The number of voters needed to radically alter the landscape of extremely local politics is probably maybe a dozen or less in this way, btw.
You have to be on the council, along with a like-minded majority. It'll be a full time job for all of you.
It turns out only the wealthy are taking advantage of the gift though.
In my county, I believe 6 guys took advantage of the streamlined process. It's still very expensive.
They used building the ADU as an excuse to build a bigger house, and that variance is hard to get, but if you have money and kiss ass, you can get it.
I believe almost all the 6 used an ADA unit to increase the size of their home. They all had to get variances from the town, and 5 got it. One homeowner refused to kiss the town council's ass, write begging letters to his neighbors, and attent countless meetings while paying for an architect, and a Builder's time.
They are all asked a bunch of questions.
The one that got me is "Are you going to rent the unit out to low income individuals. (Low income in my town is like "$90, 000. Yea--really. $110,00 if married.". All basically lied, and said yes they will rent it to a Nun. They wanted a bigger home, and the ADU will be used as----an Art studio, or for Lupe' the cheap help that will wipe them in later life?
My point putting in an ADU is fine, and I'm glad Neusome streamlined the process. People aren't taking advantage of it besides the wealthy though. The people whom didn't need any help.
I would rather see something different.
1. If a person (not a corporation, rich foreigner, etc.) of modest means buys a small piece of land they can put a trailer, tent, small cabin, etc. on the land. And of course live there. I'd even be ok with no foundations until you build properly, and no renting unless you offer it for free. I'd even be ok with time limits that are reviewed every ten years for free. So basically a guy would have to go in front of some official and sign a declaration that they still don't have the money to build a proper unit.
2. CA counties, and towns are going to be told to build more housing in the future if Neusome is still around. They only way I see it happening is if we start building huge blocks of housing, like I see being demolished in Ukraine. (I've seen pictures of Russia. It does look like everyone is in a reasonably priced apartment. I guess it's a leftover from evil Socialism.
Personally, I'd be happy with 1. I just don't think the powers at be really want to help the very poor.
Marin County, San Anselmo. This is basically the town I'm writing about. Newsome has a mansion here where Jenny wanders room to room trying to find something "important" in life to do. Be careful Gavin. She reminds me of an Amber Heard. I honestly like the guy. He was voted most fashionable in my high school.)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
the only question is if you can get away with not putting a roof over the courtyard or if you can find a very cheap, lightweight roof that you can move aside.
Would it possible to do that, but extremely slowly? What counts as being "in the process"? Just designing your home might take you many, many years...
Did you forget what you wrote?
rules like these probably try to influence what kind of people are going to choose to live there.
oh, totally, things like that would drive me mad. if i am ever going to buy a plot of land then i'd want to do it far away from anyone who can tell me what do do with it (short of forest fire safety and pollution)
you can’t build to infinity when everything is built out…
But the impression I often get on HN is that you've got people making well above that finding themselves barely able to afford a place to live in SF.
I'm clearly missing something, but what?
The only homes I've seen for $200k need to basically be torn down and are too small for a family.
That's much less true of most metros. Even a fairly expensive city like Boston, while there are expensive suburban towns, an hour drive gets you to some small cities, exurbs, and other suburbs where housing prices are--if not cheap--pretty reasonable (e.g. $300-400K for midrange houses--though prices may have risen). And a lot of the professional jobs are well outside the city anyway.
An hour or so commute each way sucks, but if you can get a Bay Area job that is either fully WFH or that only requires you to come into the office once a week being an hour away wouldn't be too bad, especially if you can arrange the hours on that one day a week you come in so that you are't driving during the most congested times.
It's an indictment of any system that people making twice the median household income cannot afford to buy housing within a reasonable distance of wherever their labor generates that income. It's a terrible situation - communities in which at least half of the necessary jobs do not pay enough for the people who do those jobs to live in the community - and it isn't good for anyone in or around those communities, and probably not for the nation as a whole.
The fact that, yes, yes of course there are other communities where the economics are different doesn't in any way mitigate the fucked-up ness of the situation the GP is describing.
After that, just expect to pay property taxes unless you have money to build exactly the home they sign off on.
I once was ready to buy a reasonable small piece of land in Bolinas after graduating from college. I should have known the price was too good.
When I called the seller he took pity on me when I told him I wanted to just use it to pitch a tent on until I saved more money.
He said, "Son---you can't even put an blanket on "your" land and take a nap."
A part of me understands the rationale for these restrictions. But another part of me feels discouraged that the real estate market in much of California is all sewn up with no way to "hack" it without figuring out how to make $200K+ per year or throwing in the towel and moving to some other part of the state or outside California. Thus I continue to rent my apartment while trying to find other ways to get into real estate.