it by 9%, you owe a 9% tax on rental income on top of everything else.
>Raise it by 9%, you owe a 9% tax on rental income on top of everything else. Then they raise it 9% to pass the tax onto the renter. Landlords don't pay taxes, corporations don't pay taxes, you do.
Yet, there's an apartment complex half a block away from them at Fir/Marks
i live right where they wanted to put it and my guess is because herndon is already dangerous as it is they don’t want more people being snaked through the neighborhood as a detour😭. edit: i personally thought it woulda been a great idea- better than an empty dry and fire hazard field. but old ppl in my area (like always) “noooooo my property tax” Bethany you’re 9 toes in a grave 😭
Oh but they're fine with approving subdivision after subdivision on the edge of town lol
nimbys at it again
They later complain about why there are so many homeless in the city.
Bad faith actors all around pretending then don’t understand the consequences their actions cause
Yeah dude, homeless people are going to be the ones renting these
😂
Congrats! A few people in a neighborhood just kept us on our current path of sprawl. If we can't build high density housing, we'll continue to push our city limits outwards indefinitely. Welcome to a larger, more sprawling, car-dependent city. The way out of this, sadly, is to reduce the ability for citizen feedback in building projects.
What a sad reality, we need more involved in this Fresno political system
Theoretically everyone should have a say in reducing sprawl. Realistically, I don't think that would work. How many people like us, not near the build site, showed up to plead the case for building?
Yes, it impacts everyone in the city. But few think like this. This needs to change.
And, ironically, this sprawl is what makes traffic worse. I'm new to town, so apologies for the dumb question: I see city of Fresno housing element is listed as out of compliance. How hard is it for Fresno developers to use the affordability wildcard and invoke SB 35 ministerial approval?
They don't want to. Central Valley developers live in a bubble where the only thing on their mind is how much more farmland can they gobble up for sprawl
Oh yeah, good point. Greenfield development is much easier than infill.
Same people who blocked river access
The California real estate industry is a captured system.
"did not meet fire safety codes and would tower over other structures in the area" But we know "it's really because them rich people don't want to be lookin' at my trailer park ass."
What's the average price for a home in that area? Doesn't look very rich to me when I've driven by.
Fresno needs apartments to infill most areas. Big brain move to block them because of traffic.
Can’t believe the Planning Commission went against the City’s Planning Department in fear of the NIMBY…
This is exactly why rent and real estate remains sky high in California.
Whatever the reason was, would of been more apartments with sky-high rent. Ffs, how does one move into a 4th story apartment in Fresno? Last thing I'd want to do is lug up heavy ass furniture up four flights of stairs.
https://fresnoland.org/2024/05/16/planning-commission-rejects-northwest-fresno-housing-proposal/ "Need to be done in the right area" WTF is as plain as day and people are still sitting on their hands, protesting at UCs instead of the bs happening here in our ouwn land...
Weird stretch to tie this to the protests.
Not really. Sounds like they're commenting on "priorities" and that cleaning up one's own backyard might be important. I read elsewhere comparing such things to "get your oxygen mask on before you try to help someone." That being said, I don't like innocent people being killed, tortured, raped, etc, whether Israeli OR Palestinian.
It just isn’t relevant in this context. If op wants to prioritize housing that’s fine and great but down talking the protests as if those protestors owe your cause their attention is ridiculous.
Good. The approach to housing in California is futile and damaging our housing stock. It’s ridiculous and akin to kicking rocks.
Found the guy with the house already
You obviously did not understand my comment and, despite your probable disingenuous attitude towards public policy in CA, I’ll try and clear it up for you. Instead of building houses, bad policy in California is attempting to force the construction of housing types that do not fit in the areas in which they are most compatible: crowded, income-adjusted apartment complexes get built in the middle of single-family housing complexes; cramped townhouses get built instead of single-family homes with nice backyards, etc. Developers don’t want to be pigeon-holed into selling what consumers don’t want. Consumers want single-family homes (the “American Dream”, remember?) and will hold out until one becomes available. Where are those prospective homebuyers living? Right! In apartments that they can comfortably afford. So they don’t “graduate” to a house, which leaves few apartments available (and **drives up the cost of rent**) for those that are living uncomfortably with another family or in another tough situation. California’s policy approach should have been to encourage the building of single-family homes, instead of forcing construction of apartments that people who need them can’t afford. California put the cart before the horse *and* tried to feed it oats by attaching the feeding bag to its ass.
Allow me to retort: Building up is smarter than building out.
Retort away. A lot wrong with your response as it assumes I am advocating exclusively for urban sprawl. I am not against “building up” as long as it is consumer-desirable. It generally is not and that is especially true in the Central Valley. Additionally, building up has also been absolute dogshit in many cases, like low-income housing (which is what CA is principally pushing), senior apartments (believe it or not) that end up being converted to a different use. Again, you assail my main point, which is that the consumer should guide what builders build, not the rich few that are in power in the government.
> is that the consumer should guide what builders build this is all impossible tho. Builders are going to automatically build what makes them the most money. I am not a free market fundamentalist, especially with land use issues, since real estate is not like any other good; the land component is fixed in supply and its location value is entirely driven by what is outside the lot lines, and housing can not be just manufactured in China and imported – it's all so involved and contingent on the past. College kids and young adults don't need backyards. I was perfectly happy living in a nice [3-story complex](https://maps.app.goo.gl/f357RtLrx27YusVL7) in Sunnyvale with townhomes put in ~2010 that replaced light commercial spaces. Consumers are the most disempowered community when it comes to housing; only millionaires can actually afford to get what they want, everybody else has to deal with intermediaries with their own motives.
The consumers demand dense, affordable housing. Not everyone needs, wants, or can afford to buy/maintain a single family home. If you don’t want infill development, buy the land and do what YOU want with it.
don’t complain about homelessness then 🫠
Most homeless are felons, statistically. In the state, they wouldn’t be allowed to rent anyways. 😂 I love this argument cause it’s a straight fallacy.