The other thing on the retail side that this over-densifying does (of course the cities and developers don't consider it over-densifying...) is it makes the current retail inadequate for the area. In a number of cases retail space is reduced while they attempt to exponentially increase population in a given area so it really messes up the current retail situation in a given area.ClownLoach wrote: ↑July 31st, 2024, 5:27 pm
How much you willing to bet that person with Ralphs bags was somehow sent there from San Diego? We were suddenly inundated with wandering, lost looking homeless starting a week before San Diego Comic-Con which has become the top tourist event in SD annually. The tens of thousands of homeless in massive encampments all over downtown SD disappeared at the same time.
I've been concerned about these mixed use redevelopment trends, along with the over-densifying that comes from demolition of the true low income housing.
Another new trend I am seeing in my former hometown of Long Beach is new plans to ensure "diversity" by adjusting density and zoning. I have read the plans and I fail to recognize any way diversity would improve. Here is the gist of it: zoning moves up another density level or two in "under resourced" areas to allow for larger new developments. "Under resourced" means poor. Somehow the belief is that greater diversity in the community will occur with the building of higher end housing in lower end areas. I believe the real goal is to just incentivize development in the areas where there is less political push back and fewer political donations coming in so that the "NIMBY" donors are satisfied while the poor get poorer, especially the disadvantaged.
The problem is that landlords constantly monitor each other's listings within a neighborhood and use management firms to constantly adjust for the highest possible rents. So now the lower end area with $2000 apartments gets new buildings with $3500 rents, and new "affordable" units at $2750. Now the ceiling has been raised significantly for the neighborhood, and every landlord starts to jack up the rents for new tenants to be near the $2750-$3500 range. So that $2000 apartment is now $3000, and they will apply the legal maximum increase to existing tenants until they hit it. They also are incentivized to concoct a renovation scheme to "upgrade to compete" with the newer units, where the intent is to just open up enough walls, plumbing etc. to surpass the legal limit of a cosmetic remodel which tenants can't be evicted for. Now maybe it becomes a $3400 apartment just a few bucks below the new development that has a few more amenities. And worse, since only the new building has a "affordable" requirement, the net result is a removal of hundreds of actually affordable housing units for every dozen or so new ones that are erected. The entire system is backwards and the only ones who are benefiting are the developers who are so massively profitable that they don't care about rising interest rates, they don't care if it takes years for their building to be fully leased, they don't care how much it costs to acquire the land, they don't care how much it costs to pay lease severance for good businesses needed in the community that they'll force to close, and they sure as hell don't care how many more people are forced into the streets as they can't afford or even get approved for a replacement housing unit where they were previously making ends meet.
And the cities, counties, and state will keep spreading the lie that there is a terrible housing shortage so we need to approve more. They benefit the most from the misery of everyone else as they rake in billions from increased property taxes, building permit fees and charges, income tax from laborers, and so forth plus these days every needed infrastructure improvement like streets, water, sewer etc is paid for via developer bonds AKA "Mello-Roos Taxes" and "Community Facilities District" taxes. I can't find an accurate figure newer than the 2020 census but there was already a 3 million plus housing unit to households surplus then, and I can't imagine how many million additional units have gone online since with negative to minimal population growth. There is no shortage of housing, rather there is a shortage of affordability due to artificially propped up prices and massive developer profit taking.
These developers- they roll in, destroy areas, and roll right back out again to look for the next place to go destroy. Some get caught in a pants off situation like 2008 etc. but so far this round that has been generally avoided. Never thought I'd be anti-development but this overly dense development situation has turned me.