California’s move to end zoning single-family suburbs causes house prices to double almost overnight, according to the New York Times.
The decision to end single-family zoning was made to help provide lower-cost housing for millions of Americans and migrants.
But the result is that many adult Americans can no longer afford to live in the spacious suburban homes that were built decades ago for their middle-class American parents and growing families. Democrats in Virginia, Minnesota, Maryland and other states are also pushing to dezone suburbs.
The surge in dezoning prices has been described in a New York Times article about a Californian who buys, renovates and transforms single-family suburban homes into multi-family dwellings:
His company bought 5120 Baxter Street for $ 700,000. He estimates the house would rent for $ 3,300 per month with some renovations. Instead, he spent around $ 400,000 to build the new units and divide the house, and thinks he will receive between $ 9,000 and $ 10,000 per month in rent for the entire property.
This return would increase the property’s value to approximately $ 1.7 million. The price would be maddening for an aspiring homeowner who outbid another family before losing to Mr. Spicer and now feels cheated on the American Dream.
The lure of higher rental income is forcing families to compete with Wall Street investors, the article notes:
“My biggest fear is that the developers are excluding everyone from the market,” said Pattie Estrada, a 59-year-old commercial credit firm.
The article is titled: “Where the Suburbs End: A 1950s Single-Family Home Now a Rental Complex and a Vision for California’s Future.”
The state’s landmark decision to break up the suburbs comes after millions of legal and illegal immigrants were invited by the federal government to the California housing market, despite deep but disorganized public opposition.
This chaotic influx of migrants has pushed house prices well above average wages, although it has also pushed down wages for American white-collar and blue-collar workers. Economic pressure created huge economic incentives for developers and politicians to push Americans back into the cramped but expensive urban housing that their grandparents fled in the 1950s.
“The bottom line is that immigration has added 80 million people to the United States over the past 50 years,” said Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “Of course, this has huge implications for the affordability of housing,” he said, adding
There are big winners from all of this population growth in these urban areas. One of the big winners is owners, including business owners.
But there is no doubt that housing in California is increasingly unaffordable [for families] and the cost per square foot is much higher than the average wage. Housing is therefore much less affordable and people’s ability to trade in or even buy their first home is affected.
Migration has also stalled California wages. For example, average salaries in California have only grown by 2.9% in 21 years – or about 0.1% per year – according to the settlement-funded Population Reference Bureau. During the same period, the Dow Jones index rose 100 times faster due to rising corporate profits.
Journalists and analysts played down the burden of rising house prices, Camarota said, adding:
Whenever people talk about the consequences of immigration in the establishment media, it is always in the context of its greatness. It lowers wages, but they never say it that way. “It cuts costs for consumers” is the way it is presented. They never say “It makes houses unaffordable”. They say, “It increases fairness. “
The same New York Times the author described growing housing poverty in an August 2020 article about poor migrants trying to live close to their service sector jobs in Silicon Valley during the coronavirus crash:
There were 12 people in three bedrooms, with a bathroom the door of which often required knocking, and a kitchen where dinner time stretched from 5 p.m. until late in the evening.
Karla Lorenzo, a Guatemalan immigrant who cleaned homes in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, lived in the large room along the driveway. Big is a relative term when a room contains five people. She and her partner, Abel, slept in a queen-size bed along the wall. There was a cradle for the baby at the foot, with the older children’s bunk bed next to it. The other roommates had similar arrangements.
Now comes a second struggle: knowing how to pay the rent. Abel is back to work at a home supply store, but Ms. Lorenzo’s cleaning jobs have dried up and one of the other families has moved out, increasing the monthly bill by $ 850. “We don’t know how we’re going to do it,” she said.
Calmatters.org reported from rural California on October 13:
Sandra Garcia, 65, who lives with her son and family in an unincorporated community near Porterville, Tulare County, told CalMatters she was about $ 3,000 behind on rent.
She said she tried to apply for rent relief last April, but a case manager at a local nonprofit told her that without a pay stub to prove loss of income, she couldn’t. not be eligible. Garcia explained that she had been fired from her job as a farm laborer – “the older ones were among the first to be fired,” she said in Spanish – so she had no pay stubs .
Additionally, Garcia said, many owners of rural towns like his find it difficult to stay afloat. “They are as poor as we are,” she said. “They don’t want to end up in court in case they are the ones being sued. And they don’t want to waste their time on something that isn’t even going to help them either.
Nationally, migration is deeply unpopular because of its economic impact. It harms the career opportunities of ordinary Americans, reduces their wages, increases their rents, reduces their productivity, reduces their political clout, widens regional wealth gaps and destroys their democratic and equality-friendly civic culture.
For many years, a wide variety of investigators have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the influx of temporary contract workers into the jobs sought by young American graduates. This portfolio opposition is multiracial, mixed race, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe one another.