Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ken]

What if people want to live in places with restrictive zoning laws?

That is what HOAs are for. They aren't going away any time soon regardless of zoning. And cities without zoning like Houston have endless HOA-governed subdivisions because that is what the market demands. HOAs are the free market solution for people who want to live in a neighborhood that is micro-regulated.

Yeah, here's what Houston is really like:

Houston is the largest city in the United States without any appreciable zoning. While there is some small measure of zoning in the form of ordinances, deed restrictions, and land use regulations, real estate development in Houston is only constrained by the will and the pocketbook of real estate developers. Traditionally, Houston politics and law are strongly influenced by real estate developers; at times, the majority of city council seats have been held by them. This arrangement has made Houston a very sprawled-out and very automobile-dependent city....

Many areas can be downright hostile to pedestrians and bikers as sidewalks are privately built (if at all) and roads are littered with massive potholes. The city is primarily built on the energy industry and nearly everyone owns a car and drives everywhere they go, even to a destination less than a mile away.

Yes, it is Texas and that is what Texans want. And people who live in Houston and want to live in denser neighborhoods have that option too. There are plenty of high-rise buildings everywhere too.

Meanwhile it is 290% cheaper to live in Houston than ultra-zoned San Francisco despite the fact that Houston has nearly 3-times the population: https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-livi ... ancisco-ca

The law of supply and demand works in real estate too. Houston has plenty of supply because they don't artificially restrict it like in west coast cities.

Per the subject of this thread, if you are trying to raise a large family on a single modest income, which city is going to provide you with the best options for putting a roof over your head?

And the potholes aren't due to single family zoning or the lack of it. It is because they build roads cheaply on top of swamp land that gets repeatedly flooded every time they get a monsoon rain.

And note, I'm not actually advocating no zoning or standards. I'm advocating less single family zoning which makes housing more expensive and fosters endless sprawl. Zoning to keep toxic waste dumps and oil refineries out of residential neighborhoods is still a good thing. And it also doesn't mean we can't mandate things like sidewalks, bike paths, and safe streets of the sort we used to build before we got addicted to the automobile. Texas chooses not to but then that's Texas and one reason we left. If we ever returned (which we won't) I'd live in Fort Worth or San Antonio which both have lots of nice walkable neighborhoods.

[Josh]

I may sound like a broken record, but I live where there is zero zoning in the entire township. Almost all buildings are single family homes.

More population wants to live in the small villages with zoning than in the townships with no zoning, which is why I say people seem to want and prefer zoning.

[Ken]

I may sound like a broken record, but I live where there is zero zoning in the entire township. Almost all buildings are single family homes.

More population wants to live in the small villages with zoning than in the townships with no zoning, which is why I say people seem to want and prefer zoning.

Yes you are sounding like a broken record.

What happens in rural Ohio has no relevance to the housing issues in big cities.

And the issue isn't zoning. There is nothing wrong with zoning to do things like keep noxious industrial uses away from residential areas. The issue is mandatory single family zoning in big cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles which greatly exacerbates the housing shortages in those cities by (1) artificially inflating the cost of existing housing in the city, (2) preventing much needed multi-family housing from being built, and (3) pushing new construction off to distant suburbs which greatly increases sprawl, traffic, and destruction of farmland, wild areas, and so forth. And it makes those cities inhospitable to young families who can no longer afford to live there.

One of the reasons why such laws were put into place in west coast cities was largely to do with racism. Once overt racial covenants were found to be illegal as a means of excluding people from neighborhoods, authorities turned to zoning to accomplish the same thing indirectly. By mandating single family zoning with minimum lot sizes and minimum square footage in vast parts of those cities they effectively excluded poor people and non-white people from living there and crammed them into small areas. This has been well documented.

If you live in small town Ohio where the population is shrinking and aging then none of those pressures and history apply.

[Josh]

San Francisco has had mandatory multifamily zoning for quite some time, as has the entire state of California. Yet California continues to have unaffordable housing, and SF particularly so.

I do not live in a county or metro area that has a shrinking or aging population either.

[Ken]

San Francisco has had mandatory multifamily zoning for quite some time, as has the entire state of California. Yet California continues to have unaffordable housing, and SF particularly so.

Wrong. California is pre-empting some zoning laws but the changes are too recent to have had any effect yet and cities are using other regulatory means to slow-walk new housing. And the zoning in San Francisco hasn't actually changed. What has changed is that there are supposed to be new exceptions or pre-emptions to the zoning rules to allow duplexes and 4-plexes but the regulatory hurdles to building them mean few are getting built.

But relating to the subject of this thread. If you want to make the argument that the San Francisco housing market is friendly to young families of modest means and that it is financially easy to have children in San Francisco, go right ahead. Perhaps you could start with telling us what kind of income is necessary to buy a house or rent a decent apartment in San Francisco.

Here is a San Francisco Chronicle article on the topic from 2023.

This map shows the parts of S.F. zoned for single-family homes

By Sriharsha Devulapalli

Jan 9, 2023

Thirty-eight percent of San Francisco’s land is zoned for single-family homes.

Single-family zoning has been integral to the evolution of San Francisco for more than a century. The first zoning regulations, passed in 1921, continue to inform what kinds of buildings can be constructed in various parts of the city. These regulations made it nearly impossible to build anything other than a single-family home in vast stretches of the city.

Per the city’s latest zoning code, published in October 2022, 38% of the city’s land is zoned for single-family homes, which is almost two-thirds of all the land zoned for residential purposes.



Today, it’s no longer really true that every land parcel zoned for a single family can actually have only one home. In the past two years, California and San Francisco have both adopted measures that make it possible to build more housing on single-family zoned plots.

Senate Bill 9, which was approved by the state in 2021 and went into effect at the start of 2022, makes it easier for property owners on single-family lots to split lots, convert their homes to duplexes or build second units on their property. San Francisco also passed legislation in 2022 letting some property owners build fourplexes on any residential lot in the city or six-unit buildings on corner lots.

But the passage of the new laws does not mean there will be a sudden rise in construction on these plots.

SB9 could potentially yield a maximum of around 8,500 new units in the city, according to research from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. “Far fewer units (will) actually come to fruition,” said David Garcia, the Terner Center’s policy director. Since the law went into effect, San Francisco has received fewer than 30 applications for projects under SB9, and only three of them had been approved as of October 2022.

The new fourplex ordinance is applicable to all the residential zoned (single and multifamily) areas of the city, which is 60% of all the developed land in San Francisco. Property owners can use the ordinance apply for a “density exception” that the city may approve once the applicant meets various requirements. One key requirement is that applicants must have owned the property for at least a year before they can ask for a density exception, which makes it difficult for developers to buy a building and immediately expand it.

How big will the impact be of these new laws? “It’s hard to say,” Garcia said. “Things are unpredictable right now. Construction costs are still high, and borrowing costs are also increasing. Even the best-written ordinance cannot change market dynamics.”

Some opponents criticize the new laws for not having affordability requirements on the units that will be created, suggesting they will be out of reach for low-income residents and worsen gentrification.

Garcia believes these laws are a positive step for those who believe single-family zoning is a problem. “Loosening existing single-family-only regulations can address the nefarious origins of the zoning,” said Garcia, referring to the role of this kind of zoning in segregating white homeowners from others. More importantly, the new laws provide meaningful opportunities for renters and homeowners that did not exist previously, Garcia said.

[Josh]

I’m making the argument that SF doesn’t have single family zoning (in particular Cali’s ADU law requires any lot to allow at least 4 dwellings) and yet housing is still unaffordable.

Lots of ADUs are going in. People are turning garages into apartments, plopping down fancy trailers in their backyards, converting storage sheds into housing… there are a few “tech” startups that will add dwellings on your property with prefab trailers and even provide full financing.

[Ken]

I’m making the argument that SF doesn’t have single family zoning (in particular Cali’s ADU law requires any lot to allow at least 4 dwellings) and yet housing is still unaffordable.

Lots of ADUs are going in. People are turning garages into apartments, plopping down fancy trailers in their backyards, converting storage sheds into housing… there are a few “tech” startups that will add dwellings on your property with prefab trailers and even provide full financing.

If you read the article I posted you will discover that San Francisco does indeed have Single Family zoning. In fact, about 2/3 of the total area of the city that is zoned for residential is still single family zoned.

The new law that you are alluding to doesn't erase single family zoning. It provides exceptions under certain limited conditions. For example, a property owner of a single family home can apply for an exemption to the density limits in order to construct a 4-plex. However the law requires that they must have owned the property for at least a year before they can even apply for such an exemption and that only starts the permit review process which might run for additional years longer before all is said and done.

What that means is that a carpenter who owns a small construction business (AKA an evil greedy developer in leftist San Francisco) who purchases a run-down property with the intent to redevelop it has to sit on the property for at least a year before they can even begin the lengthy application process for a building permit. ALTERNATIVELY they can start right away if they are simply gong to remodel the property into a luxury single family McMansion that they can then sell for $2.5 million to some techbro with lots of stock options. What do YOU think this small businessman is going to do if he needs to put food on the table? Obviously the latter.

They estimate that these new rules might yield a maximum of about 8,500 new units city-wide which is but a drop in the bucket compared to the need and demand. And for the bureaucratic reasons I just described they aren't likely to even get remotely close to that 8,500. Also because much of the property in San Francisco is owned by wealthy people who have no interest in redeveloping their properties even if it is allowed.

The point being is that these sorts of restrictions are very unfriendly towards young families who don't have the resources to afford housing in such a restrictive environment. And the sorts of small-bore changes that San Francisco and other west coast cities have been grudgingly allowing are but a drop in the bucket compared to the need and demand. Seattle is no different. They are dragging their feet in every way possible.

The result? Cities on the west coast are becoming increasingly unfriendly towards families as time goes on. Even with the changes they are grudgingly making.

And ADUs are a ridiculous non-solution. Most of them get turned into AirB&Bs. If you want to actually increase the amount of housing in a big city like San Francisco you actually have build big new buildings.

Honestly, all of this should probably be shifted to a new thread discussion on how to make cities (and all of America) more family-friendly. Which would be an interesting discussion that could go into housing, economics, wages and working conditions, safety, education, etc. etc.

[RZehr]

This is not unrelated to the outcomes of no-fault divorces. If every couple stayed married, they could get by with one house per two people. But now, the couple divorce, there needs to be two houses for them.

Imagine how much extra housing inventory there would be, if there was no divorce + no sleeping around single people? Either get married and stay married, or else live celibate lives. That would free up a lot of housing.

[Ken]

This is not unrelated to the outcomes of no-fault divorces. If every couple stayed married, they could get by with one house per two people. But now, the couple divorce, there needs to be two houses for them.

I spend time on some good financial forums (bogleheads.org) and divorce is easily the most common financial disaster one reads about. Without question. It leaves many people's finances in shambles not to mention their lives in general.

There are ENORMOUS economic advantages to marriage in this country that are often not completely understood. And conversely, financial hardships associated with single parenting that are also not sufficiently understood.

Setting aside the religious aspects, there are very good practical reasons to get married and stay married provided you are selective about the choices you make in a spouse.

[Josh]

If you read the article I posted you will discover that San Francisco does indeed have Single Family zoning. In fact, about 2/3 of the total area of the city that is zoned for residential is still single family zoned.

No, it doesn't. Statewide there is an ADU law that mandates all lots allow at least 4 dwellings.

The point being is that these sorts of restrictions are very unfriendly towards young families who don't have the resources to afford housing in such a restrictive environment. And the sorts of small-bore changes that San Francisco and other west coast cities have been grudgingly allowing are but a drop in the bucket compared to the need and demand. Seattle is no different. They are dragging their feet in every way possible.

Yes, I am aware blue states have all kinds of regulation, red tape, and high taxes.

And ADUs are a ridiculous non-solution. Most of them get turned into AirB&Bs. If you want to actually increase the amount of housing in a big city like San Francisco you actually have build big new buildings.

Have you been to San Francisco?



Big buildings are everywhere.

Honestly, all of this should probably be shifted to a new thread discussion on how to make cities (and all of America) more family-friendly. Which would be an interesting discussion that could go into housing, economics, wages and working conditions, safety, education, etc. etc.

It won't be interesting if you don't hop off your hobby horse of blaming everything on zoning. I mean, go for it, Ken. Go run for mayor of Vancouver or Portland or something and run on a platform of "I'll get rid of all zoning, building permits, etc."