San Diego Housing Crisis

[FaxModem1]

PBS

San Diego’s Housing Crisis Squeezing The Middle Class
Monday, August 8, 2016
By Alison St John

Evening Edition


0:00

Aired 8/8/16 on KPBS Midday Edition.
San Diego's Housing Crisis Squeezing The Middle Class
GUEST:
Alison St John, North County reporter, KPBS News
Transcript
Homeowners in San Diego County may not feel it, but a housing crisis is underway in the region, and the middle class is especially hard squeezed.

Longtime Escondido resident Guy Chandler faced a situation that may be all too familiar to many San Diego families. He described what happened at a recent San Diego County Board of Supervisors' meeting.

“Probably the worst day of my life was in June 2015,” Chandler said. “My daughter, Jenelle, 37 years old, came to me and told me, 'Dad, sit down. There's something you’re not going to like. We have to move out of San Diego County.'”

Chandler’s daughter told him she was planning to take her family and move to another state because she couldn’t find a house in San Diego where she could afford to raise her kids.

“The next two days a lot of hand-wringing and crying went on," Chandler said.

He now communicates with his grandchildren on the web via FaceTime.

“What’s my point?” he asked the board. "My point is, droves of young families are leaving the state of California because they can’t afford to live here.”

Stephen Russell, executive director of the San Diego Housing Federation, July...
By Nicholas McVicker
Stephen Russell, executive director of the San Diego Housing Federation, July 14, 2016.
The housing situation in San Diego is being called a crisis, for both buyers and renters.

Stephen Russell heads the San Diego Housing Federation, which works to produce more low-income housing for renters with the help of government subsidies.

“Since the year 2000, we’ve seen rents increase by about 32 percent, while wages have decreased 2 percent during that same time frame," he said.

This graph compares the rising median rent in San Diego County and the decrea...
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION
This graph compares the rising median rent in San Diego County and the decreasing median income.
More than half of San Diego renters pay more than one-third of their income in rent, Russell said. The San Diego Housing Commission estimates more than 70 percent of San Diegans are now priced out of the market for an average priced home.

Forecasts: We have enough housing capacity

And yet Charles Stoll, director of land use and transportation planning for the San Diego Association of Governments said the region has the space and the capacity to build enough housing to meet the area’s needs.

“Our current forecast shows the planned housing that is contained in all the general plans for all the local jurisdictions — the cities and the unincorporated county — provides enough housing to accommodate the projected need of about 325,000 units between now and the year 2050," Stoll said. "So the current general plans show sufficient capacity to meet that."

But in practice, the gap is widening between what is needed and what is actually built.

Actual construction versus planned construction

Matt Adams, vice president of San Diego’s Building Industry Association, quoted SANDAG when he said the region needs to build 11,000 to 12,000 housing units annually just to keep pace with population growth.

This graph shows the number of permits issued in San Diego County each year.
BIA
This graph shows the number of permits issued in San Diego County each year.
That hasn’t happened since 2005, when 15,000 permits were issued, Adams said. Since then, the numbers have dropped to as low as 3,000 housing units in 2009. Last year, the building industry did get permits for more than 10,000 units countywide.

“I thought it would have gotten more attention," Adams said of the increase in building. “But sadly, it didn’t."

Adams acknowledges there’s a catch in these improving numbers. Even though more of the permits are for multi-family homes rather than single-family units, the homes still are not affordable.

"Of the 10,000 that were produced last year, you had only 229 single-family homes that could be sold at $500,000 or less," Adams said. “And then you had only 471 multi-family homes produced that could be sold for $500,000 or less. The market that is not being met is the market of working middle-class families."

Less middle-income housing built

Adams called the housing market an "hourglass" market, with more houses being built for people at the top and the bottom of the economic ladder than for people in the middle.

The reality is that in the first eight years of building out SANDAG’s fourth housing element cycle — between 2003 and 2010 — the construction industry built 152 percent of the housing needed for above-average earners. Low earners got 26 percent of the housing they needed. Middle-income earners did worst of all — just 18 percent of their construction needs were met.

In first eight years of SANDAG's Fourth Housing Element Cycle, many more permits for homes for high income earners were issued than for low or middle income earners.
CREDIT: SAN DIEGO HOUISNG COMMISSION REPORT, NOV. 2015
In first eight years of SANDAG's Fourth Housing Element Cycle, many more permits for homes for high income earners were issued than for low or middle income earners.
Because of government subsidies, Russell said, more affordable housing is being built for low-income families than for middle-income families. He said a graph of the housing market looks more like a goblet, with a big bowl for upper-income earners, a tiny base for low-income earners, and a thin stem: the squeezed supply for the middle class.

Percentage of San Diego housing needs met by new construction between 2003 an...
JORGE CONTRERAS
Percentage of San Diego housing needs met by new construction between 2003 and 2010.
“You think of the goblet spilling over with supply, and for the top third there is a plethora of choice,” Russell said. “For folks below the top third, there really are not choices.”

In the face of this evidence, the profit-motivated building industry chooses to build for the top end of the market at the expense of the rest, Adams said, citing a 2015 report. It says city regulations are so costly that they drive up the price of construction to the point where building middle- and low-income housing is no longer profitable.

The median income for a family of four in the San Diego region in 2016 is $73,495 a year. So a family of four earning less than $68,000 a year (80 percent of the median) is considered eligible for low-income housing.

Few incentives, no penalties

Russell said part of the problem is that though the state requires cities to submit plans for where housing can be built, few incentives exist to actually build those houses.

“It would be helpful if municipalities actually built according to their community plans and actually met the expectations that they put out in their own local housing elements," Russell said. "If they were to do that, then we could, in fact, meet the local demand for housing.”

Adams of the Building Industry Association said there are no penalties and few incentives motivating cities to follow through on their state-mandated housing plans.

“It’s a paperwork exercise right now,” he said.

In the decade between 2003 and 2013, Carlsbad, for example, issued permits for 231 out of the 3,400 very low-income units that were its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

That assessment allocated 2,645 moderate-income homes as Carlsbad's share of growth, but the city issued only 522 permits.

On the other hand, Carlsbad was allocated 4,800 above moderate-income homes under the regional assessment, and the city actually issued 5,575 permits.

The North Santa Fe Apartments on the Sprinter line in Vista, July 2016.
By Alison St John
The North Santa Fe Apartments on the Sprinter line in Vista, July 2016.
Stoll said SANDAG awards $5 million to $8 million every few years to cities that do a good job of building sustainable, affordable houses near transit lines such as the North Santa Fe Apartments in Vista. But, he said, the regional planning agency has no authority to enforce local land-use plans that call for higher density.

“Each jurisdiction is responsible for pulling their own weight,” Stoll said. “That’s the way it has always been.”

What’s more, Stoll said, the law recently changed to update the housing needs assessment every eight years instead of every five, so the next review of how local jurisdictions are meeting housing needs won’t happen until 2019.

Russell said SANDAG should step up and take more of a leadership role.

“We have had some constructive conversations, but I don’t think that the magnitude of the housing crisis we’re in has really permeated to the minds of all of those board members,” he said. “We have a lot of work ahead of us to get the level of focus and attention and commitment from SANDAG that the issue really deserves.”

Russell and Adams said the challenge is to stop the region from falling farther behind in its plans to meet the needs of future residents. As the economy improves, market forces are doing a good job of providing housing for upper-income residents. Government strategies to encourage affordable housing are struggling to adjust since redevelopment money disappeared in 2012. But housing for middle-income renters and buyers is being squeezed out by shrinking of the land available to build on and a resistance to higher density.

As Escondido's Guy Chandler knows, future house-hunters are not all moving here from other places: They are mostly the children of current residents, and they don’t want to leave San Diego to find a place they can afford to live.

I currently work for a non-profit in the city, and Cost of Living as well as lack of income have made this city a place where you have to be rich to be able to live here, commute for too many hours, or just plain move away.

Thoughts?

[Elfdart]

That's true for much of the Pacific coast in general and California in particular. My sister lived in San Francisco in a little two bedroom house that costs $800,000. She can get a place much bigger here in Texas for about one-tenth that much. She moved to Seattle last year and while it's not the home of the $500,000 fixer-upper like SF (yet), real estate is still expensive as hell.

That's the inevitable result of being a part of the country that is relatively civilized, has moderate climate, and only so much relatively flat land between the ocean and the mountains.

[FaxModem1]

So, what is the future of this? Either the Housing bubble crashes, and the local economies take a downturn. And/or so many people flee the West Coast for elsewhere, because only the rich can afford to live there? What happens to an economy that tells it's middle and lower class to move along?

[General Zod]

So, what is the future of this? Either the Housing bubble crashes, and the local economies take a downturn. And/or so many people flee the West Coast for elsewhere, because only the rich can afford to live there? What happens to an economy that tells it's middle and lower class to move along?

I think San Francisco is a pretty good indication of what happens. You get homeless people who used to be home owners priced out of their houses and forced to live on the streets because they can't afford to go anywhere else.

[FaxModem1]

I think San Francisco is a pretty good indication of what happens. You get homeless people who used to be home owners priced out of their houses and forced to live on the streets because they can't afford to go anywhere else.

So, DS9's Past Tense, instead of being a dystopic view of the future, is actually a solid reflection of modern day America and where it's going? Good to know.

Seriously though, does everyone who doesn't live in San Francisco rent or commute at least two hours everyday? How does their economy work? Further, if this continues, where does this lead?

[Gandalf]

Seriously though, does everyone who doesn't live in San Francisco rent or commute at least two hours everyday? How does their economy work? Further, if this continues, where does this lead?

It's pretty common to leave before 0800 to arrive at 0900 in Sydney.

Here is a thread on the subject.

[General Zod]

I think San Francisco is a pretty good indication of what happens. You get homeless people who used to be home owners priced out of their houses and forced to live on the streets because they can't afford to go anywhere else.

So, DS9's Past Tense, instead of being a dystopic view of the future, is actually a solid reflection of modern day America and where it's going? Good to know.

Seriously though, does everyone who doesn't live in San Francisco rent or commute at least two hours everyday? How does their economy work? Further, if this continues, where does this lead?

Well people can't just keep moving to places that are affordable. Denver used to be affordable ten years ago and now the prices are starting to reach west coast levels because everyone decided to move somewhere affordable. Eventually you're going to run out of affordable places that have jobs.

[Aether]

Maybe not germane to the thread, but when I have head hunters contact me the first thing I ask, "This isn't in California is it?"

My industry would plant me in the Bay Area, and I absolutely refuse to take job there. It's not just housing, owning a car is expensive; the registration fees are crazy.

[Patroklos]

Millenials are more interested in paying for cool than making rational decisions about building wealth. They pack themselves onto Manhattans and Mission Districts regardless of the consequences for the "experiance." The Market is doing its duty and parting idiots from their money. Unfortunetly if you are a poor renter you are a known but convieniently ignored casualty. If you are a poor owner you are sitting on a once in a lifetime opportunity (assuming you can avoid being shamed into staying so the millenials can keep their "authentic" experiance).

[Raj Ahten]

Millenials are more interested in paying for cool than making rational decisions about building wealth. They pack themselves onto Manhattans and Mission Districts regardless of the consequences for the "experiance." The Market is doing its duty and parting idiots from their money. Unfortunetly if you are a poor renter you are a known but convieniently ignored casualty. If you are a poor owner you are sitting on a once in a lifetime opportunity (assuming you can avoid being shamed into staying so the millenials can keep their "authentic" experiance).

Or it could be an even simpler supply vs. demand equation than lol millenials are stupid. In a lot of the super expensive housing markets the available housing stock is limited by geography, planning restrictions or both. The bay area for instance is out of new places to build and unless higher density units like high rises are being built housing prices will continue to go up as long as there is economic growth. Washington DC meanwhile has the retarded limit on building height meaning density is capped so prices got to go up for the remaining stock. Some cities have the misfortune of being investment vehicles for the international elite as well which drives up prices. I will agree that people trying to preserve an "authentic exprience" of a city are fighting a stupid battle though. Either additional density or suburban sprawl is needed for affordable housing growth so stasis isn't an option unless the local economy sucks. People wanting to move somewhere because it offers amenities, not to mention economic opportunity, are a good thing for a city. Growth is always preferable to decay. Better planning and a willingness to embrace density are needed. Then you could get the supply people are demanding.

[General Zod]

Millenials are more interested in paying for cool than making rational decisions about building wealth. They pack themselves onto Manhattans and Mission Districts regardless of the consequences for the "experiance." The Market is doing its duty and parting idiots from their money. Unfortunetly if you are a poor renter you are a known but convieniently ignored casualty. If you are a poor owner you are sitting on a once in a lifetime opportunity (assuming you can avoid being shamed into staying so the millenials can keep their "authentic" experiance).

As cathartic as it might be to shit all over Millenials, it's not going to do anything to fix the housing problem which is exacerbated by a lot more than just Millenials that want to live somewhere "cool".

[Patroklos]

Or it could be an even simpler supply vs. demand equation than lol millenials are stupid.

There is no difference. Supply and demand is a simple a matter of units available and units sought. Thats the end result, but a lot goes into that before you determine what those levels are. In this case price points and willingness to pay yeild the observed results. If buyers generate a demand signal which amounts to "we are willing to pay basically anything regadless of product quality", those with supply have every incentive to max out the profitability of avaliable inventory which involves a transition cost of basically zero before looking to increase supply. Once that happens they are incentivized to seek new supply at the lowest transaction cost posible which would be conversions and subdividing of existing properties. Once that it done, only then does new building become attractive, but only if the competition between prospective tenents for the exisitng supply doesn't increase rent prices at a rate that makes hiking rents for, again, zero transaction costs on the part of the property owners more attractive than building in they dystopian regulator enviroment that is CA. Sure, you might make more money in the long run building more buildings, and many are, but for most that represents a large opportunity cost. Raising rents, if they spaces can be filled instantly, has no opportunity cost. And pays off starting next month.

Which is not to say building is not happening, nobody who lives in the SF Bay area (me, until three weeks ago) would make such a statment. Constuction is everywhere. Its not enough to dent demand though, so its largely irrelevant to depressing rents though it may help to stabalize them.

As long as there is a ready supply of idiots willing to pay anything for decrepid shoeboxes, whether they be millenials or otherwise, and as long as building remains an artificially expensive option, the money is made by raising rents or subdividing/converting existing inventory or both.

[Raj Ahten]

Well I would certainly agree places like the bay area will need to change how they do things if keeping housing affordable is a goal otherwise they risk choking on growth. I wonder, how much of this construction is higher density and how much is larger luxury development that doesn't add any new capacity? I also question how much nimbyism and "well meaning" people who don't want to See neighborhoods change are actually driving up rents by stopping even helpful developments.

Also clearly the cultural capital of many cities such as New York, San Francisco etc is worth enough to many people that they are willing to sacrifice housing size or quality to live there. I'm not sure that makes them fool's though. A short commute is worth a hell of a lot for me coming from the D.C. area. I could theoretically have living quarters twice as big but then I'd have to submit to sitting in the car for hours every day and screw that! It's a complicated calculus though and at some point rising dollar costs can easily be decisive.

[Elfdart]

Well, thanks to the greed and stupidity of Dean Spanos, there might be an opening to build affordable housing in Mission Valley, along with major expansion of SDSU

LINK

It’s been clear for years that San Diego may do better, economically speaking, without the Chargers — if keeping the team had required tax dollars to help them build a new stadium.

The research is overwhelming. Public subsidies for professional sports venues almost never pay for themselves, and the really expensive ones demanded by the National Football League tend to lose money for taxpayers.

Big stadiums sit empty most of the year. Filling those seats on any given day just pulls spending from something else in town, because family entertainment budgets are finite. And visiting fans cause barely a ripple in San Diego’s giant tourism economy.

So why do I say “may do better” without the team? Because taxpayers must live with very real choices about the usually abstract idea of opportunity cost: Doing any one thing is properly measured against the value you give up by not doing something else.

For San Diego, this boils down to how wisely its elected leaders decide what comes next for the 166 acres occupied by crumbling Qualcomm Stadium, now that the Chargers say they will move to Los Angeles. This is prime real estate in the center of Mission Valley, with its own trolley stop and near three freeways.

The opportunity has provoked drooling from here to Texas.

Wealthy boosters of San Diego State University would love to grab the entire parcel to build a second campus, featuring a smaller stadium shared by the Aztecs football team and professional soccer. Opposing them, or perhaps joining them, are local and national developers hoping to build as many as 6,000 condo and apartment units, plus retail stores.

Both camps acknowledge that environmental law ensures any development will include a park along the San Diego River.

Here’s the challenge, economically speaking. That land is owned by the city, with half the acreage legally bound to benefit customers of its water district. So its fate will be decided in the sausage factory of local politics, and not by King Solomon.

Theory suggests the clear winner is higher education. In a classic 1956 paper, economist Robert Solow (who later won a Nobel prize) argued that “human capital” is key to further economic growth once basic resources like money and raw materials are in place. Indeed, he calculated that half of all economic growth is caused by technological innovation.

Solow’s insight has been confirmed by hundreds of later economists, not to mention the astonishing rise in living standards around the world as technology made workers vastly more productive in hundreds of industries.

Yet for all its success over the years, San Diego’s knowledge engine has reached its speed limit. The best example is San Diego State University, which turns away 70 percent of its applicants for admission in a typical year.

For all its new buildings and associate deans of whatever, the university simply isn’t growing where it matters — the number of students it educates each year.

Records show that SDSU enrolled the equivalent of 31,527 full-time students in the fall term of 2016, just 1 percent more than the 31,175 at school a decade ago.

For perspective, a forecast produced alongside the university’s master plan in 2007 called for adding 10,000 students by 2025, nearly doubling its regional economic contribution to $4.5 billion a year.

Unlike new apartment buildings, which start depreciating the day they are finished, most of those 10,000 additional knowledge workers each year would just keep increasing their contributions to San Diego’s economy for decades, right up to retirement.

Solow, noting that SDSU’s frozen student population is crammed onto 283 acres just three trolley stops away from Qualcomm Stadium, might say the obvious decision is to simply give the land away to the university, pronto.

But we must wonder why SDSU’s administrators have frozen their most important asset. Officials have blamed state budget turmoil for their failure to teach more students.

Given growth in state funding since the recession, that answer strains credulity. More to the point, if SDSU can’t grow a whit over a decade, what makes us think it can teach more students simply because it has more land?

The risk is that Mission Valley will simply become a playground for the sports department. A successful football program would raise revenue for the school, certainly, but it wouldn’t help the economy much.

No, the surer thing, economically at least, would come from 6,000 new housing units on half of those 166 acres. Legal obstacles would be high and such a project would require years, perhaps even some ballot-box zoning, but San Diego’s major economic problem is lack of housing that workers can afford.

As for affordability, the market could be expected to deliver units priced for the middle class, no public subsidy required. There simply aren’t enough consumers for 6,000 more of the kind of luxury units being absorbed downtown, given that nearly 9,000 apartments and townhouses are in planning or under construction already, up and down Friars Road.

The traffic would be nightmarish, but determined developers have persuaded politicians to look the other way for years in San Diego. There’s little reason to think they will stop now.

Speaking of traffic, a university can ban students from bringing cars on campus. Qualcomm could easily become the most transit-friendly development in history, with parking spaces limited to supporting a stadium.

So in theory, giving those juicy 166 acres to the university could pump many billions into San Diego’s economy for decades, even centuries.

But in the real world, this good idea only works if administrators and their private boosters can convince the public that they can fill Mission Valley with classroom towers and thousands of dormitories.

Last week, Mayor Kevin Faulconer told the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board that he would “work with” university officials to do something great at the site. Offering to donate the land in return for iron-clad guarantees of 10,000 more students would fit that description nicely.

If San Diego settles for merely a college stadium at old Qualcomm, taxpayers are little better off than if they had helped Dean Spanos build a palace for the NFL.

dan.mcswain@sduniontribune.com (619) 293-1280 ▪Twitter: @McSwainUT

[Block]

Millenials are more interested in paying for cool than making rational decisions about building wealth. They pack themselves onto Manhattans and Mission Districts regardless of the consequences for the "experiance." The Market is doing its duty and parting idiots from their money. Unfortunetly if you are a poor renter you are a known but convieniently ignored casualty. If you are a poor owner you are sitting on a once in a lifetime opportunity (assuming you can avoid being shamed into staying so the millenials can keep their "authentic" experiance).

Or it could be an even simpler supply vs. demand equation than lol millenials are stupid. In a lot of the super expensive housing markets the available housing stock is limited by geography, planning restrictions or both. The bay area for instance is out of new places to build and unless higher density units like high rises are being built housing prices will continue to go up as long as there is economic growth. Washington DC meanwhile has the retarded limit on building height meaning density is capped so prices got to go up for the remaining stock. Some cities have the misfortune of being investment vehicles for the international elite as well which drives up prices. I will agree that people trying to preserve an "authentic exprience" of a city are fighting a stupid battle though. Either additional density or suburban sprawl is needed for affordable housing growth so stasis isn't an option unless the local economy sucks. People wanting to move somewhere because it offers amenities, not to mention economic opportunity, are a good thing for a city. Growth is always preferable to decay. Better planning and a willingness to embrace density are needed. Then you could get the supply people are demanding.

DC is for security reasons. It's not stupid. What's stupid is the lack of upkeep and upgrades to public transportation. As for SF, what will likely happen is that it gets left behind a bit as SJ and Oakland surpass it in importance.

[LadyTevar]

DC is for security reasons. It's not stupid. What's stupid is the lack of upkeep and upgrades to public transportation. As for SF, what will likely happen is that it gets left behind a bit as SJ and Oakland surpass it in importance.

No. DC is for Sight-lines and Tourism. They have actual laws about blocking the view of the National Mall.

[Block]

DC is for security reasons. It's not stupid. What's stupid is the lack of upkeep and upgrades to public transportation. As for SF, what will likely happen is that it gets left behind a bit as SJ and Oakland surpass it in importance.

No. DC is for Sight-lines and Tourism. They have actual laws about blocking the view of the National Mall.

No, it's for security. There are specific areas that have the zoning laws you're talking about, but there are laws covering the entire city that are about air defense and snipers.

[Patroklos]

I would like you to provide a source for that. For one taller buildings, while providing good places to snipe from, also restrict the the range they can shoot if there are more than a few of them around. If there is one singular tall building like a university clock tower sure. But I bet I have better shot lines from my old three story highschool in my suburban town than a guy in the 40th floor of a Manhattan condo building.

The actual reason...

Washington's history of skyscrapers began with the completion in 1894 of the 14-story Cairo Hotel, which is considered to be the city's first high-rise.[3][4] The building rises 164 feet (50 m) and 14 floors.[3] Washington went through an early high-rise construction boom from the late 1890s to the mid-1930s, during which time the Old Post Office Building and the Federal Triangle were built. The city then experienced a major building boom from the early 1940s to the late 1990s, during which the city saw the completion of 31 of its 48 tallest buildings, including One Franklin Square and 700 Eleventh Street. However, although the city is home to several high-rises, none are considered to be genuine "skyscrapers"; only two completed buildings surpass 200 feet (61 m).

The height of buildings in Washington is limited by the Height of Buildings Act. The original Act was passed by Congress in 1899 in response to the 1894 construction of the Cairo Hotel, which is much taller than the majority of buildings in the city. The original act restricted the heights of any type of building in the United States capital city of Washington, D.C., to be no higher than 110 feet (34 m), 90 feet (27 m) for residential buildings. In 1910, the 61st United States Congress enacted a new law which raised the overall building height limit to 130 feet (40 m), but restricted building heights to the width of the adjacent street or avenue plus 20 feet (6.1 m); thus, a building facing a 90-foot (27 m)-wide street could be only 110 feet (34 m) tall.[5] However, building heights are measured from the sidewalk or curb to the edge of the roof. Architectural embellishments, mechanical rooms, and common rooftop structures may be exempted from the overall height limit, provided they are setback from the roof line.[6][7] The heights of buildings listed here may therefore exceed the general height limit as measured for the purpose of the city's zoning laws.


Arlington's Rosslyn and Crystal City skylines as seen from Georgetown University
In modern times the skyline remains low and sprawling, keeping with Thomas Jefferson's wishes to make Washington an "American Paris" with "low and convenient" buildings on "light and airy" streets.[5] Washington's height restriction, however, has been assailed as one of the primary reasons why the city has inflated rents, limited affordable housing, and traffic problems as a result of urban sprawl. To escape the District's height restriction, architects wishing to construct higher buildings close to downtown often do so in Rosslyn, Virginia, directly across the Potomac River from Georgetown.[5]

I am pretty sure they were not worried about high powered sniper riffles or air traffic in 1899....

[LadyTevar]

West Virginia also has this problem. We have LOTS of available houses, but none of them are affordable because the middle and lower class can't get the loans to buy them.

[Elheru Aran]

West Virginia also has this problem. We have LOTS of available houses, but none of them are affordable because the middle and lower class can't get the loans to buy them.

California's situation is more that housing in the urban areas is ridiculously expensive, beyond the reach of people's wages, and thus they're being forced to either consistently live beyond their means, or commute a long distance. I'm not sure if that's the situation in WV or if it's more that wages and other economic conditions in WV simply aren't coming up to the standards of the various creditors.

[Gandalf]

I would like you to provide a source for that. For one taller buildings, while providing good places to snipe from, also restrict the the range they can shoot if there are more than a few of them around. If there is one singular tall building like a university clock tower sure. But I bet I have better shot lines from my old three story highschool in my suburban town than a guy in the 40th floor of a Manhattan condo building.

The actual reason...

*more content*

In modern times the skyline remains low and sprawling, keeping with Thomas Jefferson's wishes to make Washington an "American Paris" with "low and convenient" buildings on "light and airy" streets.[5] Washington's height restriction, however, has been assailed as one of the primary reasons why the city has inflated rents, limited affordable housing, and traffic problems as a result of urban sprawl. To escape the District's height restriction, architects wishing to construct higher buildings close to downtown often do so in Rosslyn, Virginia, directly across the Potomac River from Georgetown.[5]

So a city's architectural rules and restrictions are dictated by the fact that Thomas Jefferson had a case of Paris envy?

[Alyrium Denryle]

West Virginia also has this problem. We have LOTS of available houses, but none of them are affordable because the middle and lower class can't get the loans to buy them.

California's situation is more that housing in the urban areas is ridiculously expensive, beyond the reach of people's wages, and thus they're being forced to either consistently live beyond their means, or commute a long distance. I'm not sure if that's the situation in WV or if it's more that wages and other economic conditions in WV simply aren't coming up to the standards of the various creditors.

In WV it is the latter. There are areas that would be at Third World living standards without things like food stamps and Sec 8 Housing.

[LadyTevar]

West Virginia also has this problem. We have LOTS of available houses, but none of them are affordable because the middle and lower class can't get the loans to buy them.

California's situation is more that housing in the urban areas is ridiculously expensive, beyond the reach of people's wages, and thus they're being forced to either consistently live beyond their means, or commute a long distance. I'm not sure if that's the situation in WV or if it's more that wages and other economic conditions in WV simply aren't coming up to the standards of the various creditors.

In WV it is the latter. There are areas that would be at Third World living standards without things like food stamps and Sec 8 Housing.

Unfortunately, he's right. Back in the 70s-80s, WV was in the top ten for home-ownership. Then the 80s rolled on WV lost a major portion of its manufacturing and mining jobs. That made WV's population drop from 1.95mil in 1981 to 1.79mil in 1991, as all the young professionals left to find better jobs.
The jobs left pay an average of $10/hr, and may only be 25hrs/week. My apartment is $450/month and is the cheapest in the city. Average rent is $550-650, even outside the city. A house rents for $1200, and sells for $45k for a two bedroom in a bad neighborhood. The good neighborhoods are $75k, and the best ones have houses they've been trying to sell for 10yrs at $1mil for 4bedroom, riverside property.

[Zaune]

Your state couldn't disassemble a few thousand of 'em and ship them internationally, by any chance? A two-bedroom house in my neck of the woods sells for about four times that, and we're basically flyover country.

[General Zod]

Your state couldn't disassemble a few thousand of 'em and ship them internationally, by any chance? A two-bedroom house in my neck of the woods sells for about four times that, and we're basically flyover country.

It's all about amenities and service.