>

Prop. 13’s shadow is quite long
Given the population density, maybe standard suburban homes aren't really the thing. Affordable apartments maybe? People have to live somewhere, but not everyone needs a 1/4 acre with a garage and a garden. It would be nice, but at some point there's just not fucking room. And if there were room, there isn't enough water to build out like that much more. >

People need to own, not rent.  It's the basis of generational wealth. >

People can own apartments. >

Speak to Bloomberg about that.  Blackrock isn't offering rent to buy keep licking their ass to the detriment of your peers. In the long run,  YOUR economy will be damaged. >

If only there were effectively unlimited water to pipe into that new housing. There is a way to handle this: BAN ALL LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura counties. Good luck with that.
Banning may be too extreme, so require separate water meters for landscaping, and charge multiples of residential water charges. >

Actually, California banning water intensive crops like almonds would save a lot of water. >

I have no problem with that. Another excessive use of water is alfalfa, which also means cattle ranching in California outside the northern Bay Area and into Mendocino and San Joaquin counties is ridiculous. >

Makes too much sense. >

It's the land that is expensive, not the house. >

Then why is LA so spread out? >

LA is actually more dense than most American cities. >

Just build more housing and rail. Focus first on upzoning the areas near rail in LA. It’s all about supply and demand. Also don’t be distracted by impossible/harmful solutions like depopulation or demand solutions. Rent control is only a bandaid solution which I think should be adopted but not in lieu of housing construction. Supply manipulation by big corporations could be discussed/addressed, but this is not the main reason housing is unaffordable.
Additionally, anybody who doesn’t believe housing should be affordable has no ground to say that people don’t want to work anymore. Cheap labor has been priced out of the big cities and those living their will suffer the consequences of that. >

Probably need to make L.A'.s housing affordable first, before you can keep it affordable. >

More homes built. Banks buy extra homes. Problem persists >

More homes built.  Prices go down. Banks don't profit from hoarding homes. >

Me thinks homelessness is a social issue, not a resource issue. Trauma doesn’t go away indoors. >

Sure.  Build more homes.  But then how are you going to provide power and water to them on an already over-stressed grid? >

Upgrade the grid? This isn't Texas. We're allowed to build infrastructure in California. >

Where is the water going to come from? >

Well, considering this is to aid people who are already there, I'm guessing the water they're already using would help with that.
Further, there's plenty of water for people. We can just shut down a couple of holes at a golf course somewhere or eat fewer almonds if these people are somehow the last straw for our water system. >

I wish golf courses would be illegal or just massive sandpits. They are such a water waster. >

The southwestern US golf courses are insanity. At least use gray water, ffs. >

Subsidize people that want to move out of state. >

Name me a state that doesn't have the same problem. >


Name me a state that doesn't have the same problem.

Relative to California? Any one of the 46 States with a lot cost of living >

Affordable housing is a problem everywhere in the US. It would be easier to solve in other places than LA, but it would still need to be solved. A plane ticket doesn't solve it. >


Affordable housing is a problem everywhere in the US. It would be easier to solve in other places than LA, but it would still need to be solved. A plane ticket doesn't solve it.

The question was how to address LAs cost of living not the entire country.  The population of LA county  is 10 million, a million plane tickets would do quite a bit in reducing prices for lower income housing. >

Reduce human population. >

Traditionally, this is phrased "reduce the surplus population."
Did the first ghost show up yet or is he waiting for New Years? >

My favorite Scrooge is the George C. Scott one >

Tax housing speculation, tax wealthy individuals a lot past their first home, etc etc. this has been talked about for so long in LA yet instead, they will “spend” billions on homelessness that somehow vanished into thin air. >

"The Projects". We need them.
Cuz developers sure-as-shit aren't going to build anything "affordable".
Row houses, garden apartments, etc. 
Not "luxury condos with pool/spa/30 minutes to get inside through garage maze/concierge". >

California is a state of liberal hypocrites. I am liberal, but not from Cali. They talk about all this progressive bullshit then set up their zoning and real estate tax laws to essentially ensure that property prices go up infinitely.