More Housing, More People?

·         Los Angeles County will see its population rise by 19 percent, from 9.46 million to 11.24 million people, between 2000-2030.

·         If demand continues to outstrip affordable supply, home prices will continue to escalate – with numerous detrimental implications for the region. Homes will be overcrowded as families find themselves doubling and tripling up, and the region’s infrastructure will be further taxed as it tries to support the growing demand.

·         Between 1980 and 1990, the percentage of overcrowded households in California nearly doubled and Census 2000 reported more than 15 percent of California households were overcrowded.

·         Roughly 24 percent of renter households statewide were overcrowded; in some counties, nearly a third of renter households are overcrowded.

The Price we pay for housing shortage

·         Young families – those headed by individuals in their twenties and thirties – are much less likely to be homeowners than they were two decades ago.

·         The share of individuals in their twenties that owned homes dropped 13.9 percent between 1979 and 2002 and homeownership among thirty-somethings dropped from 61.0 percent to 47.8 percent, during the same period.

·         Only households headed by persons age 65 or older have enjoyed increasing ownership rates.

·         Housing is shaping up as one of the most daunting challenges facing local governments in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

·         There will be a greater demand for housing over the next twenty years as the industry is driven by strong population growth and sustained by the area’s strong, diverse economy.

·         In recent years, the industry has only been able to provide 80 percent of the new housing needed annually to address our region’s needs. At current rates, Los Angeles and Ventura counties seem unlikely to add sufficient supply to meet the rising demand for housing. This does not bode well for long-term housing affordability. If demand continues to outstrip supply, home prices will continue to escalate.

Will new development impact my quality of life?

·         Businesses consider California a high-cost state. Workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment insurance premiums, high electricity rates and state taxes, strict environmental regulations, and high minimum wage levels are among the litany of factors contributing to the high cost of operating a business in California.

·         High home prices are problematic because they make it difficult for firms to do business here.

·         Most companies see employee recruitment and retention as one of their top challenges -- housing costs and mobility concerns are among the key concerns for companies to attracting and keeping employees.

·         The firms most at risk of leaving are those which can still readily serve the Southern California market while producing their goods or services elsewhere. Unless there is a compelling competitive advantage created by operating locally or the service cannot practically be provided anywhere other than locally, firms must be considered at risk of leaving.

·         When firms shift operations elsewhere in the state, elsewhere in the country, or overseas, the local economy is hurt twice. First, there is the direct loss of the jobs that have been moved. Second, there is the loss of the economic activity and resulting indirect jobs that previously were sustained by the former presence of the direct jobs. Firms that supplied the departed company with materials (from raw materials to cleaning supplies) and services (from advertising and insurance to catering) lose business.

·         Attracting new firms to California is difficult in part because locating here requires paying higher wages and salaries commensurate with the higher cost of housing.

·         While salaries may be consistent across state lines, many members of our workforce population – nurses, doctors, police and fire – are being forced to move away in order to be able to afford a home. Losing these professions will have an impact on our communities’ overall quality of life.

More Homes, More Traffic

·         The county sales tax has become the largest revenue source for local transportation projects.

·         Nineteen counties currently have a local sales tax for transportation; fifteen others have tried and failed to pass one. In several counties that passed taxes under the old simple majority rules, the tax is up for reauthorization under the new supermajority rules, and this has raised concerns about the ability to maintain current funding levels.

·         As the state looks for a stable source of funding for its roads and transportation projects, many proposals have been considered. Voters passed an initiative that earmarked a portion of the state sales tax for transportation; however, the legislature has routinely circumvented this requirement to close the budget gap.

·         Voters defeated a measure to earmark a portion of the general fund for infrastructure spending in October 2003.

·         With insufficient county funds and unreliable or non-existent state fund, homebuilders spearhead the development and funding of local transportation.

·         Developers make payments to local governments for the right to proceed with a project. And fees from new homes go towards building new roads, which benefit everyone.

·         Builder fees can include development fees, the dedication of public land, the construction or maintenance of public infrastructure, or the provision of public services.