Peeling back the headline that statewide population rose 0.17% for the first time in years, yields the news that the Bay Area continues to shrink. Are you wondering why we need to tax the people who remain, to the tune of a $20 billion bond, for "affordable" housing in the Bay Area? Me too. The original news reports put it at $10 billion, but a few billion more here and a few there and voilà--it's $20 billion per the MTC news release. As we noted here, the ink isn't even dry on the measly $6 billion bond that Newsom just rammed through.
Let's go to the tale of the tape:
A net of about 114,000 people immigrated legally into the state from abroad during 2023, up from a net 90,000 people in 2022 and near pre-pandemic levels.
So, trying to outbuild the global desire to move here is a fool's errand most likely to harm those that are still here
Net domestic migration was still negative, with the state losing an estimated 92,000 people last year from internal migration, but that was far less than the approximate 356,000 net loss in 2021.
And the local story was one of shrinkage with slight growth in the "outskirts" of the Bay Area where there is room for projects like California Forever that would be privately funded and developed.
Alameda County -0.5%
San Mateo County -0.5%
Marin County -0.4%
Sonoma County -0.3%
Santa Clara County flat
Napa County +0.4%
Contra Costa County +0.1%
Solano County +0.2%
San Francisco +0.1%
Let's put additional big bonds for "affordable" housing on the back burner, nay back in the fridge, until we see how the regulatory clubs like SB9, builders' remedies, buying up hotels and motels for subsidized housing and Newsom's six bill work out. As Jerry Seinfeld said to George regarding the shrinkage, "I think they know".
The best Seinfeld line ever was "You, you won't make it 'til we get the check!"
Posted by: Paloma Ave | May 01, 2024 at 03:55 PM
It sounds like it was very "Cold"
There is a very Funny Seinfeld episode regarding George and "Shrinkage."
If a Single Person has to pay $2100.00 for a 5-6 hundred square foot Apt.
No Parking.
"Bay Area Diamonds." (Broken Glass on the Ground) F That!
There are good paying Jobs all over the US. Same pay...
Less Diamonds.
HAPPY MAY DAY.
Posted by: hollyroller@ gmail.com | May 01, 2024 at 07:03 PM
Holy - Off the meds again?
Posted by: Paloma Ave | May 01, 2024 at 07:10 PM
Just wondering if I'll ever read a post railing against the boondoggle of "affordable housing" that also cares to address the $$$$ California loses out on missed tax revenue from the chronic, decades-long impact of Prop 13. Or does the money only count when it's applied to non-homeowners?
Also can't wait for the tally when the entire homeowner's insurance market flees the state and you're left with entirely government funded policies. I'm sure there will be a way to justify how that also falls outside of government spending on housing as well.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted by: Fugit All | May 01, 2024 at 09:07 PM
Is that what we're calling it now? "Missed tax revenue"?
Posted by: Fug U | May 01, 2024 at 09:17 PM
@Fug U
I'm merely posing a counter-question to Joe's above:
Are you wondering why we need to tax the people who remain, to the tune of a $20 billion bond, for "affordable" housing in the Bay Area?
And offering that we factor the impact of Prop 13 into such equations. It's a housing tax amendment, after all.
Posted by: Fugit All | May 01, 2024 at 09:24 PM
I have the perfect answer to the problem of the middle class leaving the Bay Area. It's more taxes for property, higher costs for electricity, water, gas, and other peoples houses and of course The Schools. Plus more express lanes. Very progressive.
While I am at it I have the perfect answer to the problem of low wage fast food workers not being able to afford fast food. Let's raise the fast food minimum wage so the Whopper price goes up and the worker can recycle his wages back into the restaurant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/mcdonalds-sales-misses-estimates-customers-cut-back-spending-2024-04-30/
Posted by: Phinancier | May 01, 2024 at 09:33 PM
Thanks, kids. I'll take Fugit All's point at face value and respond. I would assert that the residential side of Prop 13 is what has kept the amount of community we have in place this long.
If property taxes had risen in lockstep with market value--the way realtor commissions have, for example--see that post, we would be much less community-oriented. AirBnB would probably be the default neighbor and Reno, Sparks and Medford, OR would have even more ex-Californians than they do now.
Posted by: Joe | May 01, 2024 at 11:01 PM
So "community" is fostered by allowing government dollars to flow to mortgage loan holders (who also receive federal tax deductions on those loans), but not when allocated toward renters who live and work alongside the very same home owners? Are renters not also community builders?
Why not view a $20M bond as a sort of balancing of the housing tax scales instead of demonizing non-mortgage holders as sponges of tax hikes when mortgage holders already benefit so greatly and perennially?
Posted by: Fugit All | May 01, 2024 at 11:24 PM
You are really not following along. Current homeowners AND current renters are part of the "community", of course. Loading each type of resident up with more bond debt (homeowners directly, renters indirectly via the inevitable rent increases) to benefit FUTURE renters who get the subsidies is what we are talking about.
Your idea of "balancing the tax scales" smells like the progressive idea of "fairness" which is always unfair to whomever they don't like. In this case the YIMBYs don't like people who actually have a backyard. Renters take a lot less risk and have a lot more flexibility, but you don't seem to account for that on the "scale".
Just by the way, we are talking about $20,000M, not $20M! $20M I could stomach. $20 billion, not so much.
Posted by: Joe | May 02, 2024 at 09:57 AM
And right on cue this morning, here is a better way to spend the twenty bill.
California must spend up to $20 billion on transmission line upgrades to support energy transfers to electric vehicles, according to a new Berkeley study. This figure does not include grid stress from further electrification efforts away from gas appliances, and could prove to be significantly higher.
The study’s author estimates that by 2035, 50% of “feeder” transmission lines will be “overloaded by EV charging demand,” a figure that will grow to 67% by 2045. They say the cost of upgrading transmission lines for EVs could cost $6 to $20 billion, or about 10% to 40% of the current transmission system.
--------------------
Drip, drip, drip...authoritarians in Sacramento carving out the middle class again.
Posted by: Joe | May 02, 2024 at 10:00 AM
Dear Paloma. I can take that sort Ribbing from Hillsider. Not You. Don't be a "Richard."
Posted by: hollyroller@ gmail.com | May 02, 2024 at 02:14 PM
Holy - How will I live with myself, when you talk to me like that?
Posted by: Paloma Ave | May 02, 2024 at 06:35 PM
I will come over to your House and explain it to you. It is just a block away.
Posted by: hollyroller@ gmail.com | May 02, 2024 at 06:44 PM
That is truly frightening! I'll be here all day tomorrow, awaiting a package. So, you do know how to use Google?
Posted by: Paloma Ave | May 02, 2024 at 06:58 PM
Hey think about this, if more people are truly leaving maybe all those high price $3,200. plus for a one bedroom apartments along Rollins Road will now become more "affordable" and we won't have to build more.
All the tech workers that these apartments cater to will be gone and prices will go down!
What do you all think?? Possibility?
Posted by: Joanne | May 03, 2024 at 06:09 PM
Shrinkage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsH4aClj-ZY
Posted by: Man Up Burlingame | May 04, 2024 at 01:20 PM
Here's another tidbit for the affordability index:
Starting this year, California’s state disability insurance or SDI tax, which funds paid disability and family leave for participating employees, will apply to an unlimited amount of annual wages. Previously the tax, which is 1.1% this year, applied to a limited amount of wages ($153,164 last year). This has effectively raised California’s highest tax rate on wages to 14.4% from 13.3%.
Posted by: Joe | May 05, 2024 at 11:45 AM