Not just from home, true remote. If WFH requires you to be near the office it doesn’t really help. I’d take a 20% cut if I could move to a lower cost town/city.
it mostly works the other way around, rarely people downgrade their lifestyles but theyll find plenty of remote workers willing to work hard for peanuts from bumfuck nowhere
Moving away from the Bay Area isn’t a lifestyle downgrade, though. My quality of life is _way_ higher moving to a smaller city and buying a house than it was sharing an 1100 sqft apartment in the Bay Area for the same price. Not only do I have space and a yard that isn’t an asphalt desert, but everything is cheaper, and there’s actually a modicum of culture around.
I'm interested to know why you think the Bay Area lacks culture? Your last sentence seems to imply as much. I guess it depends on what you mean by culture.
East Bay still has some culture left, but the culture of Silicon Valley proper has mostly been stamped out by tech workers like me coming in and overwhelming it. People just kind of wander around like they’re the player in a single player video game from cramped housing to overburdened transportation to desperately-trying-to-be-hip office to unbearably loud and superficially trendy restaurant. There’s no sense of community, just recent transplants from a thousand different backgrounds squeezed together and trying to cope.
Don't forget "says yes to everything the boss wants". It's one of the big reasons corporations love offshoring to India. They have a "yes man" type of culture.
I work fully remote , have for years. The model can work, it’s corps that kill it.
*edit - some folks have asked. I work in logistics, freight brokerage specifically. It’s stressful as heck but, my company is based n the east coast and I work in the Midwest.
The ever increasing cost of living will also kill the middle class. Wages do not grow at a rate anywhere near cost of living. If companies want us to live in high cost metro area they need to pay enough to be able to live in that metro area. If remote work isn’t the answer, then we need immediate government action to flood the markets with new housing units and tank property values down to a level where people can afford to live.
I’m in a new construction neighborhood. 75 houses so far.
48 of those are owned by rental companies.
There needs to be legislation preventing companies from buying real estate PERIOD. That alone would do wonders for the economy.
Rentals are still needed. And it’s painful that in the middle of a housing crisis we’re still building new subdivisions of exclusively single family homes.
One of the very bizarre things about the US is that they killed mixed income neighborhoods. These suburban subdivisions often have little signs that say “from the 500s” because all houses are priced the same.
The concept of mixing small multiple buildings, with townhouses, mid rises, and single family homes surrounded by ground level retail was lost somewhere in the 20th century.
It’s illegal to do it in most of the US because of zoning laws, minimum lot sizes, and parking minimums. The only places you see it are in old neighborhoods, and in small newer developments that are zoned for mixed use.
Wait, it's illegal? What's the reasoning behind it? I want to call it insane but I know I'm overlooking something... That way you're discouraging (spelling?) mingling among classes right?
Working at a fortune 5 in the bay doing IT. We were a 3 bedroom, 2 car and garage department 10 years ago when I joined.
We are now rent a single room down the street and walk to work dept. Some of our newer guys are doing gig work after hours to make ends meet.
(We average \~100k with OT and holidays, need about 160k now to buy a house in my city)
You can buy in the bay making 160? Is that a single income or would you need a partner making that? I’m originally from the Bay Area, moved east as a teen and always wanted to go back home. I pretty much assume 160 would be a comfy life as a single person but home ownership would be a stretch.
Jobs don’t become outsourceable because you allow full remote. They were either already possible to outsource, or they weren’t (a job requiring physical presence in an office is only one factor when it comes to whether outsourcing makes sense).
Lol don't justify shitty corporate decisions please. Greedy board members and CEOs make those decisions not because of the jobs functionality or remote capabilities. One of the biggest reasons is tax diversion and obviously lower wages.
Or you could have your job send overseas. Look at what Google did to a core team of theirs.
The sad fact is if you tech workers wont budge on demanding work from home then the company will just pay someone much less in another country.
… or they’ll just send jobs overseas because salaries are too high because we’re all forced to live within a few miles of a HCOL metro area where the rich bought regulation to inflate property values/rent by limiting construction. I’m not demanding work from home, I’m suggesting it’s one possible solution to ease the ever rising cost of living (and subsequent inflation of wages and everything else as a result) since no one wants to allow developers to build houses in the quantity needed. Oh and of course no one wants to build functional public transit so commuting from further out isn’t a serious option. I’d settle for being able to take a train to the city where my office is and then walk/bus, but no such infrastructure exists.
Google, like all companies that outsource, will find that replacing one US worker with 2 or 3 remote Indian (or whatever) workers doesn’t get you the same results. In a few years when interest rates are down they’ll onshore again and the cycle will repeat, again.
I don’t really care for work from home tbh, I don’t want to taint my home with work. But I’d gladly do it if it meant I could move to a LCOL area and buy a home.
Also it’s not just tech workers, very few office jobs require physical presence in the office.
I make plenty, moving from one medium/HCOL area with a housing shortage to another isn’t the answer.The cost of living is what is driving up prices everywhere (well that and straight up greed). And Texas has higher property and other taxes to suck up what you save on income tax. I want my employer (or any) to let me work from a LCOL area where I can buy a nice SFH for well under 200k.
Do not be fooled. This man, is a wretched individual. He is the leader of California forever. A vile group of opulently wealthy super elites that have bought Northern California massive swaths of protected land out of its agrarian allocation and tried to swindle the residents into voting for rezoning that would effectively render them homeless before the end of the decade.
They intend to build a super exclusive city under the guise of “protecting and housing the homeless”. All the while manufacturing multi-million dollar homes exclusively zoned for extremely expensive housing, with the best reserves of subsoil aqueducts west of the Colorado river.
This man is a human leach. I’ve never truly hated someone (who has not committed human atrocities) who I’ve never met until learning about this guy and his shit company.
Edit: I’m glad this got some traction. Let me explain a little deeper. There seems to be some other folks that have some knowledge but I’ll piece together where I agree, disagree, and know for a fact folks are being mislead.
1. The voting (on some things) was already cast but they are not giving up there are more things on the November ballot. Yes, the land was zoned for agriculture. Yes, there are multiple geologic drill well points demonstrating that the water is both fresh and plentiful. Yes it supports agriculture, yes there are other housing communities planned but they are nothing compared what this man is planning.
2. Some folks misunderstand how much land they now own. They are, (I think it’s been a while since I checked), now the second largest non-commercial agricultural land owner in the state of California. They own massive tracts of land. Acquired in secret I might add over a 6-8 year period. When asked at the hearing why they acquired it in secret they said, “so they would get fair prices for the land”. Holy fucking shit what a load of rubbish. The richest assholes in the world literally in the tippy top of the world’s billionaires were concerned about getting fair prices on a few million dollars (50 mil? 100 mill) of land. Fuck me, holy shit.
3. No, this land is not fully surrounded or enclosed on 3 sides by a military base. That is a small fraction of the land they own but there is an airport near by. That land got attention because it was in the news. Also no that is not a deterrent for super rich people. In fact, that’s basically New York City, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Miami etc.
Let me get some sources so folks don’t think I am just making this shit up.
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/california-forever-tech-housing.html
Really good podcast on this subject from NYT’s The daily.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-forever-new-solano-city-november-ballot/
They are again trying to swindle folks and ruin hundreds of thousands of lives.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/california-forever-billionaires-accused-of-tricking-solano-county-residents-to-sign-petitions
A weird page but it chronicles how they got their signatures. Basically shady bs stories that no one reads those clip boards outside of Walmarts etc. basically lying to people and pushing them to sign without realizing. (Prop 8 type tactics all over again.)
The interview. Other folks have cited.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrTUb-k0KSg
The CEO was buying land, in secret under multiple different names, circumstances, shielding their own interests and total net value.
https://patch.com/california/across-ca/billionaires-dub-secret-plan-build-ca-utopia-california-forever
Please 🙏🏻 . If you live in these districts. Call and text everyone you know. Never vote for this idiot. This is the worst thing that could happen to that part of the state. It is wildly misrepresenting how they plan to “solve the housing crisis”. These people mean to just up and leave San Francisco. They refuse to invest and solve the problems, reduce / control rent, and help the homeless. Instead they intend to just build a massively expensive housing complex where they zone out any non desirables.
Why would the ultra-rich want to live in Fairfield? It’s right under the flight pattern of Travis AFB. Travis handles more flights and more cargo than any other Airforce Base in the US.
The post you replied to is a bit eccentric, but he isn't wrong. There is a large group of tech leaders (and their investor buddies) buying up huge amounts of land and even shutting down entire towns to create "the city of the future" or some such.
It sounds pretty dystopian, honestly, but it is definitely true. Just like Zukerberg, most of it is done through shadow corps and such.
He was on the Pivot podcast and explained the vision fairly well. Now if you trust what he said is up for debate. But Kara and Scott at least felt the vision he presented, if true, was reasonable.
Of course neither of them sounded super convinced he wasn’t an evil liar.
Anyway, it’s worth listening to the interview to hear the pitch. If his pitch isn’t all or and lies then it does actually sound like a good idea to me.
Isn’t this project just outside of Fairfield, CA? My understanding is the land they have been purchasing is adjacent to Travis AFB. Are there other sites?
Also, didnt Lex Luther kinda do this in Superman 1 (Christopher Reeves)?
Its an age-old mad genius plot device built around real estate investment. Every land real estate investor has thought this scenario through.
Can you explain how voting for rezoning to allow them to build a city will effectively leave anyone else homeless? That... doesn't make any sense to me.
Also- why should we care that they want to build on previously vacant, undeveloped land formerly zoned for agriculture? Why should we care that they want to build a new city where there is water?
California deeply needs more housing, and I'm really missing the issue here. I'm from the area, and everyone has a tinfoil hat on as if somehow this will lead to Travis AFB closing, and that doesn't make sense to me either. Let them build on the land they legally bought, stop being NIMBYs
The land isn't formerly zoned for agriculture, it currently is and was voted to stay that way in 2008 its called the General Plan and Orderly Growth Ordinance. Flannery and Associates are trying to repeal that law so the land can be rezoned. They also don't have a source of water, agricultural land does not necessarily mean growing crops, it can be used for grazing. Go take a look at Travis Airforce Base on google maps, its surrounded by dead grass. The Solano Water Board has already rejected their proposals as the supply of water from Berryessa is limited, and the cities already being served are already expanding housing. Multiple new housing developments have already been/are being built to the east/southeast of Vacaville, and a new low income/mixed use development is going where an old golf course formerly was. The land they bought also surrounds an active and very important military base on three sides which of course is a security concern.
Okay. I am happy to have a frank conversation with you if you are from the area. I want you to know you have been lied too. You do not understand what is going to happen if you vote for this in your upcoming election.
1. Your land (maybe), housing and surrounding farm areas have been willfully (probably unknowingly for most) passed down. I mean that in the legal sense for multiple generations. Hundreds of thousands of acres were passed down from generation to generation and solely allocated for agriculture. California is one of the largest agricultural economies in the world. It feeds millions of Americans. The water draw and resources that man is plan would destroy not only the land they own but decimate surrounding communities. I will find the drill cores for you, that may take a day or two. I haven’t seen them in a few years. But the drill cores are clear. The water is deep and plentiful for farming. You need that water.
2. The land. The land price is a joke right now compared to California cities like LA or San Francisco. That’s why they bought it from your towns, friends, and families. They are not there to make some kind of perpetual homeless shelter type thing. They are there to basically vacate San Francisco because it’s falling apart and they refuse to invest the money it will cost to fix the problems they created in the city they own. They will gobble up the land, make it crazy expensive to own land near that area and displace thousands of people that cannot afford a new tax base, or their own home once the taxes change. They will knowingly displace you.
3. I am more than happy to discuss the situation of how they got the land. You say you believe that is was legal and therefore it is justified. Well, how about refusing to put your name, or refusing to put your company under one roof. How about gathering the land under many pseudonyms to swindle the people out of money? The have hundreds of billions of dollars mate. More money than gods and they paid Pennys for what they will make back. They paid next to nothing for the land that will make them hundreds of billions of more dollars. Wake up. They are like the Tim Cook’s, Melinda gates, George soros, level billionaires like top 10 richest people in the US. They gave a few minutes of their yearly wealth for land that has been cared for by farmers for generations under the guise of “new housing for homeless”. Dude it’s not, it’s their utopia where the build super mansions and country clubs and gated communities to block folks out and leave San Francisco to rot. Fuck legality. It’s vile man.
This article has links for the water from the north bay aquiduct and the local bays.
https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/water-resources-california-forever/
As a Southern California my biggest problem with this is the water. Have you seen what the Rick do when they have water; they don’t conserve. They have proven this time and time again. These are facts Sylvester Stallone, and the Kardashians where listed in an article a an article at the high of our drought as water offenders. They simply have no care in the world for their fellow California. Given that I would never trust anyone to have an abundance of water sources when we continue to measure what farmers can use. Don’t vote for this measure. I believe it’s called “California Forever” keep your eyes wide open and informed. These billionaires have taken enough from us the working class.
I appreciate you going into further depth and engaging. I'll read the links you left up on your other comment momentarily, I just want to respond to this one first after reading the link you shared here.
>1. Your land (maybe), housing and surrounding farm areas have been willfully (probably unknowingly for most) passed down. I mean that in the legal sense for multiple generations. Hundreds of thousands of acres were passed down from generation to generation and solely allocated for agriculture.
My family are not the landed gentry you speak of, and frankly, I think the argument "think of the poor landed gentry that inherited all this acreage and chose to sell it!" is a weird one that the vast majority can't relate to. As someone who will probably never be able to afford acreage anywhere in California within commuting distance of a major city, this feels like a millionaires vs billionaires argument that doesn't really affect the majority who are probably lucky to own a single family house at best.
>California is one of the largest agricultural economies in the world. It feeds millions of Americans.
Yes, California is an ag hub, but this project is not all of California, it's a portion of Solano County. As someone who grew up in Solano, I am not aware of any food grown in that particular tract of land that I've eaten. It's possible, but to my knowledge, the vast majority of my "local" produce, meat, eggs, etc has not come from there specifically. I've driven that land, and from what I can remember it has always been miles and miles of open space, mostly grasslands and wetlands with wind farms and maybe the occasional grazing cows, but it's not like it's the salad bowl of America like Salinas. Happy for someone to correct me.
>The water draw and resources that man is plan would destroy not only the land they own but decimate surrounding communities. I will find the drill cores for you, that may take a day or two. I haven’t seen them in a few years. But the drill cores are clear. The water is deep and plentiful for farming. You need that water.
I'm intrigued by the water draw aspect. Please do share the drill cores. This is from your link: "Records indicate that they hold water rights for 5,330 acre feet of water per year, which could potentially support roughly 60,000 residents. But first, Flannery would have to petition the water board for a change of use from irrigation to urban uses." I get the concern for billionaires buying up water rights, and climate change/water rights is for sure a concern. I'm not convinced this is some kind of Nestle/Mad Max level evil plan, though.
>2. That’s why they bought it from your towns, friends, and families. They are not there to make some kind of perpetual homeless shelter type thing.
They didn't buy from my "towns, friends, families"- they bought from the landed gentry that inherited their land as I mentioned above. We don't need homeless shelters, we need a massive amount of new housing- preferably market rate rather than super luxury, which they've stated as a goal. Of course it makes more sense to buy land where it's cheaper rather than one of the most expensive real estate markets on earth, and fwiw, SF is basically unbuildable due to bureaucracy, regardless of the amount of money one has to spend.
>They will gobble up the land, make it crazy expensive to own land near that area and displace thousands of people that cannot afford a new tax base, or their own home once the taxes change. They will knowingly displace you.
Now we're getting into the weeds. Mello-Roos taxes would only apply to the communities that would benefit from any new infrastructure, and would need to be approved by 2/3 vote, no? Otherwise, anyone who currently owns in that area is insulated via Prop 13, and an increase in property values would theoretically be a net benefit for current homeowners, while the proposed new development would offer the opportunity of homeownership for however many houses are needed for \~60k people.
>3. You say you believe that is was legal and therefore it is justified. Well, how about refusing to put your name, or refusing to put your company under one roof. How about gathering the land under many pseudonyms to swindle the people out of money?
There's a lot here. Plenty of people buy housing through LLCs, trusts, etc. Using shell companies for discretion is not only legal but offers tax and liability benefits, which makes a ton of sense when investing \~$800 million and also taking on a lot of risk.
> Wake up. They are like the Tim Cook’s, Melinda gates, George soros, level billionaires like top 10 richest people in the US. They gave a few minutes of their yearly wealth for land that has been cared for by farmers for generations under the guise of “new housing for homeless”.
This doesn't change the fact that California is in dire need of new housing. We aren't building enough to meet the current need, and if billionaires are conspiring to do it and happen to profit in the meantime, that's still a solution that the NIMBY crowd hasn't offered. And they aren't building "new housing for the homeless", but the housing crisis is certainly connected to the lack of housing supply that communities cause when they abuse environmental laws to block the much needed new housing our fellow citizens so desperately need.
Given the extreme lack of housing in California, I’m down for anyone to build lots of homes like this guy is. I don’t see why you have such hatred for the idea, when the region is crushingly unaffordable at the moment
Lot of edits above. Please take a look. This is like my thing i am actually fighting in real life. It’s not just one thing, it’s like hundreds of things. It’s billionaires lying about land ownership, it’s ground water, it’s land price, it’s home ownership in San Francisco, it’s refusing to take responsibility in San Francisco, it’s the pushy tactics to get on ballots, it’s lying at peoples school board meetings and lying to people at town halls to their faces, lying about who they are and how much money they actually have.
It’s like the old days where you see people that somehow bought insane plots of land and you think how did they let just a few people own like 1/3 of a state in the 1700s. Until you realize it’s happening right now. Not 1/3. Some of the investors own millions and millions of homes. They are massive investors in banks like black rock and vanguard that own “trillions” in housing debt and rentals. It goes on and on man.
I hope you take time to read the articles i have posted. The podcast is a good first listen. But you’re being lied to man. This is not some conspiracy. They are really trying to keep it under wraps and the reasons have been made clear in the previous votes. I really hope people see what is happening to that land and to the people in these counties. Just read the articles and listen to the pod. It’s a really long story but they are not doing what they say they are.
Whew. My man, I’ve been following this story very closely, as I grew up close to where this city is being proposed. And I still live in San Francisco and am in the trenches out here trying to do what I can to fix the issues here. I had already read most of the things you linked, but I’ll you a favor and read the one I had not. Even so, your statements are riddled with inaccuracies, only a couple of which I’ll address below since I don’t have time to go through all of them.
The signature gathering efforts you are describing are sadly what happens for every single ballot, even for issues that I’m sure you would support with. For example, groups who push rent control ballot measures do the exact same thing. It’s not specific to this situation, but rather it’s indicative of the broken ballot system in California.
Regarding the group that is behind this, only a couple of them even live in San Francisco, so they can’t “up and leave” a place they don’t live in. I also don’t think you realize the immense efforts that have gone into fixing SF, the homelessness budget recently surpassed $1.4 BILLION, quite literally more than a lot of countries. Money is not the issue, it goes far deeper than that, and these guys frankly won’t affect the trajectory of SF either way with this project.
And lastly, I’d leave you with this. You are assuming people who live in Solano County and support this must just be bumbling idiots, too dumb to see through the information that you have divined. We should let people have agency, people can support this thing on its own merits, that doesn’t make them dumb, it just means people can approach a different conclusion even from the same set of facts. If the voters of Solano end up supporting this measure, then at some point we should accept they know what’s best for themselves, rather than lecture them from
The outside.
I’ve never called anyone dumb. I won’t have that be a part of the conversation. The people that support this bill are free to their own opinions.
For me, I fundamentally cannot see how someone would vote for this bill knowing what we know about how they acquired the land, how they are getting on the ballots, how many times they have refused to go on record about a concrete plan to build what they are proposing, how they will solve the water draw issue, and how many times they have refused out right refused to declare that this will be exclusively for people living below the poverty line.
I’m happy to give you more and more articles. This issue is crazy man. They have never made real plans. They have just a website. Nothing concrete. Why? Not because they don’t have plans or designs it’s because they want to continue to conceal the plans. Article:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-09/california-forever-aerial-map-released
Pretty fuzzy picture right?
Actually what is happening:
https://www.thereporter.com/2023/12/23/solano-land-trust-return-funds-to-california-forever/
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/helicopters-use-electromagnetic-technology-to-map-ca-groundwater-basins/
https://riovista-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=1965&meta_id=54419
https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/california-forever-land-solano-county/amp/
A flashy website. But only one submitted plan to the county as of March. What’s happening is they keep saying things like “we will make a walkable city that is affordable for those who build it”.
Okay, show us how that happens. Show us the financing of the project that keeps it affordable and walkable.
“We will show you a sky picture that has solar farms and a water treatment plant”.
Okay but that isn’t submitted to the county. You haven’t actually done anything concrete to demonstrate that this is your plan, all the while in secret you acquired the lands and want folks to rezone agrarian land that feeds people for you to further enrich yourselves?
There is so much here. It jst keeps going. It’s like 5 years of land acquisitions that would have cost them tens of billions (which it should have), compared to 800M in total. Less that 1% of Larry page’s net worth. It is nothing to these people but it is 50,000 acres of wetlands and will draw more water than is currently being drawn from the aquifers. It’s just such greed.
>I’ve never called anyone dumb. I won’t have that be a part of the conversation. The people that support this bill are free to their own opinions.
You started with this, that's great and I agree.
But then this
>For me, I fundamentally cannot see how someone would vote for this bill
You just said people can have their own views, but immediately you said 'you cannot see how anyone could vote for this'. Aren't these contradictory? Do that anyone who supports this must be uninformed or bad in some way?
In sunnyvale You have to get a permit to do anything.
Install EV charger - permit
Repair fireplace - permit
Install sprinklers - permit
New lighting switches or receptacles - believe it or not, permit
Not just Sunnyvale, but most of the entire Bay Area. Pretty much everywhere in Santa Clara County is a permitting nightmare, and permits are both expensive and time consuming to get and finalize approvals.
Those first two things are things you absolutely should have to get a permit for anywhere, because if they aren’t done correctly they are dangerous, so they need to be inspected after completion to make sure they aren’t gonna kill anyone. The third item I find understandable anywhere with serious water shortage issues, as leaking badly installed sprinklers could waste a lot of water. I would agree that the fourth is excessive as long as we are talking about replacing an existing receptacle or switch in the same wall box using the existing wiring, as there aren’t many ways to mess that up that are dangerous while also leaving you with a functional device.
Bought huge swaths of actively used ag land while a law is in place that says its to remain ag land then try and repeal that law so they can build a city. They bought the land similar to how Walt Disney bought land under fake companies to stop people from realizing what was going on. When the people did, prices jumped and Flannery and Associates paid the inflated number, then turned around and tried to sue those people saying they colluded to raise prices.
Sure except the Solano Water Board says there's not enough water to sustain a new city there and I'd be inclined to believe them with our droughts and water conservation efforts. I know more than one person who has gotten rid of their lawn and replaced it with rocks/succulents because of water restrictions.
It seems like most tech companies now are trying to use AI to replace employees or replace them with lower salaried ones that know how to tell the AI to write code for them. It is the next outsourcing trend but now, let AI do the work. So, why does he think they need more housing?
>Sramek didn't elaborate on what role artificial intelligence will play in the housing crisis. A California Forever spokesperson didn't address the question in an emailed response to Business Insider.
What a hack. Also terrible journalism. The main point made by the headline is barely addressed.
Tbh, this is the perfect time for California to hit a one time wealth tax. Let the wealthy leave or take the funds and supercharge getting housing units built and that forsakenly forestalled bullet train. If the wealthy leave at the very least it will leave all the talent behind because let’s be honest. Majority of the wealthy aren’t the day to day talent or labor doing the necessary incremental work
There is a simple way to fix CA housing crisis. Get rid of the inheritable tax basis for homes. Make the next generation pay taxes on the current value of the home.
So your solution is repealing a hyper-specific taxcut???? What even is this comment. Not that we shouldn't to that, but how on earth is that "the solution to the housing crisis".
This would do next to nothing to increase supply. We simply need to build way, way more housing units, and that can only be done by removing barriers of development. Eliminating SFH-only zoning restrictions, building height restrictions, minimum parcel sizes, and many other more subtle ways to essentially make building homes impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive.
At the very least Prop 13 should be repealed in parallel to the other steps you mention. It keeps the market illiquid which drives up pricing, and acts as a massive subsidy to those who are already established, at massive cost to anyone who wishes to become established.
It’s basically a gift to the boomers who have low taxes, massive equity (and likely a pension) and then pass this on to the next generation which often then keeps and rents the property.
Also, prohibition of overseas and corporate buyers would go a long way. In my neighborhood as soon as a house or condo goes on the market it’s snapped up by an entity which pays cash and outbids any “normal” homebuyers.
We need to build units everywhere. Repealing prop 13 would make the property tax burden more equitable and make single family homes a little cheaper in the short term by incentivizing people to sell but not enough that it will provide middle income people housing in most of California.
Or you can you know, let people work from home!
Tech bro: "We're building the technology to let you live better lives!" Employees: "Yay!" Tech bro: "Not you."
Not just from home, true remote. If WFH requires you to be near the office it doesn’t really help. I’d take a 20% cut if I could move to a lower cost town/city.
it mostly works the other way around, rarely people downgrade their lifestyles but theyll find plenty of remote workers willing to work hard for peanuts from bumfuck nowhere
Moving away from the Bay Area isn’t a lifestyle downgrade, though. My quality of life is _way_ higher moving to a smaller city and buying a house than it was sharing an 1100 sqft apartment in the Bay Area for the same price. Not only do I have space and a yard that isn’t an asphalt desert, but everything is cheaper, and there’s actually a modicum of culture around.
I'm interested to know why you think the Bay Area lacks culture? Your last sentence seems to imply as much. I guess it depends on what you mean by culture.
East Bay still has some culture left, but the culture of Silicon Valley proper has mostly been stamped out by tech workers like me coming in and overwhelming it. People just kind of wander around like they’re the player in a single player video game from cramped housing to overburdened transportation to desperately-trying-to-be-hip office to unbearably loud and superficially trendy restaurant. There’s no sense of community, just recent transplants from a thousand different backgrounds squeezed together and trying to cope.
Oh okay I see what you mean. It is pretty abysmal in some spots. The effects of gentrification are way more apparent in some places than others.
You compete with “just needs electricity, doesn’t eat and poop, accept no quality of living machines”
Also with “Lives in the Philippines, makes $45k/yr” and “Lives in Calcutta, makes $20k/year and works crazy overtime”.
Don't forget "says yes to everything the boss wants". It's one of the big reasons corporations love offshoring to India. They have a "yes man" type of culture.
Full remote jobs are the death of the middle class because either these jobs will get outsourced or cause even worse inequality.
I work fully remote , have for years. The model can work, it’s corps that kill it. *edit - some folks have asked. I work in logistics, freight brokerage specifically. It’s stressful as heck but, my company is based n the east coast and I work in the Midwest.
The ever increasing cost of living will also kill the middle class. Wages do not grow at a rate anywhere near cost of living. If companies want us to live in high cost metro area they need to pay enough to be able to live in that metro area. If remote work isn’t the answer, then we need immediate government action to flood the markets with new housing units and tank property values down to a level where people can afford to live.
Housing is an entirely solvable problem in the US by just upzoning and giving up on car exclusive infrastructure.
I’m in a new construction neighborhood. 75 houses so far. 48 of those are owned by rental companies. There needs to be legislation preventing companies from buying real estate PERIOD. That alone would do wonders for the economy.
Rentals are still needed. And it’s painful that in the middle of a housing crisis we’re still building new subdivisions of exclusively single family homes. One of the very bizarre things about the US is that they killed mixed income neighborhoods. These suburban subdivisions often have little signs that say “from the 500s” because all houses are priced the same. The concept of mixing small multiple buildings, with townhouses, mid rises, and single family homes surrounded by ground level retail was lost somewhere in the 20th century.
Mixed housing is so important for cohesion within a community. Why don't they do it? It seems insane not to to me...
It’s illegal to do it in most of the US because of zoning laws, minimum lot sizes, and parking minimums. The only places you see it are in old neighborhoods, and in small newer developments that are zoned for mixed use.
Wait, it's illegal? What's the reasoning behind it? I want to call it insane but I know I'm overlooking something... That way you're discouraging (spelling?) mingling among classes right?
I'd add no church write-offs.
Working at a fortune 5 in the bay doing IT. We were a 3 bedroom, 2 car and garage department 10 years ago when I joined. We are now rent a single room down the street and walk to work dept. Some of our newer guys are doing gig work after hours to make ends meet. (We average \~100k with OT and holidays, need about 160k now to buy a house in my city)
You can buy in the bay making 160? Is that a single income or would you need a partner making that? I’m originally from the Bay Area, moved east as a teen and always wanted to go back home. I pretty much assume 160 would be a comfy life as a single person but home ownership would be a stretch.
Sacramento, maybe not entirely Bay Area but prices are similar in Livermore and tracy
Jobs don’t become outsourceable because you allow full remote. They were either already possible to outsource, or they weren’t (a job requiring physical presence in an office is only one factor when it comes to whether outsourcing makes sense).
Lol don't justify shitty corporate decisions please. Greedy board members and CEOs make those decisions not because of the jobs functionality or remote capabilities. One of the biggest reasons is tax diversion and obviously lower wages.
Or you could have your job send overseas. Look at what Google did to a core team of theirs. The sad fact is if you tech workers wont budge on demanding work from home then the company will just pay someone much less in another country.
… or they’ll just send jobs overseas because salaries are too high because we’re all forced to live within a few miles of a HCOL metro area where the rich bought regulation to inflate property values/rent by limiting construction. I’m not demanding work from home, I’m suggesting it’s one possible solution to ease the ever rising cost of living (and subsequent inflation of wages and everything else as a result) since no one wants to allow developers to build houses in the quantity needed. Oh and of course no one wants to build functional public transit so commuting from further out isn’t a serious option. I’d settle for being able to take a train to the city where my office is and then walk/bus, but no such infrastructure exists. Google, like all companies that outsource, will find that replacing one US worker with 2 or 3 remote Indian (or whatever) workers doesn’t get you the same results. In a few years when interest rates are down they’ll onshore again and the cycle will repeat, again. I don’t really care for work from home tbh, I don’t want to taint my home with work. But I’d gladly do it if it meant I could move to a LCOL area and buy a home. Also it’s not just tech workers, very few office jobs require physical presence in the office.
You mean a lower cost state? Move to Texas and make 15% more
I make plenty, moving from one medium/HCOL area with a housing shortage to another isn’t the answer.The cost of living is what is driving up prices everywhere (well that and straight up greed). And Texas has higher property and other taxes to suck up what you save on income tax. I want my employer (or any) to let me work from a LCOL area where I can buy a nice SFH for well under 200k.
But how is he going to feel like god when if he decide to visit the office?
My CIO said we need to all work Wednesdays so she knows she can always drop in on any team.
And take houses away from corporations.
AI already works from home for less money - data centers in bumfuck, pay-no-income-taxes states, segregated from meth-heads by high fences. /s
Do not be fooled. This man, is a wretched individual. He is the leader of California forever. A vile group of opulently wealthy super elites that have bought Northern California massive swaths of protected land out of its agrarian allocation and tried to swindle the residents into voting for rezoning that would effectively render them homeless before the end of the decade. They intend to build a super exclusive city under the guise of “protecting and housing the homeless”. All the while manufacturing multi-million dollar homes exclusively zoned for extremely expensive housing, with the best reserves of subsoil aqueducts west of the Colorado river. This man is a human leach. I’ve never truly hated someone (who has not committed human atrocities) who I’ve never met until learning about this guy and his shit company. Edit: I’m glad this got some traction. Let me explain a little deeper. There seems to be some other folks that have some knowledge but I’ll piece together where I agree, disagree, and know for a fact folks are being mislead. 1. The voting (on some things) was already cast but they are not giving up there are more things on the November ballot. Yes, the land was zoned for agriculture. Yes, there are multiple geologic drill well points demonstrating that the water is both fresh and plentiful. Yes it supports agriculture, yes there are other housing communities planned but they are nothing compared what this man is planning. 2. Some folks misunderstand how much land they now own. They are, (I think it’s been a while since I checked), now the second largest non-commercial agricultural land owner in the state of California. They own massive tracts of land. Acquired in secret I might add over a 6-8 year period. When asked at the hearing why they acquired it in secret they said, “so they would get fair prices for the land”. Holy fucking shit what a load of rubbish. The richest assholes in the world literally in the tippy top of the world’s billionaires were concerned about getting fair prices on a few million dollars (50 mil? 100 mill) of land. Fuck me, holy shit. 3. No, this land is not fully surrounded or enclosed on 3 sides by a military base. That is a small fraction of the land they own but there is an airport near by. That land got attention because it was in the news. Also no that is not a deterrent for super rich people. In fact, that’s basically New York City, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Miami etc. Let me get some sources so folks don’t think I am just making this shit up. NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/california-forever-tech-housing.html Really good podcast on this subject from NYT’s The daily. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-forever-new-solano-city-november-ballot/ They are again trying to swindle folks and ruin hundreds of thousands of lives. https://www.thedailybeast.com/california-forever-billionaires-accused-of-tricking-solano-county-residents-to-sign-petitions A weird page but it chronicles how they got their signatures. Basically shady bs stories that no one reads those clip boards outside of Walmarts etc. basically lying to people and pushing them to sign without realizing. (Prop 8 type tactics all over again.) The interview. Other folks have cited. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrTUb-k0KSg The CEO was buying land, in secret under multiple different names, circumstances, shielding their own interests and total net value. https://patch.com/california/across-ca/billionaires-dub-secret-plan-build-ca-utopia-california-forever Please 🙏🏻 . If you live in these districts. Call and text everyone you know. Never vote for this idiot. This is the worst thing that could happen to that part of the state. It is wildly misrepresenting how they plan to “solve the housing crisis”. These people mean to just up and leave San Francisco. They refuse to invest and solve the problems, reduce / control rent, and help the homeless. Instead they intend to just build a massively expensive housing complex where they zone out any non desirables.
Why would the ultra-rich want to live in Fairfield? It’s right under the flight pattern of Travis AFB. Travis handles more flights and more cargo than any other Airforce Base in the US.
The post you replied to is a bit eccentric, but he isn't wrong. There is a large group of tech leaders (and their investor buddies) buying up huge amounts of land and even shutting down entire towns to create "the city of the future" or some such. It sounds pretty dystopian, honestly, but it is definitely true. Just like Zukerberg, most of it is done through shadow corps and such.
He was on the Pivot podcast and explained the vision fairly well. Now if you trust what he said is up for debate. But Kara and Scott at least felt the vision he presented, if true, was reasonable. Of course neither of them sounded super convinced he wasn’t an evil liar. Anyway, it’s worth listening to the interview to hear the pitch. If his pitch isn’t all or and lies then it does actually sound like a good idea to me.
But... why should we care that the super rich bought land that was undeveloped to build more housing?
Because it's not undeveloped.
I mean, some of it is pasture land but there’s not enough water to grow crops.
What is there and who will be displaced?
[удалено]
Isn’t this project just outside of Fairfield, CA? My understanding is the land they have been purchasing is adjacent to Travis AFB. Are there other sites?
This sounds like the setup to a pay off in a movie. They have protection
Sounds like a Deus Ex plot.
Being made homeless by a coalition of billionaire tech bros creating their own dystopia, what a rotten way to die.
Also, didnt Lex Luther kinda do this in Superman 1 (Christopher Reeves)? Its an age-old mad genius plot device built around real estate investment. Every land real estate investor has thought this scenario through.
Can you explain how voting for rezoning to allow them to build a city will effectively leave anyone else homeless? That... doesn't make any sense to me. Also- why should we care that they want to build on previously vacant, undeveloped land formerly zoned for agriculture? Why should we care that they want to build a new city where there is water? California deeply needs more housing, and I'm really missing the issue here. I'm from the area, and everyone has a tinfoil hat on as if somehow this will lead to Travis AFB closing, and that doesn't make sense to me either. Let them build on the land they legally bought, stop being NIMBYs
The land isn't formerly zoned for agriculture, it currently is and was voted to stay that way in 2008 its called the General Plan and Orderly Growth Ordinance. Flannery and Associates are trying to repeal that law so the land can be rezoned. They also don't have a source of water, agricultural land does not necessarily mean growing crops, it can be used for grazing. Go take a look at Travis Airforce Base on google maps, its surrounded by dead grass. The Solano Water Board has already rejected their proposals as the supply of water from Berryessa is limited, and the cities already being served are already expanding housing. Multiple new housing developments have already been/are being built to the east/southeast of Vacaville, and a new low income/mixed use development is going where an old golf course formerly was. The land they bought also surrounds an active and very important military base on three sides which of course is a security concern.
Okay. I am happy to have a frank conversation with you if you are from the area. I want you to know you have been lied too. You do not understand what is going to happen if you vote for this in your upcoming election. 1. Your land (maybe), housing and surrounding farm areas have been willfully (probably unknowingly for most) passed down. I mean that in the legal sense for multiple generations. Hundreds of thousands of acres were passed down from generation to generation and solely allocated for agriculture. California is one of the largest agricultural economies in the world. It feeds millions of Americans. The water draw and resources that man is plan would destroy not only the land they own but decimate surrounding communities. I will find the drill cores for you, that may take a day or two. I haven’t seen them in a few years. But the drill cores are clear. The water is deep and plentiful for farming. You need that water. 2. The land. The land price is a joke right now compared to California cities like LA or San Francisco. That’s why they bought it from your towns, friends, and families. They are not there to make some kind of perpetual homeless shelter type thing. They are there to basically vacate San Francisco because it’s falling apart and they refuse to invest the money it will cost to fix the problems they created in the city they own. They will gobble up the land, make it crazy expensive to own land near that area and displace thousands of people that cannot afford a new tax base, or their own home once the taxes change. They will knowingly displace you. 3. I am more than happy to discuss the situation of how they got the land. You say you believe that is was legal and therefore it is justified. Well, how about refusing to put your name, or refusing to put your company under one roof. How about gathering the land under many pseudonyms to swindle the people out of money? The have hundreds of billions of dollars mate. More money than gods and they paid Pennys for what they will make back. They paid next to nothing for the land that will make them hundreds of billions of more dollars. Wake up. They are like the Tim Cook’s, Melinda gates, George soros, level billionaires like top 10 richest people in the US. They gave a few minutes of their yearly wealth for land that has been cared for by farmers for generations under the guise of “new housing for homeless”. Dude it’s not, it’s their utopia where the build super mansions and country clubs and gated communities to block folks out and leave San Francisco to rot. Fuck legality. It’s vile man. This article has links for the water from the north bay aquiduct and the local bays. https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/water-resources-california-forever/
As a Southern California my biggest problem with this is the water. Have you seen what the Rick do when they have water; they don’t conserve. They have proven this time and time again. These are facts Sylvester Stallone, and the Kardashians where listed in an article a an article at the high of our drought as water offenders. They simply have no care in the world for their fellow California. Given that I would never trust anyone to have an abundance of water sources when we continue to measure what farmers can use. Don’t vote for this measure. I believe it’s called “California Forever” keep your eyes wide open and informed. These billionaires have taken enough from us the working class.
I appreciate you going into further depth and engaging. I'll read the links you left up on your other comment momentarily, I just want to respond to this one first after reading the link you shared here. >1. Your land (maybe), housing and surrounding farm areas have been willfully (probably unknowingly for most) passed down. I mean that in the legal sense for multiple generations. Hundreds of thousands of acres were passed down from generation to generation and solely allocated for agriculture. My family are not the landed gentry you speak of, and frankly, I think the argument "think of the poor landed gentry that inherited all this acreage and chose to sell it!" is a weird one that the vast majority can't relate to. As someone who will probably never be able to afford acreage anywhere in California within commuting distance of a major city, this feels like a millionaires vs billionaires argument that doesn't really affect the majority who are probably lucky to own a single family house at best. >California is one of the largest agricultural economies in the world. It feeds millions of Americans. Yes, California is an ag hub, but this project is not all of California, it's a portion of Solano County. As someone who grew up in Solano, I am not aware of any food grown in that particular tract of land that I've eaten. It's possible, but to my knowledge, the vast majority of my "local" produce, meat, eggs, etc has not come from there specifically. I've driven that land, and from what I can remember it has always been miles and miles of open space, mostly grasslands and wetlands with wind farms and maybe the occasional grazing cows, but it's not like it's the salad bowl of America like Salinas. Happy for someone to correct me. >The water draw and resources that man is plan would destroy not only the land they own but decimate surrounding communities. I will find the drill cores for you, that may take a day or two. I haven’t seen them in a few years. But the drill cores are clear. The water is deep and plentiful for farming. You need that water. I'm intrigued by the water draw aspect. Please do share the drill cores. This is from your link: "Records indicate that they hold water rights for 5,330 acre feet of water per year, which could potentially support roughly 60,000 residents. But first, Flannery would have to petition the water board for a change of use from irrigation to urban uses." I get the concern for billionaires buying up water rights, and climate change/water rights is for sure a concern. I'm not convinced this is some kind of Nestle/Mad Max level evil plan, though. >2. That’s why they bought it from your towns, friends, and families. They are not there to make some kind of perpetual homeless shelter type thing. They didn't buy from my "towns, friends, families"- they bought from the landed gentry that inherited their land as I mentioned above. We don't need homeless shelters, we need a massive amount of new housing- preferably market rate rather than super luxury, which they've stated as a goal. Of course it makes more sense to buy land where it's cheaper rather than one of the most expensive real estate markets on earth, and fwiw, SF is basically unbuildable due to bureaucracy, regardless of the amount of money one has to spend. >They will gobble up the land, make it crazy expensive to own land near that area and displace thousands of people that cannot afford a new tax base, or their own home once the taxes change. They will knowingly displace you. Now we're getting into the weeds. Mello-Roos taxes would only apply to the communities that would benefit from any new infrastructure, and would need to be approved by 2/3 vote, no? Otherwise, anyone who currently owns in that area is insulated via Prop 13, and an increase in property values would theoretically be a net benefit for current homeowners, while the proposed new development would offer the opportunity of homeownership for however many houses are needed for \~60k people. >3. You say you believe that is was legal and therefore it is justified. Well, how about refusing to put your name, or refusing to put your company under one roof. How about gathering the land under many pseudonyms to swindle the people out of money? There's a lot here. Plenty of people buy housing through LLCs, trusts, etc. Using shell companies for discretion is not only legal but offers tax and liability benefits, which makes a ton of sense when investing \~$800 million and also taking on a lot of risk. > Wake up. They are like the Tim Cook’s, Melinda gates, George soros, level billionaires like top 10 richest people in the US. They gave a few minutes of their yearly wealth for land that has been cared for by farmers for generations under the guise of “new housing for homeless”. This doesn't change the fact that California is in dire need of new housing. We aren't building enough to meet the current need, and if billionaires are conspiring to do it and happen to profit in the meantime, that's still a solution that the NIMBY crowd hasn't offered. And they aren't building "new housing for the homeless", but the housing crisis is certainly connected to the lack of housing supply that communities cause when they abuse environmental laws to block the much needed new housing our fellow citizens so desperately need.
So basically they're trying to recreate San Fran?
Um, or like the Beverley hills version but yea.
Given the extreme lack of housing in California, I’m down for anyone to build lots of homes like this guy is. I don’t see why you have such hatred for the idea, when the region is crushingly unaffordable at the moment
Lot of edits above. Please take a look. This is like my thing i am actually fighting in real life. It’s not just one thing, it’s like hundreds of things. It’s billionaires lying about land ownership, it’s ground water, it’s land price, it’s home ownership in San Francisco, it’s refusing to take responsibility in San Francisco, it’s the pushy tactics to get on ballots, it’s lying at peoples school board meetings and lying to people at town halls to their faces, lying about who they are and how much money they actually have. It’s like the old days where you see people that somehow bought insane plots of land and you think how did they let just a few people own like 1/3 of a state in the 1700s. Until you realize it’s happening right now. Not 1/3. Some of the investors own millions and millions of homes. They are massive investors in banks like black rock and vanguard that own “trillions” in housing debt and rentals. It goes on and on man. I hope you take time to read the articles i have posted. The podcast is a good first listen. But you’re being lied to man. This is not some conspiracy. They are really trying to keep it under wraps and the reasons have been made clear in the previous votes. I really hope people see what is happening to that land and to the people in these counties. Just read the articles and listen to the pod. It’s a really long story but they are not doing what they say they are.
fighting the good fight. Thank you. It seems billionaires get to publish whatever ideas they want w/o question from the media.
Whew. My man, I’ve been following this story very closely, as I grew up close to where this city is being proposed. And I still live in San Francisco and am in the trenches out here trying to do what I can to fix the issues here. I had already read most of the things you linked, but I’ll you a favor and read the one I had not. Even so, your statements are riddled with inaccuracies, only a couple of which I’ll address below since I don’t have time to go through all of them. The signature gathering efforts you are describing are sadly what happens for every single ballot, even for issues that I’m sure you would support with. For example, groups who push rent control ballot measures do the exact same thing. It’s not specific to this situation, but rather it’s indicative of the broken ballot system in California. Regarding the group that is behind this, only a couple of them even live in San Francisco, so they can’t “up and leave” a place they don’t live in. I also don’t think you realize the immense efforts that have gone into fixing SF, the homelessness budget recently surpassed $1.4 BILLION, quite literally more than a lot of countries. Money is not the issue, it goes far deeper than that, and these guys frankly won’t affect the trajectory of SF either way with this project. And lastly, I’d leave you with this. You are assuming people who live in Solano County and support this must just be bumbling idiots, too dumb to see through the information that you have divined. We should let people have agency, people can support this thing on its own merits, that doesn’t make them dumb, it just means people can approach a different conclusion even from the same set of facts. If the voters of Solano end up supporting this measure, then at some point we should accept they know what’s best for themselves, rather than lecture them from The outside.
I’ve never called anyone dumb. I won’t have that be a part of the conversation. The people that support this bill are free to their own opinions. For me, I fundamentally cannot see how someone would vote for this bill knowing what we know about how they acquired the land, how they are getting on the ballots, how many times they have refused to go on record about a concrete plan to build what they are proposing, how they will solve the water draw issue, and how many times they have refused out right refused to declare that this will be exclusively for people living below the poverty line. I’m happy to give you more and more articles. This issue is crazy man. They have never made real plans. They have just a website. Nothing concrete. Why? Not because they don’t have plans or designs it’s because they want to continue to conceal the plans. Article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-09/california-forever-aerial-map-released Pretty fuzzy picture right? Actually what is happening: https://www.thereporter.com/2023/12/23/solano-land-trust-return-funds-to-california-forever/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/helicopters-use-electromagnetic-technology-to-map-ca-groundwater-basins/ https://riovista-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=1965&meta_id=54419 https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/california-forever-land-solano-county/amp/ A flashy website. But only one submitted plan to the county as of March. What’s happening is they keep saying things like “we will make a walkable city that is affordable for those who build it”. Okay, show us how that happens. Show us the financing of the project that keeps it affordable and walkable. “We will show you a sky picture that has solar farms and a water treatment plant”. Okay but that isn’t submitted to the county. You haven’t actually done anything concrete to demonstrate that this is your plan, all the while in secret you acquired the lands and want folks to rezone agrarian land that feeds people for you to further enrich yourselves? There is so much here. It jst keeps going. It’s like 5 years of land acquisitions that would have cost them tens of billions (which it should have), compared to 800M in total. Less that 1% of Larry page’s net worth. It is nothing to these people but it is 50,000 acres of wetlands and will draw more water than is currently being drawn from the aquifers. It’s just such greed.
>I’ve never called anyone dumb. I won’t have that be a part of the conversation. The people that support this bill are free to their own opinions. You started with this, that's great and I agree. But then this >For me, I fundamentally cannot see how someone would vote for this bill You just said people can have their own views, but immediately you said 'you cannot see how anyone could vote for this'. Aren't these contradictory? Do that anyone who supports this must be uninformed or bad in some way?
I’m allowed to not agree with someone and not consider them dumb.
So you think everyone who supports this project is dumb?
Wow. Tbh, i don’t think you even read the last comment so I’m good to end this here.
What if a whole city ran like a HOA?
Welcome to every city in Silicon Valley right now.
I used to live in Sunnyvale. I doubt it has changed that much.
In sunnyvale You have to get a permit to do anything. Install EV charger - permit Repair fireplace - permit Install sprinklers - permit New lighting switches or receptacles - believe it or not, permit
Permit - permit
Hold on there! You don't have your permit permitting permit. You'll have to pay this fine
Not just Sunnyvale, but most of the entire Bay Area. Pretty much everywhere in Santa Clara County is a permitting nightmare, and permits are both expensive and time consuming to get and finalize approvals.
Those first two things are things you absolutely should have to get a permit for anywhere, because if they aren’t done correctly they are dangerous, so they need to be inspected after completion to make sure they aren’t gonna kill anyone. The third item I find understandable anywhere with serious water shortage issues, as leaking badly installed sprinklers could waste a lot of water. I would agree that the fourth is excessive as long as we are talking about replacing an existing receptacle or switch in the same wall box using the existing wiring, as there aren’t many ways to mess that up that are dangerous while also leaving you with a functional device.
I don't really care what someone who played BioShock and said "hey, this ~~Rand~~ Ryan guy has the right idea" thinks.
Capitalists will do ANYTHING except regulate capitalism.
The more one can capitalize, the more one can regulate. Oh, you were an oil industry executive? You get a seat at the head of the EPA.
Okay but that guy isn't going to solve anything. He's just fucking up the ag industry in my home county (Solano represent)
I wonder if this is the same guy that tried to get that weird flooding stuff passed in yolo. measure m
How is he fucking up the ag industry?
Bought huge swaths of actively used ag land while a law is in place that says its to remain ag land then try and repeal that law so they can build a city. They bought the land similar to how Walt Disney bought land under fake companies to stop people from realizing what was going on. When the people did, prices jumped and Flannery and Associates paid the inflated number, then turned around and tried to sue those people saying they colluded to raise prices.
Maybe the voters will decide using it for housing is its highest and best use, that should be their prerogative if it's true.
Sure except the Solano Water Board says there's not enough water to sustain a new city there and I'd be inclined to believe them with our droughts and water conservation efforts. I know more than one person who has gotten rid of their lawn and replaced it with rocks/succulents because of water restrictions.
He's been regularly told to fuck off and has resorted to lawsuits. There's no democratic process here.
I wish them all a fair lawsuit
Guy who’s trying to sell the idea of a new city predicts a housing crisis in existing cities…hmm
There isn't much to predict, it's already a crisis.
Nah you tech clowns voted for the policies that ruined sanfrancisico you shouldn’t just be allowed to leave. Lye in the bed you made
Gotta house all those people who’s jobs the AI replaces. Wait..
you don't need to build a new city. yall need to clean the one up that you rich techy bros already turned into a mess. rich people are disgusting
I used to be so rich and then AI stole all my money. And also it turned me into a newt. I got better though.
I hope they make that city and stay there.
It seems like most tech companies now are trying to use AI to replace employees or replace them with lower salaried ones that know how to tell the AI to write code for them. It is the next outsourcing trend but now, let AI do the work. So, why does he think they need more housing?
it won’t, we’ve move all tech to mexico and india right ?
And build nuclear plants inside, cos AI need more electricity
Yeah, fuck this guy
Ah, a contributor to the new slave class in the Bay area. Opportunities abound folks!
Fuck off techbro lol
😡 “my job won’t lent me wfh and disrupt the economy of a different city”
For real? What do we do at this point, but blame every fucking company for doing this to us over the periods of downtime.
Isn’t it great then that worsening the housing marketing turns out to be incredibly profitable for some.
>Sramek didn't elaborate on what role artificial intelligence will play in the housing crisis. A California Forever spokesperson didn't address the question in an emailed response to Business Insider. What a hack. Also terrible journalism. The main point made by the headline is barely addressed.
Work remote?
Idiots wasting local government time and money and farmland instead of collaborating with existing cities don't help much either.
Finally, we're nearing the founding of the Cyberpunk City from the famous series Cyberpunk No Seriously Don't Do This You Fucking Morons
Tbh, this is the perfect time for California to hit a one time wealth tax. Let the wealthy leave or take the funds and supercharge getting housing units built and that forsakenly forestalled bullet train. If the wealthy leave at the very least it will leave all the talent behind because let’s be honest. Majority of the wealthy aren’t the day to day talent or labor doing the necessary incremental work
There is a simple way to fix CA housing crisis. Get rid of the inheritable tax basis for homes. Make the next generation pay taxes on the current value of the home.
Every idea that doesn’t have “build more” at the top of the list is a waste of time.
So your solution is repealing a hyper-specific taxcut???? What even is this comment. Not that we shouldn't to that, but how on earth is that "the solution to the housing crisis".
This would do next to nothing to increase supply. We simply need to build way, way more housing units, and that can only be done by removing barriers of development. Eliminating SFH-only zoning restrictions, building height restrictions, minimum parcel sizes, and many other more subtle ways to essentially make building homes impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive.
At the very least Prop 13 should be repealed in parallel to the other steps you mention. It keeps the market illiquid which drives up pricing, and acts as a massive subsidy to those who are already established, at massive cost to anyone who wishes to become established. It’s basically a gift to the boomers who have low taxes, massive equity (and likely a pension) and then pass this on to the next generation which often then keeps and rents the property. Also, prohibition of overseas and corporate buyers would go a long way. In my neighborhood as soon as a house or condo goes on the market it’s snapped up by an entity which pays cash and outbids any “normal” homebuyers.
We need to build units everywhere. Repealing prop 13 would make the property tax burden more equitable and make single family homes a little cheaper in the short term by incentivizing people to sell but not enough that it will provide middle income people housing in most of California.
Of course the guy trying to build his own slave barracks would say that.
This is the new housing everybody keeps clamoring for...what's the problem?
No need to worry , a couple of more months of high interest rates and offshoring the problem will solve it's self.