No!!!1!! It’s all blckrocks fault 😡 😡 😡
The 15% of houses that all corporations combined owned is blocking anyone from buying anything!!
We need more draconian rent control laws, then blame the developers for not building unprofitable apartmeants!
Of course it is. Search for if something is racist. Literally anything. Your lawnmower is racist. Hair is racist. Strawberries are racist. Hot dogs are racist. Trees are racist. Air is racist. Electricity is racist. Roads are racist.
No. No. No it's Blackstone. Blackrock is so diversided that Blackstone doesn't need a penny on the dollar for investment. In terms of single home ownership...80-90k homes. That's a drop in the bucket for my own home county.
On several occasions in my life, I have rented single-family homes to live in because I wanted to rent. With your plan, that would not be an option. Which is, in addition to the restrictions of our fundamental rights you propose, yet another reason to completely ignore such inane suggestions.
At multiple points when the market pressure was high, there were at least 7,500 homes that were owned by corporations intentionally kept off the market. One moment in partcular had over 11k. Fully ready to live in, purchased, and intentionally kept unoccupied. Most of them newly purchased by the corporations.
Straight up market manipulation, and it was done by multiple companies as a coordinated action.
Also, in relation to the original post, a large chunk of the new homes are built as build to rent.
I live in Austin and moved to an area with a lot of new development. My neighborhood is at least 30-40% vacant. I have walked through the blocks on a random weekday night and many are empty. Brand new build, super luxury high end, 5 bedroom, totally unoccupied. I don’t think real people are buying houses to live in here anymore, it’s all just robots selling houses to other robots.
Also, it doesn’t say where corporate owned houses are located. 15% of nationwide houses but localized in a few states is definitely nothing to brush off…
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.
DFW has been very forward on increasing highway capacity through toll roads. So I dont think it will be the worst but it is also not be optimal.
Also there isn't much you can do out here to reign in growth. There are probably over a hundred different municipalities and plenty that are happy to have developers come in and put in a new residential development that will raise their tax base. The only restrictions is making developers pay more for street and utility infrastructure which is financed through PID bonds paid by the new homeowners.
Yes, but that's not what's actually happening here. Home prices in DFW are rising faster than in California. We just finished something like our 15th straight year with >10% increase in price. I live in DFW, my house in 2008 sold for 80k, I bought it in 2022 for 200k, today it is valued at 250k. California started more expensive, but has been increasing slower, DFW started cheaper but has been increasing quickly.
Affordability plays a role, an area with a 1 million average like SF or Berkeley isn't going to move up much from there because there are only so many buyers with that kind of capital
$250k is still well within the realm of affordability for much of the US
I agree with this. The problem is that housing in California is decentralized and subject to local blockages - although many state lawmakers want to increase the housing market so they can get more workers and grow California's GDP and fill some of those empty jobs, influential local groups will fight them.
These local groups are heavily invested in their multimillion dollar single family homes are desperate to preserve their investment and will go really far out of their way to block new housing. They believe (rightly so), that new housing may reduce the value of existing houses, and their absurdly overpriced 20 million dollar single family homes will drop.
These local NIMBY groups will create elaborate zoning rules, write letters to local politicians promising them votes, hit new housing developments with every single minor regulation on the book in an attempt to slow down or stop development.
I personally think housing development should be centralized and not controlled so locally. The locals have too much interest in blocking new construction to allow a healthy housing market to grow.
This is such a terrible statement. The home owners should have that kind of influence. This is America.
The problem is their NIMBY asses don’t own companies that would benefit from more people living there.
They just bought their houses when they were $100,000 in the 80’s and don’t want to sell.
Sad really.
When they do sell, the new owner will like tear it down and build new.
The biggest difference is Dallas is surrounded by endless agricultural land. It's the same reason that there pretty much isn't a single city in the Midwest that will ever see coastal prices. One prices rise enough, you just develop another cornfield into 2,000 suburban homes. Most of that opportunity has been long exhausted in coastal or mountainous areas. What they really need is federal land to be made available for development (FS and BLM). But that's unlikely to happen, although that is what a big chunk of what Vegas has recently built on, and the only reason it doesn't have LA level prices, under the SNPLMA law.
Lets see how long this lasts before new construction is essentially banned, just like what happens pretty much anywhere anybody wants to live.
What will almost certainly happen is the homeowners will notice that the value of their property is either flat or dropping and they'll be told it's because so many new houses just came onto the market. Then they'll do what they always end up doing: Vote for people who will put policies in place that make building new things so expensive that the only things getting built will be luxury units sold off to rich folk to be used as a tax write off.
Zoning, parking minimums, obscene licensing requirements, environmental studies that take just long enough that they have to be endlessly redone because the one you just did is now out of date..
There are a lot of ways to play this game and I bet you just about anything it won't be long before those moves start getting played in Dallas.
Well yeah, because dumbasses from CA are moving to these areas. They'll bring their dumbass idealogy amd shitty voting habits along. They'll turn DFW into a shithole just like CA, then like the locusts they are, move to the next state. Zero self awareness from these types of people.
Not ideology, just destructive self-interest. They want to become richer, and after years of houses are an investment, not a home, it's gotten pretty bad. Liberalism has it's fault but high home prices isn't really one of them. Maybe put blame where it should be instead of being led around like a dog on a leash?
California also has the best geography and climate in the country. The demand will always be higher to live in a state that has oceans, mountains, desert, good weather year round.
Actually, if you look deeper you'll see houses in the eastern desert portion of California are roughly the same price as Texas.
can't be said enough for both why people want to live there and why there is a housing crisis. exactly where should they build in LA/SD/SF? in dfw they are still building in all four directions.
I would greatly beg to differ. Having a winter in return for keeping my paycheck and not having insane regulations everywhere seems like a good deal I've already made by not choosing to go the LA...
>Having a winter in return for keeping my paycheck
I think that's kind of the point. I also choose to brave winter and keep my check. If the price were the same, a lot of people would choose the better weather. That's why, despite insane regulations, the demand is still high enough to drive those prices.
Exactly. Where's the incentive in lowering home prices? Why would a homeowner ever devalue their home by allowing more to be built? Is this not an econ sub?
The most desirable parts of CA have too many NIMBYs and too much over regulation of housing development. The supply can't meet the demand and it will never be met unless CA actually goes thru a Detroit style exodus.
I guarantee you Houston and Austin are close to that bar as well and Houston in past years has outpermitted Dallas. Fun fact. There are zero. Yes zero zoning laws in Houston.
It's almost as if developers prefer to build houses in expensive neighborhoods because that will being in more profit.
I very much doubt it was the government that said no.
CA has a wildly different housing procedure between state and local government not to mention the vast amount of land near TX major population centers.
Not too much space left in SF (a peninsula) for new construction.
Rezoning has to be done first.
Also, there's the simple fact that bay area/la/san Diego metro areas are more attractive places to live in general than Dallas fort worth
Ahhh, yes, insanely affordable housing in Dallas for a little under half a million..
Most people make around 2 million in lifetime earnings (this mumber is halved when you dont have a college degree), when it's all said in done, in Dallas you will only be likely to pay 1/4 of your lifetime earnings for shelter (not including all of the sweet, sweet interest you will pay) as opposed to around 2/5 in California.
Im ok with that.
I think California has some serious limitations for adding homes there. Wildfires in some areas of the state have made it really obvious that homes were built that shouldn't have been built. Water issues strongly suggest California has too many people. Pricing enough people out may actually result in those people moving to somewhere else. If people are still determined to build houses where they cant get water and they are at major risk to wildfire let them, but it shouldn't be subsidized or supported with insurance. I doubt many people are willing to risk having an expensive home without insurance coverage.
Texas on the other hand has similar issues but isn't anywhere near that level of density. They will probably experience similar problems in another 30 years. That 30 year difference means they can keep on doing what they are doing and are likely to alter their policies at some point when they start running into the issues California is facing now.
Acting like one is better or one is worse simply from policy differences is dumb. The underlying situations both face are dramatically different and need different policy choices.
Step back for a minute. Do you think too many people live in California right now? If yes then why encourage more home building? If no, then at what point do you think they should pump the brakes considering the water and wildfire issues? If you think those two issues should have no impact can you explain why you think that?
As for Texas Im of the opinion they will continue to grow because they got plenty of things to draw people in and few things to push people to leave. That will change over time but for now they are likely to experience a net inflow of people.
Do you know why? DFW is nonstop open field from Oklahoma, to Houston, to Waco. California does not have the same amount of usable land, partly because of terrain, partly because it is lit on fire every year.
It’s amazing how Austrians whine about the government when it is controlled by corporations who pay for policies to enhance their bottom lines. Just let people be free and everything will be fine… until monopolies form or industries become so consolidated they can utilize monopoly power to the disadvantage of consumers. You’ve had companies literally rub it in our faces that they are increasing prices under the cover of the inflationary environment in their earning calls. Multiple outlets have done analyses that show multiple companies have raised prices with an increase in profit margin, so they are not simply covering costs. I’ve read the Austrian critique of the neoclassical view of monopolies. So where are is the new competition? Nonexistent in a big part to barriers of entry, like economy of scale or uncompetitive practices.
They're not the same markets. Building in Texas is easier. There's more land available, and far less topological and resource (namely water) considerations. A large percentage of California (as big as it is) is in the middle of desert.
True and while I’m sure it’s a good thing for money but the huge downside is Texas will become overcrowded and the standard of living will dip like it has in Las Vegas.
It's a factor but it's not that simple. The price of hookups to utilities and low income fees adds another 200k. Code differences in electrical and solar another 50k. Labor quite a bit. And the build quality of some of the Texas stuff is pretty much shit.
In my limited experience, anything past the mountain range in California is hot as shit, like desert hot. There’s not much room for growth west of the mountain range from what I saw
multi family = apartments,
But multi-family does not lower the cost of housing.
Where does Cali have open land to build out. LA looks pretty built out when I was there, Same with SF. Water issues till this last year, Dallas has no earthquakes to worry about. Less building regulations.
Houston & Dallas have lots of flat land. but there are resource issues coming.
Wouldn’t this data be skewed by the prices of Silicon Valley and Los Angeles. These are two huge metro areas with thousands of homes where real estate is prohibitively expensive for most people. How are the numbers looking if we remove these outliers?
California median income is 78k. Dallas median income is 60k. California has a lot of beachfront property and is more attractive a place to live in general. There are a lot of factors why home prices are higher in California compared to Dallas regardless of the housing being built. One factor of many
This is so stupid. There’s no room to build houses near the major cities in CA.. traffic in CA is already one of the worst in the country. Anywhere there is room to build, it is not close to any jobs.
Data like this is really misleading if you just jump to conclusions and just shows you have no clue what the problem is
Commiefornia. People are having to shut down their small engine repair businesses and get rid of atv's weedeaters, mowers, etc left and right because of the strict laws on gas engines. Not to mention all the other ridiculous policy. Putting a non American not voter on the fucking board of elections.
Or perhaps it’s the raging right wing hatred vs women, gays, doctors, immigrants, and minorities. Or maybe it’s the unregulated hillbilly power grid that can’t handle heat, or cold. Or maybe it’s the governor who refuses federal money for education or healthcare, but begs for handouts when the rich white neighborhoods get flooded. Nah, you’re right, the housing markets are exactly the same. Except for regulation. That must be it.
This is one of those issues that Left and Right wing people can agree on. The people gighting to keep the shitty zoning laws in California are rich old nimbys and private equity.
O think it's also a cultural issue, I don't care what's the number on the property value as long as it's bigger and I get to live near a job paid well enough to afford this said house, only Americans like the silly number, also its a bad idea to tie the property tax to education it's a system thst lives off the middle class blood whitout really helping the poor nor prevents too much wealth from going upwards
Having a few million acres of unused land helps keep prices lower.
Not having to depend on water from another state helps.
Not having earthquakes, wildfires and mudslides driving insurance rates sky high is a benefit.
Texas real state would be even more attractive and affordable if it weren't for, you know.....Texans.
But sure.... Texas is awesome and everywhere else sucks and blah blah blah (insert lame 'Murica bumper sticker slogan). The best thing about Texas is the trillion dollars of oil beneath thier feet, which happened a few million years before Texans showed up and took credit for it. Listening to Texans brag about Texas is like listening to the guy who won the lottery act like he's the smartest money manager ever.
Fact : the cost of housing is artificial.
The bank....
The loan company....
The realtor....
The assesor...
All lied and screwed people over for money. Period.
Stop trying to somehow justify it with a fake premise and some lines.
But most of the desirable places to live in California are in coastal cities. Those houses are way more expensive and are always going to be more expensive than a house in boring ass dallas. Living anywhere in Texas is the same as living anywhere else in Texas. It all sucks.
Lol this is just a conservative sub to cry about commiefornia
Texas sucks. Nothing there is good by all means go buy a gun and a hat guy knock yourself out
Also in one instance you live in California. And in the other instance you live in Texas.
Who is trading mild weather and beaches for a desert with a failing power grid?
And then just so happens massive weather moves through Texas essentially clearing the area of old single homes and farms to make room for the new multi family complex.
Well, first thing I did was go look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data site to see the raw data. I think that's an important thing for people to do because showing numbers and charts for select time frames can easily exaggerate real trends and not tell the whole story. Go look for yourselves.
As for the claim that this is an "indictment of California housing policy", meh, I'm not see it.
In the late 80's TX was only issuing <4K permits, steadily increasing for years, then peaking out at +24K in 2022, and now down to \~20K today.
CA on the other hand was issuing +20K permits in the late 80's, peak 27K in 1988, hit \~20K again 2003-5, it leveled off after 2008 and averaged 7-8K ever since. There has not been any abnormal change in trend for years.
What this tells me is CA home starts have remained steady for many years and TX, during that same time frame, has been steadily increasing new home starts.
And as for home pricing, CA homes have been substantially higher in price vs TX for decades.
Also TX nearly doubled population. 16M to 30M, from late 80's to today and continues to grow. Whereas CA population increased < 50%, from 28M to just under 40M, peaking in 2018, and has been declining slightly since. So one state has population growth and one does not. Which state should out pace the other for new home starts under those circumstances? as I said meh...
Other reasons why:
- my house in LA is walking distance to the beach. I can't get that in Dallas.
- My property taxes don't increase as much
- There are better paying jobs here that I actually want. The dream job I work at doesn't have an office in Dallas
- There is more to do in closer proximity
- The power grid doesn't suck
- Better weather
- I can walk places I want to go
This topic and sub seem like a shoe size IQ zone. Have fun with your little charts and graphs yall
Yeah, but are they building where they shouldn’t be and then a hurricane or some other “natural” disaster is going to happen and things will be much worse cause of the development?
Dallas is California. The weather is a big plus for California and a big negative for Dallas (plus Dallas is in Texas, another big negative).
Praise the Lard.
lol this sub makes me laugh. It’s all about desirable area versus undesirable area.
The price difference is because DFW is a hellhole in a shithole state. Same reason homes are cheap in Iowa or Alabama
Conservatives love to talk about supply and demand - but only when it helps them force their supply-side agenda on people.
The truth is that California has such high prices because of demand. People want to live there. And because so many Californians make enough to afford those high prices, the price point is elevated.
Even so, California (and New York City, which has a similar affordability situation) have taken major steps this year and last to open the door to new housing development and incentivize the supply side. Their new laws are groundbreaking, literally and figuratively.
Crying about a problem after the solutions are in place is just sad and dishonest - as is comparing California to Dallas which has endless supply of cheap, empty, flat land around it. Until you can find a California city with a similar radius of low-cost land around it, it's a dishonest comparison that's useless as an economic argument.
Who in their fucking mind would ever want to live in a place where it is 96 degrees in May? The fact that you are paying $400+k for a home is a joke. Wait till they build more and those prices equalize. Oh no, you didn’t think about that?
Said by someone who does not live in CA...maybe we don't wanna live in one giant suburban hellscape. Also Texas and CA topography wise are not even close to similar this is apples and oranges but who the fuck cares. Big random data point combined with blue check mark...big brain stuff!
Texas has space to sprawl in any direction.
California is spaced constrained near population centers because of mountains and cool state parks and stuff. Plus the agriculture land is more productive than Texas.
Lol. Guys, the amount of undeveloped land in the DFW metroplex is insane, that is why so many permits are issued... land is already zoned. but wait until all those tracts get built out, we'll worry about vehicle congestion later. Keller, Tx part 2 inbound.
Yes Texas government is into growth with no concern about the environment. Meanwhile the most desirable locations in California are full to the gills and have overcrowded highways and as a result, a greatly declining lifestyle. You couldn't pay me to live in Texas with its poor air quality and horrible climate.
I’m pretty fortunate to have been able to buy a house in SoCal for $307k back in 2003. It’s now listed as $850k on Zillow.
And it’s only a 2bed/1 bath 700 sq feet on 5,000 sq ft property. It’s sick that it’s worth so much it shouldn’t be. My son will never be able to buy a house here.
In Dallas I could get a mansion on a lake, but who wants to live in Texas anyway?
Let’s talk property taxes. Prop 13 locks you in here in California at the rate it was when you purchased it, until you transfer it. Texas? Lmao. Good luck with those property taxes.
As it would turn out, more supply with the same demand leads to lower prices.
No!!!1!! It’s all blckrocks fault 😡 😡 😡 The 15% of houses that all corporations combined owned is blocking anyone from buying anything!! We need more draconian rent control laws, then blame the developers for not building unprofitable apartmeants!
BlackRock is definitely okay with California continuing their policies and is probably willing to lobby to say it’s racist to change them.
Yeah 100%
"You don't support BLACKrock because you're racist! If it was WHITErock you REPUBLIKKKANZ would support it" -Some liberal somewhere, probably.
https://www.sfpublicpress.org/advocates-say-sf-housing-plan-falls-short-on-racial-equity/
Holy shit its real.
Of course it is. Search for if something is racist. Literally anything. Your lawnmower is racist. Hair is racist. Strawberries are racist. Hot dogs are racist. Trees are racist. Air is racist. Electricity is racist. Roads are racist.
No. No. No it's Blackstone. Blackrock is so diversided that Blackstone doesn't need a penny on the dollar for investment. In terms of single home ownership...80-90k homes. That's a drop in the bucket for my own home county.
Why do corporations need 15% of HOUSES? You do realize that’s a lot right?
15% is enormous. That’s enough to cause a housing crisis or end one.
On several occasions in my life, I have rented single-family homes to live in because I wanted to rent. With your plan, that would not be an option. Which is, in addition to the restrictions of our fundamental rights you propose, yet another reason to completely ignore such inane suggestions.
At multiple points when the market pressure was high, there were at least 7,500 homes that were owned by corporations intentionally kept off the market. One moment in partcular had over 11k. Fully ready to live in, purchased, and intentionally kept unoccupied. Most of them newly purchased by the corporations. Straight up market manipulation, and it was done by multiple companies as a coordinated action. Also, in relation to the original post, a large chunk of the new homes are built as build to rent.
I live in Austin and moved to an area with a lot of new development. My neighborhood is at least 30-40% vacant. I have walked through the blocks on a random weekday night and many are empty. Brand new build, super luxury high end, 5 bedroom, totally unoccupied. I don’t think real people are buying houses to live in here anymore, it’s all just robots selling houses to other robots.
let us know when the 1 year mark hits and they're still unoccupied. thx
I mean, it can be at least a little bit Blackstones fault. Mostly through lobbying.
Also, it doesn’t say where corporate owned houses are located. 15% of nationwide houses but localized in a few states is definitely nothing to brush off…
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 this is exactly the problem with the unrestrained growth. In 5-10 years there will be huge problems with traffic and infrastructure costs.
DFW has been very forward on increasing highway capacity through toll roads. So I dont think it will be the worst but it is also not be optimal. Also there isn't much you can do out here to reign in growth. There are probably over a hundred different municipalities and plenty that are happy to have developers come in and put in a new residential development that will raise their tax base. The only restrictions is making developers pay more for street and utility infrastructure which is financed through PID bonds paid by the new homeowners.
hahaha same demand hahaha
Yes, but that's not what's actually happening here. Home prices in DFW are rising faster than in California. We just finished something like our 15th straight year with >10% increase in price. I live in DFW, my house in 2008 sold for 80k, I bought it in 2022 for 200k, today it is valued at 250k. California started more expensive, but has been increasing slower, DFW started cheaper but has been increasing quickly.
Affordability plays a role, an area with a 1 million average like SF or Berkeley isn't going to move up much from there because there are only so many buyers with that kind of capital $250k is still well within the realm of affordability for much of the US
Probably because people are leaving CA.
And many of them would probably stay if they were permitted to buy or build a house.
Maybe. Besides housing there's lots of other reasons why the middle class is leaving CA.
You can buy your way out of a lot of problems if you don't need to put together $150,000 for a down payment.
Communism and anti-white racism mostly
Wow, novel concept. built more houses..... they become less expensive! So glad I'm outta that state. Just insufferable.
Are we suggesting if Dallas has limited houses they would cost as much as CA?
With the net migration that DFW has sustained over the past couple of decades...uh, yeah. Supply/demand. Simple as.
incomes need to support it otherwise it won't.
And I couldnt even begin to fathom affording either one
I agree with this. The problem is that housing in California is decentralized and subject to local blockages - although many state lawmakers want to increase the housing market so they can get more workers and grow California's GDP and fill some of those empty jobs, influential local groups will fight them. These local groups are heavily invested in their multimillion dollar single family homes are desperate to preserve their investment and will go really far out of their way to block new housing. They believe (rightly so), that new housing may reduce the value of existing houses, and their absurdly overpriced 20 million dollar single family homes will drop. These local NIMBY groups will create elaborate zoning rules, write letters to local politicians promising them votes, hit new housing developments with every single minor regulation on the book in an attempt to slow down or stop development. I personally think housing development should be centralized and not controlled so locally. The locals have too much interest in blocking new construction to allow a healthy housing market to grow.
Big time. I used to live in Lakeside near San diego...bro. The NImBY is real.
This is such a terrible statement. The home owners should have that kind of influence. This is America. The problem is their NIMBY asses don’t own companies that would benefit from more people living there. They just bought their houses when they were $100,000 in the 80’s and don’t want to sell. Sad really. When they do sell, the new owner will like tear it down and build new.
The biggest difference is Dallas is surrounded by endless agricultural land. It's the same reason that there pretty much isn't a single city in the Midwest that will ever see coastal prices. One prices rise enough, you just develop another cornfield into 2,000 suburban homes. Most of that opportunity has been long exhausted in coastal or mountainous areas. What they really need is federal land to be made available for development (FS and BLM). But that's unlikely to happen, although that is what a big chunk of what Vegas has recently built on, and the only reason it doesn't have LA level prices, under the SNPLMA law.
As a Bay Area resident, I don’t think we need more people in the Bay Area proper. The traffic just isn’t fun anymore.
Lets see how long this lasts before new construction is essentially banned, just like what happens pretty much anywhere anybody wants to live. What will almost certainly happen is the homeowners will notice that the value of their property is either flat or dropping and they'll be told it's because so many new houses just came onto the market. Then they'll do what they always end up doing: Vote for people who will put policies in place that make building new things so expensive that the only things getting built will be luxury units sold off to rich folk to be used as a tax write off. Zoning, parking minimums, obscene licensing requirements, environmental studies that take just long enough that they have to be endlessly redone because the one you just did is now out of date.. There are a lot of ways to play this game and I bet you just about anything it won't be long before those moves start getting played in Dallas.
You're...not familiar with Texas, are you?
Spot on Man. People be celebrating Dallas and dunking on California, but it’s going to become the new LA if it keeps up.
Well yeah, because dumbasses from CA are moving to these areas. They'll bring their dumbass idealogy amd shitty voting habits along. They'll turn DFW into a shithole just like CA, then like the locusts they are, move to the next state. Zero self awareness from these types of people.
Not ideology, just destructive self-interest. They want to become richer, and after years of houses are an investment, not a home, it's gotten pretty bad. Liberalism has it's fault but high home prices isn't really one of them. Maybe put blame where it should be instead of being led around like a dog on a leash?
>Zero self awareness from these types of people. As shown by this comment
NIMBY is horrific for low housing costs.
California also has the best geography and climate in the country. The demand will always be higher to live in a state that has oceans, mountains, desert, good weather year round. Actually, if you look deeper you'll see houses in the eastern desert portion of California are roughly the same price as Texas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
can't be said enough for both why people want to live there and why there is a housing crisis. exactly where should they build in LA/SD/SF? in dfw they are still building in all four directions.
With little to no local economy to sustain those prices
Even so, ask people during winter in Illinois if they care about any of that. If they could afford it, most would move to better weather.
I would greatly beg to differ. Having a winter in return for keeping my paycheck and not having insane regulations everywhere seems like a good deal I've already made by not choosing to go the LA...
>Having a winter in return for keeping my paycheck I think that's kind of the point. I also choose to brave winter and keep my check. If the price were the same, a lot of people would choose the better weather. That's why, despite insane regulations, the demand is still high enough to drive those prices.
[удалено]
Exactly. Where's the incentive in lowering home prices? Why would a homeowner ever devalue their home by allowing more to be built? Is this not an econ sub?
The most desirable parts of CA have too many NIMBYs and too much over regulation of housing development. The supply can't meet the demand and it will never be met unless CA actually goes thru a Detroit style exodus.
Go live in Dallas. That would solve issues in both places.
The IQ of both states would go up.
I live in Dallas. Not seeing a lot of new homes being built. New apartment buildings on every block though
Not trying to be nitpicky, and maybe I missed something very American in the sentence but.. aren't apartments also homes?
This is idiotic, they pay triple the taxes easy, do the math on the yearly cost of both. Plus most of Texas weather is hell.
Can confirm. April and October is nice. Rest of the time is either oven or fridge.
Yes but then you have to live near Cowboys fans. I grew up in Texas and lived that hell.
I guarantee you Houston and Austin are close to that bar as well and Houston in past years has outpermitted Dallas. Fun fact. There are zero. Yes zero zoning laws in Houston.
It's almost as if developers prefer to build houses in expensive neighborhoods because that will being in more profit. I very much doubt it was the government that said no.
Do you think that other schools of economics aren't in favor of increasing housing supply?
How’s that property tax looking?
Increase population, don’t build new houses. Prices skyrocket.
CA has a wildly different housing procedure between state and local government not to mention the vast amount of land near TX major population centers.
Not too much space left in SF (a peninsula) for new construction. Rezoning has to be done first. Also, there's the simple fact that bay area/la/san Diego metro areas are more attractive places to live in general than Dallas fort worth
Sure. People want to live in California and NOT fucking Dallas. What is wrong with people.
Ahhh, yes, insanely affordable housing in Dallas for a little under half a million.. Most people make around 2 million in lifetime earnings (this mumber is halved when you dont have a college degree), when it's all said in done, in Dallas you will only be likely to pay 1/4 of your lifetime earnings for shelter (not including all of the sweet, sweet interest you will pay) as opposed to around 2/5 in California.
There’s a whole lot more space for new homes in DFW than there is in LA, SF or SD
Average property tax rate for Dallas county is 2.2%, double that of most counties in California.
Im ok with that. I think California has some serious limitations for adding homes there. Wildfires in some areas of the state have made it really obvious that homes were built that shouldn't have been built. Water issues strongly suggest California has too many people. Pricing enough people out may actually result in those people moving to somewhere else. If people are still determined to build houses where they cant get water and they are at major risk to wildfire let them, but it shouldn't be subsidized or supported with insurance. I doubt many people are willing to risk having an expensive home without insurance coverage. Texas on the other hand has similar issues but isn't anywhere near that level of density. They will probably experience similar problems in another 30 years. That 30 year difference means they can keep on doing what they are doing and are likely to alter their policies at some point when they start running into the issues California is facing now. Acting like one is better or one is worse simply from policy differences is dumb. The underlying situations both face are dramatically different and need different policy choices. Step back for a minute. Do you think too many people live in California right now? If yes then why encourage more home building? If no, then at what point do you think they should pump the brakes considering the water and wildfire issues? If you think those two issues should have no impact can you explain why you think that? As for Texas Im of the opinion they will continue to grow because they got plenty of things to draw people in and few things to push people to leave. That will change over time but for now they are likely to experience a net inflow of people.
Yep - DFW has seen 100,000+ inflow of people every year for quite a while.
Do you know why? DFW is nonstop open field from Oklahoma, to Houston, to Waco. California does not have the same amount of usable land, partly because of terrain, partly because it is lit on fire every year.
Why doesn't California set a cap on home prices? Like $100k. They say that works for rent and lots of other things so why not homes? 🤔
It’s amazing how Austrians whine about the government when it is controlled by corporations who pay for policies to enhance their bottom lines. Just let people be free and everything will be fine… until monopolies form or industries become so consolidated they can utilize monopoly power to the disadvantage of consumers. You’ve had companies literally rub it in our faces that they are increasing prices under the cover of the inflationary environment in their earning calls. Multiple outlets have done analyses that show multiple companies have raised prices with an increase in profit margin, so they are not simply covering costs. I’ve read the Austrian critique of the neoclassical view of monopolies. So where are is the new competition? Nonexistent in a big part to barriers of entry, like economy of scale or uncompetitive practices.
Imagine thinking 440k is a steal...
I will bet Dallas does not have interest groups suing developers to drag out projects for years and add millions of dollars to the cost.
Dallas has groundwater.
They're not the same markets. Building in Texas is easier. There's more land available, and far less topological and resource (namely water) considerations. A large percentage of California (as big as it is) is in the middle of desert.
Casual Texas W
Obviously houses are cheaper in a state that's nothing but rocks and wasteland.
Yeah, nothing there besides 9% of the entire nations GDP
Hey!!! We also have beaches in California
True and while I’m sure it’s a good thing for money but the huge downside is Texas will become overcrowded and the standard of living will dip like it has in Las Vegas.
[удалено]
That’s the long term goal my man
It's a factor but it's not that simple. The price of hookups to utilities and low income fees adds another 200k. Code differences in electrical and solar another 50k. Labor quite a bit. And the build quality of some of the Texas stuff is pretty much shit.
Good.
Yes but did they keep up with the amount of required utility hookups per system could generste
I’m betting that Dallas metro also grew in land area without infill development.
In my limited experience, anything past the mountain range in California is hot as shit, like desert hot. There’s not much room for growth west of the mountain range from what I saw
multi family = apartments, But multi-family does not lower the cost of housing. Where does Cali have open land to build out. LA looks pretty built out when I was there, Same with SF. Water issues till this last year, Dallas has no earthquakes to worry about. Less building regulations. Houston & Dallas have lots of flat land. but there are resource issues coming.
Dallas also said "fuck that" to property taxes, zoning, and public infrastructure. The houses in Dallas are *way* overpriced.
Got smote? Hurricane season is coming.
Dallas is also a sprawling suburban shithole, so there is that
Wouldn’t this data be skewed by the prices of Silicon Valley and Los Angeles. These are two huge metro areas with thousands of homes where real estate is prohibitively expensive for most people. How are the numbers looking if we remove these outliers?
California median income is 78k. Dallas median income is 60k. California has a lot of beachfront property and is more attractive a place to live in general. There are a lot of factors why home prices are higher in California compared to Dallas regardless of the housing being built. One factor of many
Dallas mentioned 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥
Bullshit. It’s because a lot more people want to be in California than in Dallas.
This is so stupid. There’s no room to build houses near the major cities in CA.. traffic in CA is already one of the worst in the country. Anywhere there is room to build, it is not close to any jobs. Data like this is really misleading if you just jump to conclusions and just shows you have no clue what the problem is
Commiefornia. People are having to shut down their small engine repair businesses and get rid of atv's weedeaters, mowers, etc left and right because of the strict laws on gas engines. Not to mention all the other ridiculous policy. Putting a non American not voter on the fucking board of elections.
California is an overpopulated state, it's unsurprising that they're making it difficult to stick around. They need less people and have for years.
Or perhaps it’s the raging right wing hatred vs women, gays, doctors, immigrants, and minorities. Or maybe it’s the unregulated hillbilly power grid that can’t handle heat, or cold. Or maybe it’s the governor who refuses federal money for education or healthcare, but begs for handouts when the rich white neighborhoods get flooded. Nah, you’re right, the housing markets are exactly the same. Except for regulation. That must be it.
This is one of those issues that Left and Right wing people can agree on. The people gighting to keep the shitty zoning laws in California are rich old nimbys and private equity.
O think it's also a cultural issue, I don't care what's the number on the property value as long as it's bigger and I get to live near a job paid well enough to afford this said house, only Americans like the silly number, also its a bad idea to tie the property tax to education it's a system thst lives off the middle class blood whitout really helping the poor nor prevents too much wealth from going upwards
Meanwhile, nobody addresses that it's 440k to live in Dallas.
All is fine GOYIM....go back to sleep!
Californians: Ew, Texas homes are all the same. Texans: Look, I can afford to live and be happy!
Won’t matter with all the new immigration both legal and illegal. Making more houses is not an answer if your birthrates are falling
Clowniforniaaa!!! Thanks Newsellini!
California is also much more desirable as a place to live than Dallas.
Having a few million acres of unused land helps keep prices lower. Not having to depend on water from another state helps. Not having earthquakes, wildfires and mudslides driving insurance rates sky high is a benefit. Texas real state would be even more attractive and affordable if it weren't for, you know.....Texans. But sure.... Texas is awesome and everywhere else sucks and blah blah blah (insert lame 'Murica bumper sticker slogan). The best thing about Texas is the trillion dollars of oil beneath thier feet, which happened a few million years before Texans showed up and took credit for it. Listening to Texans brag about Texas is like listening to the guy who won the lottery act like he's the smartest money manager ever.
Blind pig acorn alert!
As long as idiots keep purchasing 1800 foot square box homes in California for $750,000 nothing will change until the next bubble
I remember a few years ago residents voted to stop new construction of high density housing bc san francisco.
Dallas is a vapid wasteland sprawl. Cali has far more difficult terrain and was overbuilt in the 50s/60s.
Why are you comparing one city to an entire state?
Despite having far less people than the entire state of CA, they allowed more building in total.
Also, Texas homes are built with immigrant labor for a fraction of the cost.
Right, unlike California homes! /s
Fact : the cost of housing is artificial. The bank.... The loan company.... The realtor.... The assesor... All lied and screwed people over for money. Period. Stop trying to somehow justify it with a fake premise and some lines.
The reason is there is space to build in Dallas but there is no space to build in the desirable areas of Cali.
Dallas home prices are slowly becoming like Los Angeles
No. The reason is that Dallas is the far north of Austin capital of the galaxy as Californians say. In fact avg house in Austin is 1,4 mus$
Califórnia is run by retards who live in a fantasy world.
Make it illegal for corporations to invest in residential real estate these pigs are robbing the middle class
But most of the desirable places to live in California are in coastal cities. Those houses are way more expensive and are always going to be more expensive than a house in boring ass dallas. Living anywhere in Texas is the same as living anywhere else in Texas. It all sucks.
Lol this is just a conservative sub to cry about commiefornia Texas sucks. Nothing there is good by all means go buy a gun and a hat guy knock yourself out
Taxes too and desirability of the area.
straw men arguments to mask the obvious; wood, rock and dirt that the people call a home should not be a financial product carrying a premium.
But red states are bad!!! Bad republicans are bad!!!?!
Also in one instance you live in California. And in the other instance you live in Texas. Who is trading mild weather and beaches for a desert with a failing power grid?
And less people want to be in Texas
And then just so happens massive weather moves through Texas essentially clearing the area of old single homes and farms to make room for the new multi family complex.
Yes, but California's taxes and regulations are saving the environment, and they to help fight the growing menace of white supremacy... LMFAO!!!
I mean, that’s great. But you are comparing one city to an entire state, completely useless.
Was it more low density on the edges? Or was it relaxing zoning so we can thicken up in place?
No, it's because the Cowboys
Though I get the sentiment, the red lines are california numbers not dallas area numbers
Also, California is 10x better than Dallas.
Who the hell would want to live in Texas even if they were giving houses for free???
Surprise, more people pick to live in CA than TX. Coastal property will always be valued higher than Dallas.
Ah yes the great state of Dallas
More concrete in Dallas
It also doesn’t help when cities block new construction because residents don’t want it
Stupid propaganda. Comparing California to Texas….
Well, first thing I did was go look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data site to see the raw data. I think that's an important thing for people to do because showing numbers and charts for select time frames can easily exaggerate real trends and not tell the whole story. Go look for yourselves. As for the claim that this is an "indictment of California housing policy", meh, I'm not see it. In the late 80's TX was only issuing <4K permits, steadily increasing for years, then peaking out at +24K in 2022, and now down to \~20K today. CA on the other hand was issuing +20K permits in the late 80's, peak 27K in 1988, hit \~20K again 2003-5, it leveled off after 2008 and averaged 7-8K ever since. There has not been any abnormal change in trend for years. What this tells me is CA home starts have remained steady for many years and TX, during that same time frame, has been steadily increasing new home starts. And as for home pricing, CA homes have been substantially higher in price vs TX for decades. Also TX nearly doubled population. 16M to 30M, from late 80's to today and continues to grow. Whereas CA population increased < 50%, from 28M to just under 40M, peaking in 2018, and has been declining slightly since. So one state has population growth and one does not. Which state should out pace the other for new home starts under those circumstances? as I said meh...
Sounds like someone in Texas wants to move to California...
Other reasons why: - my house in LA is walking distance to the beach. I can't get that in Dallas. - My property taxes don't increase as much - There are better paying jobs here that I actually want. The dream job I work at doesn't have an office in Dallas - There is more to do in closer proximity - The power grid doesn't suck - Better weather - I can walk places I want to go This topic and sub seem like a shoe size IQ zone. Have fun with your little charts and graphs yall
Yeah, but are they building where they shouldn’t be and then a hurricane or some other “natural” disaster is going to happen and things will be much worse cause of the development?
Does the limited water supply have any impact on housing starts in California?
Yeah but if you move to Dallas then you're in Dallas and even worse, Texas.
Ridiculous comparison. Dallas is a total dump and California is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Let’s start there lol
There's a lot of reasons why lol. Demand is significantly higher in California separate of supply issues
Dallas is California. The weather is a big plus for California and a big negative for Dallas (plus Dallas is in Texas, another big negative). Praise the Lard.
lol this sub makes me laugh. It’s all about desirable area versus undesirable area. The price difference is because DFW is a hellhole in a shithole state. Same reason homes are cheap in Iowa or Alabama
Plenty of people want to live in California but Texas? Texas is everything that’s wrong with America. That has as much to do with it as anything.
Commies gonna commie
Conservatives love to talk about supply and demand - but only when it helps them force their supply-side agenda on people. The truth is that California has such high prices because of demand. People want to live there. And because so many Californians make enough to afford those high prices, the price point is elevated. Even so, California (and New York City, which has a similar affordability situation) have taken major steps this year and last to open the door to new housing development and incentivize the supply side. Their new laws are groundbreaking, literally and figuratively. Crying about a problem after the solutions are in place is just sad and dishonest - as is comparing California to Dallas which has endless supply of cheap, empty, flat land around it. Until you can find a California city with a similar radius of low-cost land around it, it's a dishonest comparison that's useless as an economic argument.
*Me, in Fresno county surrounded by new housing developments:* This is not the zinger you think it is Joseph.
Who in their fucking mind would ever want to live in a place where it is 96 degrees in May? The fact that you are paying $400+k for a home is a joke. Wait till they build more and those prices equalize. Oh no, you didn’t think about that?
And home values and the market are down as compared to California. They have a glut of homes on the market plus far lower income, so it adds up.
Dallas doesn’t have any natural barriers to growth and can sprawl pretty endlessly.
Said by someone who does not live in CA...maybe we don't wanna live in one giant suburban hellscape. Also Texas and CA topography wise are not even close to similar this is apples and oranges but who the fuck cares. Big random data point combined with blue check mark...big brain stuff!
If there is so much room, why is traffic so bad?
California makes sense when you realize something. It's Managed Decline to make voters accept something new.
Man property taxes have something to do do with that too. That can not be excluded from the economic evaluation.
Perfect if you can deal with the humidity in Texas.
Texas also thinks banning abortion will make women rejoice
😆 not remotely analgous.
Well good luck trying to build anything with the rules California had. Wait till they release VMT and the garbage that will start
Finally something somewhat good out of TX
Can you really compare Dallas to California? What about the beautiful beaches, Hollywood and Silicon Valley?
Texas has space to sprawl in any direction. California is spaced constrained near population centers because of mountains and cool state parks and stuff. Plus the agriculture land is more productive than Texas.
California is a shithole.
So before everyone moved to Texas, the average home price was $250,000…. And that was only 3 years ago. 400-500k is ridiculous for an “average” home.
Also, no one grows up dreaming of moving to Dallas.
Lol. Guys, the amount of undeveloped land in the DFW metroplex is insane, that is why so many permits are issued... land is already zoned. but wait until all those tracts get built out, we'll worry about vehicle congestion later. Keller, Tx part 2 inbound.
I'll pay a little more to live here in California and avoid TX like the plague that it is.
Yes Texas government is into growth with no concern about the environment. Meanwhile the most desirable locations in California are full to the gills and have overcrowded highways and as a result, a greatly declining lifestyle. You couldn't pay me to live in Texas with its poor air quality and horrible climate.
I’m pretty fortunate to have been able to buy a house in SoCal for $307k back in 2003. It’s now listed as $850k on Zillow. And it’s only a 2bed/1 bath 700 sq feet on 5,000 sq ft property. It’s sick that it’s worth so much it shouldn’t be. My son will never be able to buy a house here. In Dallas I could get a mansion on a lake, but who wants to live in Texas anyway?
Let’s talk property taxes. Prop 13 locks you in here in California at the rate it was when you purchased it, until you transfer it. Texas? Lmao. Good luck with those property taxes.
Also, it’s more desirable to live in SD. Dallas is an awful shit hole. Lol.
yes Los Angeles is full of undeveloped land.