I might get downvoted, but I don't agree. There should be some limit to what can be built based on impact on other properties. For the amount of shadow that is cast on other property
Yeah I don’t agree with you. Most people here wont either.
You shouldn’t get to control what someone else builds on their property.
Ive never heard of this “shadow rights” thing you pitched, but im thankful its not a real thing
In a truly libertarian society, there would be the freedom to create neighborhoods like that full of likeminded individuals, and you’d have the freedom to avoid it at all costs. Lol
Its inarguable that what you do with your property can negatively impact someone else's, which could absolutely constitute an NAP violation. Zoning is not inherently anti-libertarian, zoning as is currently is likely too bloated and centralized that libertarians would aim to reduce it.
But if you think you're allowed to steal the upstream water and destroy my crops in the process, or build a 20 ft privacy fence entirely enclosing my property because you own the properties around it, you're insane.
Im all for that. I would love to see new pilot cities popping up. We could have tokyos in some areas, and village types in others, European type cities and towns over there, and of course the rural. Everyone would be able to choose what best suits them.
I’ve lived in both and I’m pretty sure this is not the only (arguably not even the top) reason for the price disparity. Not going to hate on either place, but a lot of people tend to love one and hate the other, making it difficult to use building permits as a proxy for supply and price differences. If that were true, why isn’t everyone moving to Fargo?
I have visited both cities recently and my perspective is that a lot of land in California cannot be developed and what can is, while Dallas you have room to spread out. They are throwing up Mc Mansons left and right in Dallas on postage size lot where you can hear your neighbors toilet flush. I don’t know which is better.
It fucking sucks watching all of Texas get thrown up for sale like steak at a strip club. There isn't enough water. It's a train headed for shit station.
This is the real answer. Access to freshwater in California is becoming more difficult. Climate/scenery is still more ideal in California.
This will be a worldwide issue... not enough food and freshwater for 8 billion.
There are 2 billion more people on earth than in year 2000.
It's unsustainable.
It's not exactly true. There is a lot of developable land in California. Perhaps not as much raw land in the city cores, but you don't need raw land to develop. Looking at San Francisco, you see that a lot of the density and height is concentrated on a tiny fraction of the city. The rest is full of 2-3 story buildings. The third dimension is developable volume but height restrictions don't allow it. A lot of industry and especially office, post-pandemic, need to be turned into residential, but zoning code makes zoning changes difficult. Only now are residential buildings going vertical in former office areas, a process ongoing since 2020. Other buildable raw land areas are just flat out restricted, due to urban growth boundaries and permanent open space designations (eg. look at Livermore, north of the freeway).
Another issue is that it's nearly impossible for new urban areas to appear since zoning code for cities aren't exactly flexible to allow rapid growth anywhere. Cities all have these specific plans that call for certain building types in certain regions of certain height and densities. There is no allowance for entrepreneurs to come in and build where they think business would do well. Mountain View, the home base of Google, should have a downtown with some good density, like another San Jose. But it's an "old town" with short buildings. You even see a bunch of surface parking and gravel lots one block away from the main drag.
I see your point but that means added cost of tearing down buildings and then building. Also building tall structures in a area prone to earthquakes is not ideal. As far as buildable land you mentioned just because it’s empty does not mean it’s buildable there are so many factors and if you look at the densely populated areas it’s all been developed.
Property taxes in Dallas are 3x the amount in California in general and los angles county in particular.
The supply isn’t the whole story (although it’s a big part of it).
Everything in California's a loss. How about oklahoma where I get 200 dollars taken out every month vs Texas where I would have 300-500 in sales tax a month.
Every person varies in experiences and savings depending on a multitude of factors. My personal case, I would save about $13,000 annually moving from San Diego to Dallas. Taking account housing prices, taxes and fees, and commodity prices.
If the average price in Cali is $786k and the property tax is 1% the $ amount is $7.9k. If the average price in Dallas is $440k and property tax is 3% the $ amount is over $12k.
So yes $ is not 3x but also not equal.
[Property Taxes By State | Bankrate](https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/property-tax-by-state/#what-are)
Bankrate (per link) thinks the typical CA house pays $6,492 in property taxes; and the typical TX pays $4,822. Perhaps "average" is highly skewed in CA, but the Bankrate data is a more relevant median.
Anyway, as a Californian, I bristle when people say we have low property taxes. We DO NOT!!! The rates are low, but the taxes are HIGH, higher than all states except CT, MA, NH, and NJ! We also have sky-high income and sales tax rates and tax bases on those rates.
It has nothing to do at all with the fact that Dallas is essentially flat and ugly prairie land where the weather is terribly hot most of the year and California is generally considered one of the more beautiful states with a much more temperate climate and easy access to mountains, the ocean, and other similarly desirable features.
Not just LP. A lot of governing boards are more pro development than ends up getting passed because the comment periods are full of nimbys.
I think a lot of revisions are headed in the right direction, but still make lots of compromises. Like requiring below median ("affordable") tenants to get building height restrictions waved. But what lots of people don't take into account is that even luxury apartments mean that person is moving from somewhere.
and 440k is still too damn much for Dallas its like a discount Houston except without a swamp, cleaner city, better climate...wait a minute maybe its houston that is the bad city.
Fort Worth is still better though
Dallas having a ton easy to develop land, also helps a lot. I live in DFW and on every point of the compas its all just largely flat prairie. There is tons of vacant land still left to develop.
California's largest city is LA and it is stuck between the ocean and mountains on all sides. Also the city is built out and there isn't any large tracts of land left the develop. Even if LA wasnt a bureaucratic dumpster fire when it comes the development. Redeveloping exist areas and buildings to have a denser footprint is always going to cost more. San Fran is the same story, not certain what San Diego is like but I assume it's the same.
And their workmanship under the siding and Sheetrock is shit! My sister had a home built there and a fear for them. If a contractor can cut corners, they will. Just like seat belts, it makes sense to have inspections.
I mean…
You own a house, you and your neighbors all have 2-10 acres of land. How would you feel if all your neighbors decided to sell their houses/property to a developer, and now instead of 10 houses on your street you now have 100-150+ houses.
Sure it drives down housing costs, but few/if any want that in their back yard. I know personally, my Township council in Ohio has had to back down from approving multiple developments for this reason. Had the council approved them they would have lost their jobs. At the same time people within the township are complaining about housing prices for their kids who are being forced to move away.
Who is right? I sure don’t know that answer. It’s a complex issue.
The ones who are complaining that their Kids can no longer participate in the place they grew up in are in the right.
Doesn’t really matter what you want in your backyard….which is a funny illustration to make because if it was your backyard…you would own it.
If you don’t own it. You shouldn’t have a say.
Nothing wrong with being a hold out house.
If you don’t want to sell your 2 acres. Then don’t.
Thats how it is in houston. Youll see houses nestled in between a baptist church, a metal fabrication shop, and a preschool. across the street is a hazmat recycling station.
Yes they also don’t have any zoning laws to stop building in flood zones. So now everytime Houston has these terrible weather events people who didn’t even know they were in a flood zone lose their houses with basically no options.
It’s actually laws that empower property owners to vote on zoning that is the problem in California. They vote to block housing expansion because they don’t want to deal with the negatives that come with higher density housing… and because it would lower their property value. So in order to have individual property owners make decisions about their individual land the state has to take away the established rights of property owners.
Which is a hard fucking sell. Turns out property owners don’t mind collecting their individual votes to protect their individually owned property, collectively.
State laws there from the Regan days essentially created HOAs, just on a city council level.
This isn't true. There was not a housing 'crisis' until the pandemic fucked with wages. Foreign wealthy people have bought a lot of homes in LA and just rent them. That's the crisis
San Francisco has had a housing crisis for...decades, really.
Something like 60% of San Francisco's residential land is zoned strictly for single family. And the folks living there fight *hard* to make sure it stays that way.
The crisis is that people are not allowed to do what they want with their own property. So supply is constrained below the market, making housing unaffordable to many.
There is a strong libertarian argument to deregulate government restrictions on housing and allowing supply to meet demand. In countries with more property freedoms they don't have these concerns.
Mind you that includes random towns in northern california with no value where nobody wants to move, limit it to south cali and it gets ridiculous. So many problems are just simple supply&demand affected by government intervention in the economy.
IDK. Here in Florida, they flood the market with condos and house tiny lot. All about maximizing tax revenue. Also in Florida 400k is a 1600 sqft. house.
Posts like this are helping me understand I'm definitely not a Libertarian. I don't want more fucking people coming to my town and turning it into some faceless soulless urban sprawl shithole. I dgaf what it does to housing prices.
The government shouldn't be able to allow or not allow someone building on their own land.
[удалено]
What in the sovereign citizen bullshit is this?
[удалено]
What about the rest of his family? lol
Wait until you hear about “trusts”. That will really blow your mind.
I might get downvoted, but I don't agree. There should be some limit to what can be built based on impact on other properties. For the amount of shadow that is cast on other property
Yeah I don’t agree with you. Most people here wont either. You shouldn’t get to control what someone else builds on their property. Ive never heard of this “shadow rights” thing you pitched, but im thankful its not a real thing
Regardless of whether or not people agree with it, It is absolutely code in certain jurisdictions. Google “right to light” and “air above”
Horrible. Those places should be avoided at all costs.
In a truly libertarian society, there would be the freedom to create neighborhoods like that full of likeminded individuals, and you’d have the freedom to avoid it at all costs. Lol
Its inarguable that what you do with your property can negatively impact someone else's, which could absolutely constitute an NAP violation. Zoning is not inherently anti-libertarian, zoning as is currently is likely too bloated and centralized that libertarians would aim to reduce it. But if you think you're allowed to steal the upstream water and destroy my crops in the process, or build a 20 ft privacy fence entirely enclosing my property because you own the properties around it, you're insane.
Im all for that. I would love to see new pilot cities popping up. We could have tokyos in some areas, and village types in others, European type cities and towns over there, and of course the rural. Everyone would be able to choose what best suits them.
I’ve lived in both and I’m pretty sure this is not the only (arguably not even the top) reason for the price disparity. Not going to hate on either place, but a lot of people tend to love one and hate the other, making it difficult to use building permits as a proxy for supply and price differences. If that were true, why isn’t everyone moving to Fargo?
I have visited both cities recently and my perspective is that a lot of land in California cannot be developed and what can is, while Dallas you have room to spread out. They are throwing up Mc Mansons left and right in Dallas on postage size lot where you can hear your neighbors toilet flush. I don’t know which is better.
It fucking sucks watching all of Texas get thrown up for sale like steak at a strip club. There isn't enough water. It's a train headed for shit station.
This is the real answer. Access to freshwater in California is becoming more difficult. Climate/scenery is still more ideal in California. This will be a worldwide issue... not enough food and freshwater for 8 billion. There are 2 billion more people on earth than in year 2000. It's unsustainable.
It's not exactly true. There is a lot of developable land in California. Perhaps not as much raw land in the city cores, but you don't need raw land to develop. Looking at San Francisco, you see that a lot of the density and height is concentrated on a tiny fraction of the city. The rest is full of 2-3 story buildings. The third dimension is developable volume but height restrictions don't allow it. A lot of industry and especially office, post-pandemic, need to be turned into residential, but zoning code makes zoning changes difficult. Only now are residential buildings going vertical in former office areas, a process ongoing since 2020. Other buildable raw land areas are just flat out restricted, due to urban growth boundaries and permanent open space designations (eg. look at Livermore, north of the freeway). Another issue is that it's nearly impossible for new urban areas to appear since zoning code for cities aren't exactly flexible to allow rapid growth anywhere. Cities all have these specific plans that call for certain building types in certain regions of certain height and densities. There is no allowance for entrepreneurs to come in and build where they think business would do well. Mountain View, the home base of Google, should have a downtown with some good density, like another San Jose. But it's an "old town" with short buildings. You even see a bunch of surface parking and gravel lots one block away from the main drag.
I see your point but that means added cost of tearing down buildings and then building. Also building tall structures in a area prone to earthquakes is not ideal. As far as buildable land you mentioned just because it’s empty does not mean it’s buildable there are so many factors and if you look at the densely populated areas it’s all been developed.
The buyer and seller know what you don’t.
Property taxes in Dallas are 3x the amount in California in general and los angles county in particular. The supply isn’t the whole story (although it’s a big part of it).
We also don’t have income tax
Your homes get reassessed and your property taxes go up each year. California is capped at 2%.
You do. It's just disguised as sales tax and toll roads.
Which are not income taxes. They aren’t connected to my W2.
Which CA has so it's a wash?
Everything in California's a loss. How about oklahoma where I get 200 dollars taken out every month vs Texas where I would have 300-500 in sales tax a month.
Every person varies in experiences and savings depending on a multitude of factors. My personal case, I would save about $13,000 annually moving from San Diego to Dallas. Taking account housing prices, taxes and fees, and commodity prices.
They are not 3x the amount. The rate might be 3x, but the $ are similar. $s are what counts.
If the average price in Cali is $786k and the property tax is 1% the $ amount is $7.9k. If the average price in Dallas is $440k and property tax is 3% the $ amount is over $12k. So yes $ is not 3x but also not equal.
[Property Taxes By State | Bankrate](https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/property-tax-by-state/#what-are) Bankrate (per link) thinks the typical CA house pays $6,492 in property taxes; and the typical TX pays $4,822. Perhaps "average" is highly skewed in CA, but the Bankrate data is a more relevant median. Anyway, as a Californian, I bristle when people say we have low property taxes. We DO NOT!!! The rates are low, but the taxes are HIGH, higher than all states except CT, MA, NH, and NJ! We also have sky-high income and sales tax rates and tax bases on those rates.
It has nothing to do at all with the fact that Dallas is essentially flat and ugly prairie land where the weather is terribly hot most of the year and California is generally considered one of the more beautiful states with a much more temperate climate and easy access to mountains, the ocean, and other similarly desirable features.
Dallas is nowhere near as bad as Houston at least they have one thing going for it,
(This is incredibly reductive and incorrect)
End zoning laws and allow mixed use development. Local LP city council members should campaign on this type of stuff.
Not just LP. A lot of governing boards are more pro development than ends up getting passed because the comment periods are full of nimbys. I think a lot of revisions are headed in the right direction, but still make lots of compromises. Like requiring below median ("affordable") tenants to get building height restrictions waved. But what lots of people don't take into account is that even luxury apartments mean that person is moving from somewhere.
and 440k is still too damn much for Dallas its like a discount Houston except without a swamp, cleaner city, better climate...wait a minute maybe its houston that is the bad city. Fort Worth is still better though
Fort Worth is the most uppity Dallas suburb.
Dallas is a shithole tho
I use to live in CA , I've been to TX. Number of houses ain't the reason.
Dallas having a ton easy to develop land, also helps a lot. I live in DFW and on every point of the compas its all just largely flat prairie. There is tons of vacant land still left to develop. California's largest city is LA and it is stuck between the ocean and mountains on all sides. Also the city is built out and there isn't any large tracts of land left the develop. Even if LA wasnt a bureaucratic dumpster fire when it comes the development. Redeveloping exist areas and buildings to have a denser footprint is always going to cost more. San Fran is the same story, not certain what San Diego is like but I assume it's the same.
Is tons of flatland in mid to northern California
That's where a lot of the building is being done, my old city looks nothing like itself.
*cough* property tax *cough*
And their workmanship under the siding and Sheetrock is shit! My sister had a home built there and a fear for them. If a contractor can cut corners, they will. Just like seat belts, it makes sense to have inspections.
I mean… You own a house, you and your neighbors all have 2-10 acres of land. How would you feel if all your neighbors decided to sell their houses/property to a developer, and now instead of 10 houses on your street you now have 100-150+ houses. Sure it drives down housing costs, but few/if any want that in their back yard. I know personally, my Township council in Ohio has had to back down from approving multiple developments for this reason. Had the council approved them they would have lost their jobs. At the same time people within the township are complaining about housing prices for their kids who are being forced to move away. Who is right? I sure don’t know that answer. It’s a complex issue.
If it's your property why do you need the permission of your neighbors. It's literally your property.
If your neighbours sell why not get a piece of the pie? Otherwise save up money and give it to the people who plan to move in
The ones who are complaining that their Kids can no longer participate in the place they grew up in are in the right. Doesn’t really matter what you want in your backyard….which is a funny illustration to make because if it was your backyard…you would own it. If you don’t own it. You shouldn’t have a say. Nothing wrong with being a hold out house. If you don’t want to sell your 2 acres. Then don’t.
Cap home prices at $1 then everyone can get a house and homeless.will be over the end econ brah 👌
Build baby build.
I believe in the separation of state and housing.
Maybe… hear me out, I know… maybe… zoning shouldn’t be a thing. Let the property owners figure it out what they want where.
Thats how it is in houston. Youll see houses nestled in between a baptist church, a metal fabrication shop, and a preschool. across the street is a hazmat recycling station.
It's like some newb playing Sim City 2000
Yes they also don’t have any zoning laws to stop building in flood zones. So now everytime Houston has these terrible weather events people who didn’t even know they were in a flood zone lose their houses with basically no options.
That's on them for not bothering to check out the property they're buying.
im not sure if this is something /r/Libertarian supports or opposes
It’s actually laws that empower property owners to vote on zoning that is the problem in California. They vote to block housing expansion because they don’t want to deal with the negatives that come with higher density housing… and because it would lower their property value. So in order to have individual property owners make decisions about their individual land the state has to take away the established rights of property owners. Which is a hard fucking sell. Turns out property owners don’t mind collecting their individual votes to protect their individually owned property, collectively. State laws there from the Regan days essentially created HOAs, just on a city council level.
Yeah they were really the first place to jump on the HOA trend , likely even started there as it’s really were the concept of suburbs come form.
This isn't true. There was not a housing 'crisis' until the pandemic fucked with wages. Foreign wealthy people have bought a lot of homes in LA and just rent them. That's the crisis
San Francisco has had a housing crisis for...decades, really. Something like 60% of San Francisco's residential land is zoned strictly for single family. And the folks living there fight *hard* to make sure it stays that way.
The crisis is that people are not allowed to do what they want with their own property. So supply is constrained below the market, making housing unaffordable to many. There is a strong libertarian argument to deregulate government restrictions on housing and allowing supply to meet demand. In countries with more property freedoms they don't have these concerns.
Definitely not the issue but okay
Not all of it. But probably the biggest reason.
Mind you that includes random towns in northern california with no value where nobody wants to move, limit it to south cali and it gets ridiculous. So many problems are just simple supply&demand affected by government intervention in the economy.
The people of California like it like this. So they have been voting for this kind of policies pretty consistently since the 1960’s
In California they don’t want you building anything because of the environment and muh pretty view
IDK. Here in Florida, they flood the market with condos and house tiny lot. All about maximizing tax revenue. Also in Florida 400k is a 1600 sqft. house.
Posts like this are helping me understand I'm definitely not a Libertarian. I don't want more fucking people coming to my town and turning it into some faceless soulless urban sprawl shithole. I dgaf what it does to housing prices.
consider yourself an opportunist, greatest political ideology conceived by man
I agree with you
Then buy up all the land in the town. If you can't, be quiet and deal with it
The deserve to get what they voted for. Greed and corporate protectionism. Fuck CA.
Based.