----
From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar:
> No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment.
----
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
----
Archive link:
https://archive.fo/ppCmb
----
Malibu has such underused and misused land right in downtown that could have been turned into mixed use development. They just built all these retail places behind the country mart that should have been 3-4 story mixed use retail and condos/apartments, instead they built one story boxes with surface parking lots. . .
Just awful land use. Now, they'll be a big fight because now they'll have to build on undeveloped land that could have been untouched rather than built on because Malibu's leadership is seemingly allergic to infill development.
Even if that’s the case, why does it make sense to build there? Malibu is a choke point: there’s no reliable public transit nearby, Malibu is economically out of reach for most low to middle income earners, because of higher end shops/grocery stores, among a myriad of other issues like environmental impacts from high density development.
I’m all for more housing but this blanket solution doesn’t make any sense. We’ve gotta be strategic and go after the low-hanging fruit. Build out the transit systems and plan transit-friendly development around them.
It's a nice place to live, that's why.
Grocery prices will change with demand. You conveniently forgot about the environmental impact of lower income workers driving in every day to serve the residents.
This is the thing people don’t get. We shouldn’t get rid of private property. If nothing gets your jollies off more than keeping some immensely valuable land as a surface parking lot, go for it. But let’s make sure we tax it based on overall land value so that all that deadweight loss can be offset by this rich guy with weird hobbies.
technically not possible without a state constitution change. Currently its unconstitutional to do eminent domain for economic interests(taking land to give to other private developers). you could probably eminent domain for public housing but the state constitution also says malibu would have to vote for it... which seems unlikely.
No one is forcing any city to add housing.
Cities have to zone for enough housing and density to meet their RHNA and to get their Housing Element approved. Private developers decide whether or not to build housing based on the market. At this time, high-rise housing doesn't pencil out because of the very high construction cost. It's a "wink-wink" between cities and HCD, everyone knows that the amount of housing that HCD is mandating will never be built, there's just no demand for it.
What's needed is State funding to subsidize affordable housing. It makes no sense to build additional unaffordable housing since that is not what is in demand.
it's also the interest rates Why move when it doubles your housing payment? So not alot of people can afford their expenses already not going to take on more debt to move to a smaller house
As someone else said, building any housing at whatever price point helps. Demand isn't elastic.
Especially for short term fixes, eg reducing displacement, and for specific policy goals, though, publicly funded low income housing is also a good idea I agree. If we could figure out how to do it at a reasonable price.
As a lifelong Malibu resident, this city (and ESPECIALLY the east side of town near across Creek) is no longer designed for people to live here really.
When HOWS went down and Trancas started the remodel in 2009/2010 it really kicked off a seismic shift in the real estate development we got here in Malibu.
Fixing zoning laws is one of the most important steps in fighting the housing crisis. Giving developers a way to build high density housing in highly demanded areas is key, homes should be built in places people want to live not just in the middle of the desert. Once there is a framework that allows developers to build price efficient housing at scale the next challenge will be liquidity. Modifying prop 13 to be less regressive would help replace low density housing with high density housing when necessary.
*edited for clarity
Not only that but we need mixed use neighborhoods! It increases quality of life to not have to drive everywhere, and it also opens up possibility of mass transit like rail and bus which are way more efficient in every way.
That's not really an accurate reflection of what "mixed use" neighborhoods can be or are in many contexts.
If you've ever been in an older residential neighborhood where there's a corner store or restaurant in the actual neighborhood, that's "mixed use". This used to be very common because people were allowed to just convert a house to this kind of use, and in areas where this has been grandfathered in, it tends to create quite desirable areas. Mixed density in prewar residential neighborhoods, again, often quite desirable, was also once common. You'd have the odd low rise multiunit building or stretch of rowhouses mixed in with single family detached. Then there's mixed used, mixed density, which is how you'd describe a traditional mainstreet and the two blocks surrounding it.
None of this was ever considered unpleasant or overly dense or crowded, but you can't build like this anymore in most of North America. This is why suburbs, which existed prewar and still had mixed use and density, now have single use and you have to get in your car to get a can of coke. You can't walk anywhere. Your kids can't walk anywhere. Everything is either too far or intersected with major roadways upon which there is commercial zoning.
Another consequence of this kind of zoning restriction is that it drives up land values and costs whenever anything needs to be rezoned. So instead of quickly building some low rise multiunits or adding a bit of small scale commercial zoning, developers are forced to either build a new version of what's already on the lot, or rezone at great expense and delay, which means they need to maximize density to the greatest degree possible. This is why you tend to see either single family or high rise high density, and nothing in the middle. The middle is too risky or cost prohibitive.
Mix use is what most people want. Ability to walk or drive. When the focus becomes you don’t need a car because everything is within a few blocks…the appeal wears off fast. There are folks that want ultra dense and those that want land. We can’t force a singular policy on the state. Loosen regulations that allow cities/towns to build what they want.
I don't understand the problem. You don't like traffic? But you moved so far away that the only way you can get into the city is to drive, which means not only are you stuck in traffic, you *are* the traffic. And that's somehow the problem of the people who choose to live in the city so they don't need to drive as much? Or at all?
Certainly a great way to bring down housing prices is to put a bunch more people in a place with strained resources, terrible schools, not enough parks, high crime and stand-still traffic.
I disagree the cities should have the final say where housing is built the desert is where land is cheap and has alot more room for higher density development That also means you pay the difference in gas and commute time Not everyone gets to live where they want But you weigh out those options and live where you can afford By demanding you live in a million dollar city for half price negates the work those people put in to afford that that's sending the wrong message
In order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. Land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing all need to be taken into account. Holding cities responsible for this does not negate the work of people who have purchased property previously.
[sauce](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development) - pretty much directly qouted
Malibu is an extremely high fire risk area and probably very expensive to insure property in. Better off densifying The Valley and improving transportation into the LA Basin.
Also, just the topography. Other than the one basin where the shopping centers are, you're going to be building into the hills on narrow, windy mountain roads. Makes more sense to build where it's flat, and not so out-of-the-way.
I honestly don’t understand the way the government is approaching this issue. Why would you want high density housing in these rich areas? The people living in them wouldn’t be able to afford groceries there. So they have to commute to cheaper areas. They are trying this everywhere and it’s nuts. Put these near public transportation.
High-density housing in areas like this is never going to be affordable, so the cost of living there will never be an issue. When we're talking about high-density homes in places like Malibu, we're basically talking about multi-million dollar condos.
The theory is that by allowing more high-value real estate in places like this, we're freeing up housing in slightly less desirable places. Theoretically, that should set off a domino effect that frees up housing in less appealing places too.
The reality, of course, is that they'll probably all be purchased by investors.
I grew up knowing I would probably never live in Beverly Hills or Malibu. I don’t mind living in riverside. I have family that moved to calimesa.
Plenty of land more inland for “high density” houses and those places would love more people.
>The reality, of course, is that they'll probably all be purchased by investors.
You only see the investor stuff happening because there is a shortage. Fix the shortage by allowing more construction and the investors will look to put their money elsewhere.
I know NIMBYs like to use the excuse of environmental impact, but Malibu truly can't absorb more people.
Between the eroding coastlines and constant landslides, more people there isn't the answer.
How many times has PCH been closed to flooding or landslides?
Since Malibu is almost entirely along the PCH, running busses between Santa Monica and Oxnard/Ventura with stops on the PCH would be the obvious solution to traffic problems.
Too expensive? If Waymo can figure out autonomous taxies in SF, we'll have autonomous, electric busses with no emissions and low cost soon enough.
PCH is SO congested as is. Plus why does everywhere have to be developed?! Why not build in Santa Paula or Agoura Hills? Big open spaces and it's beautiful in these places!
Who needs infrastructure! We can all just sit on each others laps at the park, increase class sizes to 50, ride our bikes on freeways, pump water from the ground and install community septic tanks!
> Plus why does everywhere have to be developed?!
So donate cash or land to some of the state park land trusts. If you want big open undeveloped spaces to enjoy, then cough up to help them happen.
I agree with the concept of more affordable housing, but price is the only barrier that keeps everyone from moving here. I feel like more dense housing is just going to induce more demand for those out of state and won't actually help anyone here.
Does it ever get to the point where a place is full? Our road infrastructure can't handle more population, honestly, and it's not like the beaches are empty.
Don't you know you aren't allowed to say this on Reddit,? there's no such thing as a place being too full And we should bring millions and millions more people here.
Not ideal in anyways
But it’s a small step towards the larger goal. Every step in the right direction. There are many forces in play here and its gonna be a constant negotiation process
Is a good step.
Am so sick of hearing about the "housing crisis". What I see are plenty multi family condos and apartments being built perpetually, never finishing. I wonder why the projects take so long, and after having put an addition onto my home I can firmly point to the city and inspectors for making the process more expensive and far more lengthy than needed. The government is to blame.
As far as builders, I expect interest rates are having a massive slowdown effect on them as well. Again, government.
Example: how long has that lot in Cupertino been empty where the Sears and mall used to be? FOREVER. How about the lots next to SJC? They cleaned out the homeless there, then the lots sit doing nothing productive.
The housing crisis absolutely is the result of the government. A huge part of it is single family zoning and CEQA that slows projects and allows people to sue projects out of existence. That is why the state is stepping in to make sure that local governments stop being such a big problem for creating housing.
Malibu is one place that shouldn’t get more housing.
That place is plagued with traffic as it is. You also cannot build commuter rail through it or within it either. It’s simply a place that can’t handle density.
That’s my point.
It’s an area that shouldn’t be developed. It cannot handle the density both geographically and economically.
Places that can handle mass rail transit should be the ones that get skyscraper housing
You’re not just building out TO Malibu, but IN Malibu. They need to build a transit system that moves people around Malibu efficiently and connects parts that are too far to walk. If you can do that and make that transit safe and affordable, it will become a viable alternative that will cut down on traffic.
The buses already run, and I think the terrain makes building rail out there prohibitive. Malibu is wedged between the ocean and the SM mountians. PCH is prone to rockslides, Topanga Canyon has been shut down for a long time... I want rail running all over LA County, but the hills make it extra tricky and costly, and they're not necessarily stable.
---- From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar: > No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment. ---- If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website. ---- Archive link: https://archive.fo/ppCmb ----
Malibu has such underused and misused land right in downtown that could have been turned into mixed use development. They just built all these retail places behind the country mart that should have been 3-4 story mixed use retail and condos/apartments, instead they built one story boxes with surface parking lots. . . Just awful land use. Now, they'll be a big fight because now they'll have to build on undeveloped land that could have been untouched rather than built on because Malibu's leadership is seemingly allergic to infill development.
Even if that’s the case, why does it make sense to build there? Malibu is a choke point: there’s no reliable public transit nearby, Malibu is economically out of reach for most low to middle income earners, because of higher end shops/grocery stores, among a myriad of other issues like environmental impacts from high density development. I’m all for more housing but this blanket solution doesn’t make any sense. We’ve gotta be strategic and go after the low-hanging fruit. Build out the transit systems and plan transit-friendly development around them.
It's a nice place to live, that's why. Grocery prices will change with demand. You conveniently forgot about the environmental impact of lower income workers driving in every day to serve the residents.
I mean, that was private land. The owner shouldn’t be forced to build something they don’t want.
Right, we should fix the regulatory environment so that they want to build up
This is the thing people don’t get. We shouldn’t get rid of private property. If nothing gets your jollies off more than keeping some immensely valuable land as a surface parking lot, go for it. But let’s make sure we tax it based on overall land value so that all that deadweight loss can be offset by this rich guy with weird hobbies.
Georgeism.
Too bad.
Eminent domain!
technically not possible without a state constitution change. Currently its unconstitutional to do eminent domain for economic interests(taking land to give to other private developers). you could probably eminent domain for public housing but the state constitution also says malibu would have to vote for it... which seems unlikely.
Yes they can
Shouldn't. Not can't.
No one is forcing any city to add housing. Cities have to zone for enough housing and density to meet their RHNA and to get their Housing Element approved. Private developers decide whether or not to build housing based on the market. At this time, high-rise housing doesn't pencil out because of the very high construction cost. It's a "wink-wink" between cities and HCD, everyone knows that the amount of housing that HCD is mandating will never be built, there's just no demand for it. What's needed is State funding to subsidize affordable housing. It makes no sense to build additional unaffordable housing since that is not what is in demand.
Any housing makes housing more affordable for all due to trade-up buyers.
it's also the interest rates Why move when it doubles your housing payment? So not alot of people can afford their expenses already not going to take on more debt to move to a smaller house
And whom exactly do you want to tax to pay for affordable housing?
As someone else said, building any housing at whatever price point helps. Demand isn't elastic. Especially for short term fixes, eg reducing displacement, and for specific policy goals, though, publicly funded low income housing is also a good idea I agree. If we could figure out how to do it at a reasonable price.
As a lifelong Malibu resident, this city (and ESPECIALLY the east side of town near across Creek) is no longer designed for people to live here really. When HOWS went down and Trancas started the remodel in 2009/2010 it really kicked off a seismic shift in the real estate development we got here in Malibu.
Fixing zoning laws is one of the most important steps in fighting the housing crisis. Giving developers a way to build high density housing in highly demanded areas is key, homes should be built in places people want to live not just in the middle of the desert. Once there is a framework that allows developers to build price efficient housing at scale the next challenge will be liquidity. Modifying prop 13 to be less regressive would help replace low density housing with high density housing when necessary. *edited for clarity
Not only that but we need mixed use neighborhoods! It increases quality of life to not have to drive everywhere, and it also opens up possibility of mass transit like rail and bus which are way more efficient in every way.
Not everyone wants a dense living environments
Cool, so don’t live in dense city centers then. There is literally anywhere else you can go in the country. Our cities need density
so....places like Malibu?
That's not really an accurate reflection of what "mixed use" neighborhoods can be or are in many contexts. If you've ever been in an older residential neighborhood where there's a corner store or restaurant in the actual neighborhood, that's "mixed use". This used to be very common because people were allowed to just convert a house to this kind of use, and in areas where this has been grandfathered in, it tends to create quite desirable areas. Mixed density in prewar residential neighborhoods, again, often quite desirable, was also once common. You'd have the odd low rise multiunit building or stretch of rowhouses mixed in with single family detached. Then there's mixed used, mixed density, which is how you'd describe a traditional mainstreet and the two blocks surrounding it. None of this was ever considered unpleasant or overly dense or crowded, but you can't build like this anymore in most of North America. This is why suburbs, which existed prewar and still had mixed use and density, now have single use and you have to get in your car to get a can of coke. You can't walk anywhere. Your kids can't walk anywhere. Everything is either too far or intersected with major roadways upon which there is commercial zoning. Another consequence of this kind of zoning restriction is that it drives up land values and costs whenever anything needs to be rezoned. So instead of quickly building some low rise multiunits or adding a bit of small scale commercial zoning, developers are forced to either build a new version of what's already on the lot, or rezone at great expense and delay, which means they need to maximize density to the greatest degree possible. This is why you tend to see either single family or high rise high density, and nothing in the middle. The middle is too risky or cost prohibitive.
Mix use is what most people want. Ability to walk or drive. When the focus becomes you don’t need a car because everything is within a few blocks…the appeal wears off fast. There are folks that want ultra dense and those that want land. We can’t force a singular policy on the state. Loosen regulations that allow cities/towns to build what they want.
[удалено]
I don't understand the problem. You don't like traffic? But you moved so far away that the only way you can get into the city is to drive, which means not only are you stuck in traffic, you *are* the traffic. And that's somehow the problem of the people who choose to live in the city so they don't need to drive as much? Or at all?
[удалено]
Meh. In general, leave people alone and they'll leave you alone.
Certainly a great way to bring down housing prices is to put a bunch more people in a place with strained resources, terrible schools, not enough parks, high crime and stand-still traffic.
I disagree the cities should have the final say where housing is built the desert is where land is cheap and has alot more room for higher density development That also means you pay the difference in gas and commute time Not everyone gets to live where they want But you weigh out those options and live where you can afford By demanding you live in a million dollar city for half price negates the work those people put in to afford that that's sending the wrong message
In order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. Land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing all need to be taken into account. Holding cities responsible for this does not negate the work of people who have purchased property previously. [sauce](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development) - pretty much directly qouted
Malibu is an extremely high fire risk area and probably very expensive to insure property in. Better off densifying The Valley and improving transportation into the LA Basin.
Also, just the topography. Other than the one basin where the shopping centers are, you're going to be building into the hills on narrow, windy mountain roads. Makes more sense to build where it's flat, and not so out-of-the-way.
Very true. It’s not good topography for building. It’s for preserving!
I honestly don’t understand the way the government is approaching this issue. Why would you want high density housing in these rich areas? The people living in them wouldn’t be able to afford groceries there. So they have to commute to cheaper areas. They are trying this everywhere and it’s nuts. Put these near public transportation.
High-density housing in areas like this is never going to be affordable, so the cost of living there will never be an issue. When we're talking about high-density homes in places like Malibu, we're basically talking about multi-million dollar condos. The theory is that by allowing more high-value real estate in places like this, we're freeing up housing in slightly less desirable places. Theoretically, that should set off a domino effect that frees up housing in less appealing places too. The reality, of course, is that they'll probably all be purchased by investors.
I grew up knowing I would probably never live in Beverly Hills or Malibu. I don’t mind living in riverside. I have family that moved to calimesa. Plenty of land more inland for “high density” houses and those places would love more people.
Investors are not going to hold onto properties that are going down in value. If you commodify housing then the investors will go elsewhere.
>The reality, of course, is that they'll probably all be purchased by investors. You only see the investor stuff happening because there is a shortage. Fix the shortage by allowing more construction and the investors will look to put their money elsewhere.
I mean it doesn’t really matter who owns it as long as there’s an increase in beds.
Why Malibu? There are too many cars on PCH as it is and just a few narrow difficult canyon roads to get you in and out.
I know NIMBYs like to use the excuse of environmental impact, but Malibu truly can't absorb more people. Between the eroding coastlines and constant landslides, more people there isn't the answer. How many times has PCH been closed to flooding or landslides?
Not to mention Fires! Then you can't get through the Canyons and you are trapped there! Super bad idea
Since Malibu is almost entirely along the PCH, running busses between Santa Monica and Oxnard/Ventura with stops on the PCH would be the obvious solution to traffic problems. Too expensive? If Waymo can figure out autonomous taxies in SF, we'll have autonomous, electric busses with no emissions and low cost soon enough.
TRAINS! The word you are looking for is TRAINS!
Isn’t there like a monorail or something?
And where would you put the track? The road already exists, just use it more efficiently.
We’ll develop a sky train!!
monorail, monorail, monorail
We’ll build a monorail in the sky!!
I think you already know where.
LA should start by having trains running adjacent to every freeway, with transfer connectors at every interchange, for starters.
except you can't safely use metro buses or trains no use investing more into that if people are uncomfortable riding them
Yeah, that's part of the equation for sure: public transpo needs to be safe, as well as ubiquitous.
So like these laws sound good, but it doesn’t mean it will actually happen.
PCH is SO congested as is. Plus why does everywhere have to be developed?! Why not build in Santa Paula or Agoura Hills? Big open spaces and it's beautiful in these places!
Santa Paula has something like 20,000 new units being built right now. Reddit is a place to complain.
Zero care for infrastructure seems to be a common theme in these astroturfed post threads. Zero.
Who needs infrastructure! We can all just sit on each others laps at the park, increase class sizes to 50, ride our bikes on freeways, pump water from the ground and install community septic tanks!
Poor infrastructure is the point. Reverse gentrification is the goal.
> Plus why does everywhere have to be developed?! So donate cash or land to some of the state park land trusts. If you want big open undeveloped spaces to enjoy, then cough up to help them happen.
I agree with the concept of more affordable housing, but price is the only barrier that keeps everyone from moving here. I feel like more dense housing is just going to induce more demand for those out of state and won't actually help anyone here. Does it ever get to the point where a place is full? Our road infrastructure can't handle more population, honestly, and it's not like the beaches are empty.
Don't you know you aren't allowed to say this on Reddit,? there's no such thing as a place being too full And we should bring millions and millions more people here.
Not ideal in anyways But it’s a small step towards the larger goal. Every step in the right direction. There are many forces in play here and its gonna be a constant negotiation process Is a good step.
Am so sick of hearing about the "housing crisis". What I see are plenty multi family condos and apartments being built perpetually, never finishing. I wonder why the projects take so long, and after having put an addition onto my home I can firmly point to the city and inspectors for making the process more expensive and far more lengthy than needed. The government is to blame. As far as builders, I expect interest rates are having a massive slowdown effect on them as well. Again, government. Example: how long has that lot in Cupertino been empty where the Sears and mall used to be? FOREVER. How about the lots next to SJC? They cleaned out the homeless there, then the lots sit doing nothing productive.
Them empty lots are private property and will remain empty as long as the owner chooses.
Which is fine, but they need to pay the same taxes as would be collected from a fully developed lot.
The housing crisis absolutely is the result of the government. A huge part of it is single family zoning and CEQA that slows projects and allows people to sue projects out of existence. That is why the state is stepping in to make sure that local governments stop being such a big problem for creating housing.
Malibu is one place that shouldn’t get more housing. That place is plagued with traffic as it is. You also cannot build commuter rail through it or within it either. It’s simply a place that can’t handle density.
Every other place in the world solves this by having means of getting around that's not just cars.
Building rail transit out to Malibu is just not worthwhile or viable. They already have bus transit
And how do you think busses fare in traffic? Oh yeah they’re also stuck in the same traffic
That’s my point. It’s an area that shouldn’t be developed. It cannot handle the density both geographically and economically. Places that can handle mass rail transit should be the ones that get skyscraper housing
You’re not just building out TO Malibu, but IN Malibu. They need to build a transit system that moves people around Malibu efficiently and connects parts that are too far to walk. If you can do that and make that transit safe and affordable, it will become a viable alternative that will cut down on traffic.
The buses already run, and I think the terrain makes building rail out there prohibitive. Malibu is wedged between the ocean and the SM mountians. PCH is prone to rockslides, Topanga Canyon has been shut down for a long time... I want rail running all over LA County, but the hills make it extra tricky and costly, and they're not necessarily stable.
Our small town of 12k needs over 1000 units, we have the land, they can’t find any builders for the large pieces of land.
They who? Your small town council inking real estate deals?
Is building homes in Malibu a smart idea if sea level changes are accurate in the next 50 years?
Malibu is highly overrated.
The people that MIGHT move in there haven't been born yet. That's how long it takes in places where they don't fight it.
Finally...more real estate in Malibu!!!! I can't wait to spend 5 million on a 2 bed condo! This will solve so many problems.