My Bike Path in the News

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers of
housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo in
rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore,
a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some couch-surfing
they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then they are on the
street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market not development costs, particularly since much of the rental stock in most cities is old construction. Development costs will affect cap rates for new multi-family, but that just means that new construction has to be nice enough to justify the rent to generate a cap rate better than just buying a 10 year t-bill, although with the Trump tax boondoggle, you're better-off developing property than just buying t-bills. In any event, rents will be set at the level the market will bear -- unless you have communist rent controls.

If development costs were so high that you didn't get new multi-family, then you would have supply problems, but considering you're about to see an explosion of building in Folsom, I'm getting the sense that's not the case. You'e headed toward urban blight like the rest of the West.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business...211168769.html Oh boy! The Donner Party meets Levittown.

The fact is, people want to live in the "left leaning states," and particularly in sunny California -- and even more so where the high-paying jobs are located in the Silicon Valley, and thus rents are through the roof. High rents drive development and most planning jurisdictions want to allow multi-family to meet population pressures. In-fill gets big, zoning changes from single family to single-family plus ADU and other permutations to allow increased density, etc., etc. The communists-in-charge generally demand some percentage of low-income housing or provide some incentive for low-income housing, which often gets gamed by either the renters or the developers, but hey, that's capitalism! Real estate 101. SMS can check my math on zoning trends. Rents have taken a small dip here in PDX because of the multi-family housing boom. Everyone jumped into the market, and the City -- with all of its left-leaning-ness -- jumped in with them.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/30/2018 8:45 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers of
housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo in
rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore,
a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some couch-surfing
they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then they are on the
street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market not development costs, particularly since much of the rental stock in most cities is old construction. Development costs will affect cap rates for new multi-family, but that just means that new construction has to be nice enough to justify the rent to generate a cap rate better than just buying a 10 year t-bill, although with the Trump tax boondoggle, you're better-off developing property than just buying t-bills. In any event, rents will be set at the level the market will bear -- unless you have communist rent controls.

If development costs were so high that you didn't get new multi-family, then you would have supply problems, but considering you're about to see an explosion of building in Folsom, I'm getting the sense that's not the case. You'e headed toward urban blight like the rest of the West.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business...211168769.html Oh boy! The Donner Party meets Levittown.

The fact is, people want to live in the "left leaning states," and particularly in sunny California -- and even more so where the high-paying jobs are located in the Silicon Valley, and thus rents are through the roof. High rents drive development and most planning jurisdictions want to allow multi-family to meet population pressures. In-fill gets big, zoning changes from single family to single-family plus ADU and other permutations to allow increased density, etc., etc. The communists-in-charge generally demand some percentage of low-income housing or provide some incentive for low-income housing, which often gets gamed by either the renters or the developers, but hey, that's capitalism! Real estate 101. SMS can check my math on zoning trends. Rents have taken a small dip here in PDX because of the multi-family housing boom. Everyone jumped into the market, and the City -- with all of its left-leaning-ness -- jumped in with them.

Rents are coming down in the SF Bay Area, but from historic highs.
Developers are having trouble renting high-end apartments in new
developments.

I'm just waiting for the "Denver Solution" to be proposed, where there
is a huge over-supply of market rate apartments, but the property owners
won't adjust rents so they can be rented. The solution is for the city
to subsidize the market-rate units so they can be rented to those unable
to afford the market rent. Brilliant! "...the program has critics,
including some who fear that the city is only perpetuating high-market
rents by helping owners of vacant rental units fill them."

In California, there are some people that feel that the fees developers
pay are too low, because they don't cover the infrastructure costs for
schools, water, roads, transit, etc.. There are some that feel that the
fees are too high because it raises the cost of construction. But no one
should ever believe that rents and for-sale prices are determined by the
cost of construction, these are determined by the market. However there
are cases where the market rents and prices do not make a project
financially viable, and it is not built.

On 2018-07-30 08:09, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-29 11:37, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:37:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Disgusting. You may need more conservative city leader who don't let
things deteriorate that far.

Hmm. Lawn order is the solution?


To a large extent, yes. Blocking a traffic pathway without a permit is
illegal and a bike path is a traffic pathway.

Many people who travel there have said that New York is now remarkably
clean in most parts because NYPD started to take a hard stance on this
issue. Needless to say there is a lot of caterwauling about that from
the usual suspects but it seems to work.

Sacramento is almost the opposite. They have a mayor who promises to
throw lots of money at homelessness, lots of free stuff and whatnot. A
short time later he was publicly "wondering" about the fast rise in
homeless population. Duh! As a cyclist I could have told him why but I
am rather sure he wouln't listen. The number of homeless in the
Placerville area east of Sacramento that we encounter on the El Dorado
Trail bike path has seriously dropped. Guess why ...

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers
of housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo
in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there.
Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then
they are on the street.



Left leaning? Last time I was in New Orleans I was shocked by the
number of tent farms under the overpasses. Louisiana has been bible
thumping conservative since the Dixiecrats in the 70s.


Then why did they elect Billy Nungesser, a Democrat, as governor?

However, it often boils down to cities themselves and their local
leadership. This is almost blatantly obvious where I live. Sacramento
has a (predictably) huges homeless problem while it is less of a problem
in cities east of there, such as the ones in El Dorado County. Even
left-leaning guys start realizing that now.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...finest-cities/

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states
such as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to
developers of housing. The result is that we now have many places
where $1000/mo in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk
bed in there. Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial
cliff. After some couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they
lose the car, then they are on the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market not
development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in
most cities is old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in general
and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in its infinite
wisdom is demanding that every new building must have solar. That will
add at least $10k to the construction of the space that would house a
family. This borders on daftness.


... Development costs will affect cap
rates for new multi-family, but that just means that new construction
has to be nice enough to justify the rent to generate a cap rate
better than just buying a 10 year t-bill, although with the Trump tax
boondoggle, you're better-off developing property than just buying
t-bills. In any event, rents will be set at the level the market will
bear -- unless you have communist rent controls.


Which many cities have, and that is a serious part of the problem.


If development costs were so high that you didn't get new
multi-family, then you would have supply problems, but considering
you're about to see an explosion of building in Folsom, I'm getting
the sense that's not the case. You'e headed toward urban blight like
the rest of the West.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business...211168769.html
Oh boy! The Donner Party meets Levittown.


As I've said before, Folsom does a lot of things right. Including bike
paths which are mandatory in that area in your link and are currntly
being built out. However, this sort of housing is for the reasonably
affluent. People that work at places such as Intel or Micron. It does
not help John Doe who works a day shift at the burger place and a
security service job at night.


The fact is, people want to live in the "left leaning states," and
particularly in sunny California -- and even more so where the
high-paying jobs are located in the Silicon Valley, and thus rents
are through the roof.


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses in
half.


... High rents drive development and most planning
jurisdictions want to allow multi-family to meet population
pressures. In-fill gets big, zoning changes from single family to
single-family plus ADU and other permutations to allow increased
density, etc., etc. The communists-in-charge generally demand some
percentage of low-income housing or provide some incentive for
low-income housing, which often gets gamed by either the renters or
the developers, but hey, that's capitalism! Real estate 101. SMS
can check my math on zoning trends. Rents have taken a small dip
here in PDX because of the multi-family housing boom. Everyone
jumped into the market, and the City -- with all of its
left-leaning-ness -- jumped in with them.


Rents do not show any sort of dip here in Norcal cities.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 30/07/2018 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:09, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-29 11:37, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:37:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Disgusting. You may need more conservative city leader who don't let
things deteriorate that far.

Hmm.Â* Lawn order is the solution?


To a large extent, yes. Blocking a traffic pathway without a permit is
illegal and a bike path is a traffic pathway.

Many people who travel there have said that New York is now remarkably
clean in most parts because NYPD started to take a hard stance on this
issue. Needless to say there is a lot of caterwauling about that from
the usual suspects but it seems to work.

Sacramento is almost the opposite. They have a mayor who promises to
throw lots of money at homelessness, lots of free stuff and whatnot. A
short time later he was publicly "wondering" about the fast rise in
homeless population. Duh! As a cyclist I could have told him why but I
am rather sure he wouln't listen. The number of homeless in the
Placerville area east of Sacramento that we encounter on the El Dorado
Trail bike path has seriously dropped. Guess why ...

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers
of housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo
in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there.
Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then
they are on the street.



Left leaning?Â* Last time I was in New Orleans I was shocked by the
number of tent farms under the overpasses.Â* Louisiana has been bible
thumping conservative since the Dixiecrats in the 70s.


Then why did they elect Billy Nungesser, a Democrat, as governor?


Nungesser is a republican and was the Lt. Governor. You must mean Bel
Edwards.

However, it often boils down to cities themselves and their local
leadership. This is almost blatantly obvious where I live. Sacramento
has a (predictably) huges homeless problem while it is less of a problem
in cities east of there, such as the ones in El Dorado County. Even
left-leaning guys start realizing that now.

So what was your point? Jindal was governor for 2 terms before Edwards
which probably explains a lot of why a dem won this time. In Louisiana
politicians are crooks from both sides. The homeless problem has more
to do with the price of oil than social programs.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...finest-cities/

On 2018-07-30 11:53, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:09, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-29 11:37, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:37:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Disgusting. You may need more conservative city leader who don't let
things deteriorate that far.

Hmm. Lawn order is the solution?


To a large extent, yes. Blocking a traffic pathway without a permit is
illegal and a bike path is a traffic pathway.

Many people who travel there have said that New York is now remarkably
clean in most parts because NYPD started to take a hard stance on this
issue. Needless to say there is a lot of caterwauling about that from
the usual suspects but it seems to work.

Sacramento is almost the opposite. They have a mayor who promises to
throw lots of money at homelessness, lots of free stuff and whatnot. A
short time later he was publicly "wondering" about the fast rise in
homeless population. Duh! As a cyclist I could have told him why but I
am rather sure he wouln't listen. The number of homeless in the
Placerville area east of Sacramento that we encounter on the El Dorado
Trail bike path has seriously dropped. Guess why ...

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers
of housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo
in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there.
Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then
they are on the street.



Left leaning? Last time I was in New Orleans I was shocked by the
number of tent farms under the overpasses. Louisiana has been bible
thumping conservative since the Dixiecrats in the 70s.


Then why did they elect Billy Nungesser, a Democrat, as governor?


Nungesser is a republican and was the Lt. Governor. You must mean Bel
Edwards.


Yes, sorry, I meant John Edwards. AFAIK Nungesser is still Lt.Governor.

AFAIR the legislature in Lousiana was pretty hardcore democratic until
the "big shellacking" happened eight years ago. For a while they even
had a republican governor but you can't turn a big ship on a dime. We
also had a republican govenor in CA (Schwarzenegger) but his hands were
tied.



However, it often boils down to cities themselves and their local
leadership. This is almost blatantly obvious where I live. Sacramento
has a (predictably) huges homeless problem while it is less of a
problem in cities east of there, such as the ones in El Dorado County.
Even left-leaning guys start realizing that now.

So what was your point? Jindal was governor for 2 terms before Edwards
which probably explains a lot of why a dem won this time. In Louisiana
politicians are crooks from both sides. The homeless problem has more
to do with the price of oil than social programs.


It has to do with social programs. This is one reason they flock to
cities because that's where a lot of the infrastructure is that was put
in place for them. It can hardly become more obvious than where I live.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses in
half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/30/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:


No, all I am saying is that if a person has or retains the ability to be
nice to other people they have a good chance of turning their misery
around. Like this guy did who was on our local TV yesterday:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/28/homele...of-job-offers/

Decency goes a long ways and that applies to every person, including the
homeless.

The guy you highlighted there has a bachelor's degree in MIS. He claims
to work in about a dozen programming languages and several environments.
He claims some pretty high-tech job experience. So I doubt very much
he's a typical homeless person, and I doubt very much that most homeless
people could get the results he did.

As usual, you think you have ultra-simple solutions to complex problems.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states
such as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to
developers of housing. The result is that we now have many places
where $1000/mo in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk
bed in there. Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial
cliff. After some couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they
lose the car, then they are on the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market not
development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in
most cities is old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in general
and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in its infinite
wisdom is demanding that every new building must have solar. That will
add at least $10k to the construction of the space that would house a
family. This borders on daftness.

Why? $10K is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a house, and it probably comes with tax rebates, the federal ITC and whatever the California commies are willing to hand out. Plus, it results in cost savings for energy and is not polluting like your dreadful pellet stove. And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new homes, it actually reduces your energy bills and pays for itself over time and produces a net savings over its life expectancy, at least according to the literature. If it were truly bad, you can bet the building industry lobby would crush it.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/