Berkeley’s ‘Effort to Right Wrongs of the Past’ Ends Single Family Homes

T. A. Gardner said:
Apartments are commercial properties. They are zoned multi-use residential not purely residential. Apartment complexes are generally owned by the wealthy or by corporations. The people renting them are not owners. The difference is that renters aren't owners whereas with owners in a property the value of the neighborhood generally doesn't decline dramatically like it will with lots of renters, particularly if that neighborhood is in a deteriorating part of town. Gentrification of older neighborhoods is better than turning them into run down slums
Click to expand...

The legislation is calling for the scraping of single family zoning and allowing the construction of fourplexes. Fourplexes are residential. Once you get to five units or more that’s commercial. They’re not talking about commercial here. It’s not about putting big multi family development next to single family homes.

But that aside where do you expect people who don’t own single family homes or condos to live? Any market based housing (including multi family) being built in the Bay Area is high end. It doesn’t pencil out otherwise.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Apartments are commercial properties. They are zoned multi-use residential not purely residential. Apartment complexes are generally owned by the wealthy or by corporations. The people renting them are not owners. The difference is that renters aren't owners whereas with owners in a property the value of the neighborhood generally doesn't decline dramatically like it will with lots of renters, particularly if that neighborhood is in a deteriorating part of town. Gentrification of older neighborhoods is better than turning them into run down slums
Click to expand...

first of all, zoning designations are not universal......around here apartments can be built in R2 and R3 zones but not in commercial zoning.......second, you apparently have chosen to completely ignore condominiums.......
 
Legion said:
Why can't the market determine that instead of the government?
Click to expand...

because people with incredible amounts of money can price the majority of people out of the marketplace.......I don't think Hunter Biden and his Chinese friends should own 540 square blocks of Los Angeles, tear it all down and build a dormitory for their hookers, just because they want to.......even if the Big Guy gets his 10%.......it should be zoned exclusively for high density housing and they be required to build accordingly.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because people with incredible amounts of money can price the majority of people out of the marketplace.......I don't think Hunter Biden and his Chinese friends should own 540 square blocks of Los Angeles just because they want to.......even if the Big Guy gets his 10%.......
Click to expand...

Interesting. I always thought you were a free marketeer.
 
This has nothing at all to do with social "justice", you know why they're doing this? Control.

People living in attached housing are subject to rules and regulations that people in single family dwellings are not.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, you are talking about turning residential lots into commercial properties that don't fall under Prop 13 and putting renters in those properties perpetually. The California housing crisis is a self-made one by government.

All the owners of these new apartments will be big corporations and rich landlords. They'll use property management companies to deal with the tennants and the maintenance people will live somewhere else besides Berkeley. So, some guy like me will drive 30 miles or more to Berkeley to fix some apartment. They (like me) will charge a trip charge of $10 to $30 to make the drive, then charge $30 to $50 an hour to fix whatever the problem is plus materials at a 50% mark up, and all that will be tacked onto next year's rent increase.

So, Berkeley is likely to then impose rent controls and that's when these apartments all become slums because the owners know it's cheaper to be sued than fix them up.
Click to expand...

Just to offer some context check out this bad boy. A 2/1, 1,162 sq.ft. home asking $988K. My guess is it probably went for over asking. Imagine you are a family of four. Not that a family of four couldn't live in a 2/1. But as a kid when you envisioned buying a million dollar home was it a 1,162 sq.ft. 2/1?

Say this is replaced at some point with a fourplex. Those units are still going to cost you $750K plus and rent would still be around $3,500/mnth. I don't consider that cheap.

Allowing fourplexes is no panacea for the Bay Area's housing woes. But it's a start to at least begin addressing the shortage.


https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2324-Curtis-St_Berkeley_CA_94702_M28215-83885
 
Guille said:
This has nothing at all to do with social "justice", you know why they're doing this? Control. People living in attached housing are subject to rules and regulations that people in single family dwellings are not.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. Very plausible, too.
 
cawacko said:
Since I've called out Berkeley for its hypocrisy in the past I have to give them credit here. We'll see how this actually plays out but I must give them credit for putting their money where their mouth is.

Berkeley is famous for being the City where residents place #BLM and Immigrants Welcome Here signs in their yards yet go to City Hall and fight any new development, especially multi-family, where lower income (read: black people and immigrants) might live near them. It's the ultimate virtue signaling while fighting to protect their neighborhood and property values from change.

If they actually allow more duplexes and fourplexes where single family only was allowed previously, then props to them.
Click to expand...




its symbolic, non binding and not gonna happen, the rich liberal elites wont give up their comfort.
 
Legion said:
Seems likely. Leftists are fond of imposing standards on others that they don't apply to themselves, I've noticed.
Click to expand...



oh I can see them doing that in already downpressed neighborhoods, but they wont do it in the nice white areas where these liberals live.
 
Big Money Dolla said:
oh I can see them doing that in already downpressed neighborhoods, but they wont do it in the nice white areas where these liberals live.
Click to expand...

It's always 'rules for thee but not for me'.

Remember when the Kennedy crime family killed the wind farm that would have been visible from their palatial estate?
 
Guille said:
This has nothing at all to do with social "justice", you know why they're doing this? Control.

People living in attached housing are subject to rules and regulations that people in single family dwellings are not.
Click to expand...

there can be HOAs with single family subdivisions as well......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top