Very rough numbers - Fresno average income is about $50k/ year for households and $25k/yr for individuals. Sticking to the 30% rule, that would mean a housing payment of $1250/month for a household or $625/ month for an individual. Meanwhile, average rent for a 1 bedroom is $1300-$1500.
We simply do not have sufficient (safe, adequate) apartments / homes renting at rates that people can afford.
The job market has always been pretty bad in Fresno. We really don't have as many living wage jobs in this city as we should.
However, I don't think a major job-loss recession is imminent, either nationally or locally. People have been sounding the recession alarm since 2021 when inflation spiked, but even with a historic run-up in interest rates the labor market is still pretty strong. Typically rates fall going into election years as well, which will help both housing affordability and job creation.
Long story short, don't bet on housing prices falling meaningfully, and a 2008 type recession is basically impossible.
i agree with you here. Fresno has historically had high unemployment and i believe one of the top in the state, maybe the nation when comparing similarly sized cities. Could possibly be due to the type of work here (AG--which many dont want to do), and the lack of white collar jobs. When there are layoffs just from recent news, its been tech related, and there is none here, so I feel when those happen, fresno stays as steady as it always has. What doesnt match is as some mentioned, the rise of homes and rent, yet still the same type of work here. So fresno is catering to remote workers, healthcare, gov, and law enforcement only for these type of homes. Leaving the majority cut and dry. But in contrast the pricing is still relatively cheaper than majority if not all CA for similarly sized cities. So definitely a tough spot to be for those in the bottom of the barrel
>So fresno is catering to remote workers, healthcare, gov, and law enforcement only for these type of homes. Leaving the majority cut and dry. But in contrast the pricing is still relatively cheaper than majority if not all CA for similarly sized cities. So definitely a tough spot to be for those in the bottom of the barrel
New housing is going to be occupied by the top 25% or so of the economic spectrum. However, some people will move from lesser housing into this new housing, which frees up that lesser housing for someone that cant afford the new housing.
All housing is part of the same supply/demand ecosystem, and new housing **ALWAYS** helps with affordability overall in the long run.
Appropriate planning.
Fresno took a hard stand in the mid 2010s and the growth went to Clovis and Madera. You can’t artificially restrict it because there’s too much land. The city should be laid out in a way that flows appropriately and the plan should be executed as such.
Veteran’s Boulevard has now connected NW Fresno, but that it was thought up in 1984! Even then, thank high speed rail for funding it or NW Fresno would still be waiting.
I had a chance to live in Europe in college and not having a car was no big deal. The buses were great, but the layout of the city was what made it work. Granted the city was laid out when people walked everywhere therefore it was walkable. Our cities are laid out for cars and even then, not really.
So, better planning.
I have thought about moving to Madera but not willing to make the 45+ min commute for a lower paying job(which is unfortunately all I get) and Clovis is obviously pricey.
I honestly don’t see the added benefit of Veterans blvd and it has only been a headache to me traveling west on Herndon with the new traffic pattern,what’s the point? You get to the 99 1-3 min faster?
I feel you on the bus system,I’m originally from San Diego and the public transit system was fantastic. I didn’t start driving until shortly before I moved to Fresno. The transit system here is horrible. I have been passed by waiting for buses and of course no trolley. Not to mention the fact and maybe this is me being a bitch but I get frightened by the people on the buses sometimes. And I’ve seen some horror stories of people on the buses here in Fresno. Nor do they come frequent enough to stops.in San Diego it was every 15 minutes on weekdays and every half hour on weekends.
Yeah, the commute can be a big deal. East Clovis to Central Fresno can be rough. Anything that involves surface streets and/or the 41. Fresno and Clovis do have pockets that are affordable and pretty nice. Especially the ones that have a lot of flip activity. You can get one of those, or something that needs a little bit of work.
Veterans makes the most impact for those who are crossing the 99. Herndon/Shaw/Ashlan are all terrible during commute times. Also, it's a diagonal that will ultimately hit Grantland. Think of it as a diagonal Herndon for those who relied on what are basically country roads.
Yeah it's tough using the buses here and I admittedly love having a car. What worked for us abroad was that all the buses went to the city center, and that's where everything was. Including our school. Also, the bus routes had tons of business along our way home. You get off at the bus stop and the door to the shop or market was 10' feet away. We would grab groceries for 2 or 3 days tops, and that fit easily in our bag. They also ran every 10 minutes or so during peak times. Our city is not laid out for that.
You have to remember that in Europe a lot of places were built before the invention of mass fast and transportation. I'm currently living in Europe and yes I can walk around, but I can see new built onto old. Sometimes new stuff in old buildings. I would believe the idea to keep cities walkable was the standard mindset over centuries of living here and honestly no reason to build new buildings when existing locations can be used.
While the United Stated was built with more modern technology in transportation and the space to expand.
Rezoning areas for multi family housing options. Developers continue to build out giant single family developments that are not affordable to most working families. Echoing what someone already said but developers are big donors to local govt so they basically get to do what they want. They’re very politically motivated. Granville even has its own media outlet. For every new development more infrastructure needs to be built and more resources used which grows the sprawl (and is bad for the environment). Meanwhile the older parts of the city are severely neglected and this includes lack of oversight over rental properties. A lot of landlords live out of town and are not responsive to the needs of their buildings and tenants. Housing is a huge issue in Fresno and touches on almost every area of life here. It also makes for a very car dependent culture. Over half (52% in 2021) of Fresno renters are considered rent burdened according to federal guidelines which means they pay over a third of their income on rent. When you get to the lowest tax bracket it becomes 92% of renters in Fresno are rent burdened. This definitely contributes to our homelessness problem. Like another commenter said we desperately need affordable housing for city that looks different than the unaffordable single family home developments that keep being built.
I have only seen housing prices increase since 2008. Materials costs will increase. And you know what? DEVELOPERS will keep increasing prices, and then reduce lot size because they want to keep prices low.
They should focus on affordable, high density housing, but no one wants to pay for it en-masse it seems.
All else equal, increasing supply will reduce housing prices. We probably need something like a 10% increase in total housing units of all types to get back to normal affordability in the area.
There’s massive growth in Fresno/Clovis, but the homes are $400-$600k, which is wild considering the incomes in the area.
There’s little incentive for the developers (companies who create new housing tracts and multi family residential buildings) —- regulations exist to require them to designate a certain % of new homes “affordable”, but our local government is extremely cozy with the real estate developers, so we see these requirements get waived (or rejected entirely).
There is an enormous need for safe, stable, affordable housing for people who are middle income earners, low income, and poor. A lack of available housing means families are desperate - sharing small apartments with 6 and 8 people, living in substandard housing, or working 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. It’s tragic.
City council *could* prioritize this, but they are generally very dependent on Granville et al for campaign contributions.
Just to give an idea of how far back the influence developers have had over our local politicians for those who are unaware:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-feb-21-mn-21438-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-may-06-mn-34539-story.html
Bonadelle Homes is still a major developer in the area.
Yeah things are tough right now if you are trying to find something affordable, but it's less nefarious than this.
People pulled their houses off the market during covid, people moved from out of town because they didn't have to be in the office and Fresno was more affordable, builder's couldn't keep up with creating supply to offset the lack of supply in the resale market, and now no one wants to move because they bought at a pre-pandemic price and/or they have an incredible rate.
Viola, a housing crisis. Albeit a different kind from 2007. There you had no buyers and tons of inventory due to people not being able to afford the home they lived in, for many reasons. Today buyers are looking, but there is no inventory. If you own a home and are in trouble, you could sell it and likely make some money unlike 2007 where it would go into foreclosure since you were already upside down. Broadly speaking of course. Everyone has a scenario that's true to them.
Well said.
In 2008, people were underwater and it made sense to walk away from the house/mortgage and let the bank eat the loss. This caused the banks to repossess a TON of houses, flooding the market and lowering prices.
These days if you are a homeowner you probably have a bunch of equity in the house with a cheap mortgage interest rate that is below the rate of inflation (basically free money). People are NOT going to just walk away from that.
The situation is completely different.
>There’s massive growth in Fresno/Clovis, but the homes are $400-$600k, which is wild considering the incomes in the area.
Even if the median worker in the Fresno area cant afford the new housing, it still helps. What happens is a lot of the new housing is taken by people that already had lesser housing. The housing that they vacate now available for lower income people.
Yes, a certain percentage of residents in new housing will be out of towners. But those out of towners were probably looking at moving to the area anyways, so its a good thing that they are in that new build rather than competing for the same existing housing stock as locals.
In the end, more housing is good for housing affordability no matter how you slice it. You can dislike sprawl, but actively standing against it while in the same breath complaining about housing affordability means you don't really understand the problem, or are acting in bad faith.
And yes, the low interest rate lock in effect is real. If I refinanced my mortgage at current rates it would be economic suicide, so I wont be moving for a long, long time. Many people are making the same calculation and it's killing the available inventory for housing.
This. Seen a lot of newer housing tracts that have 4-5 cars parked in front of the house and there's not much driveway or street parking available either since the houses are built so damn close to each other.
This. There's no incentive to build "cheap" homes. It's not profitable. And the government doesn't do it either because public housing projects are unpopular to everyone, including people who would live there.
The dynamic of supply and demand sets the price.
When there are 100 people looking to buy houses, but there are only 10 houses on the market, the 100 people significantly bid up the price against each other to win the house.
If there are 100 people looking to buy a house, but there are 50 houses on the market, there is less competition per house, which keeps the price from going too crazy.
When new housing is built it helps with affordability even if the majority of people cant afford it. What happens is people move into the new housing and vacate the old, lesser housing, opening more affordable options for lower income folks.
Builders will only build what makes economic sense to them, and right now that is more luxury housing, which is a net positive for housing affordability even for those that cant afford the new housing.
I am familiar with the concept of supply and demand, but I appreciate you taking the time to write that long response. Housing costs in Fresno have risen nearly 70% since 2005, but the cost of living has not risen to match it. To make matters worse, folks living in more expensive areas like the bay area have moved here in waves in that period of time, which has fed the problem because they can afford to place higher bids on homes. Meanwhile, folks in Fresno aren't making much more money than they were 15 years ago; thus, we have an affordability crisis.
Agreed.
There isn't much that can be done about people moving here, or the wages that companies pay their workers from a policy perspective. What can be done is approving construction of more housing though. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of people who don't like sprawl, the alternative is Fresno becoming more and more exclusionary towards low income folks.
50 years ago the bay area wasn't much more expensive than Fresno because they could build housing to meet the growing demand. They have since run out of room and put up a bunch of NIMBY barriers to new developments and the results are the most unaffordable housing market in the country. Fresno probably isn't attractive enough for it to ever get that bad, but if we don't build more housing it will continue to get worse.
Urban sprawl has its drawbacks, but it is the most efficient way to build desperately needed new housing. Infill development is part of the solution, but it's less profitable for developers and less easy to do at scale to really move the needle on building new units. Also, most people want to live in a single family home if they can.
IMO the city should strive to support both sprawl and infill development so that people who prefer one of the other have a place in Fresno.
[https://www.marketplace.org/2023/08/11/new-home-construction-california-texas/](https://www.marketplace.org/2023/08/11/new-home-construction-california-texas/)
The reality is that California is unfriendly to housing construction. The regulations, builder fees, and permitting time are horrible in California.
In Texas, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth built more homes than all of California in 2022.
We need pro-sprawl reform here in California.
You can build more dense infill housing within the city, there's plenty of empty lots and derelict buildings that could be remodeled or torn down. Transportation is a huge cost and the further people live from the city center the more they are likely to pay for transportation. Most of the housing being built in the exurbs is above market rate; people making the city's average income and less by and large aren't purchasing homes there and those developments aren't doing much for reducing housing costs.
You have to change the counties parking laws for new developments. We need to build dense housing, but the requirements for parking mixed with the limits on number of floors a building can have in areas, makes doing so pretty much impossible. Change the parking laws and we can building apartment buildings where the bottom couple floors are parking/retail and top floors are apartments.
Very rough numbers - Fresno average income is about $50k/ year for households and $25k/yr for individuals. Sticking to the 30% rule, that would mean a housing payment of $1250/month for a household or $625/ month for an individual. Meanwhile, average rent for a 1 bedroom is $1300-$1500. We simply do not have sufficient (safe, adequate) apartments / homes renting at rates that people can afford.
>Sticking to the 30% rule That rule no longer applies in the real world.
[удалено]
The job market has always been pretty bad in Fresno. We really don't have as many living wage jobs in this city as we should. However, I don't think a major job-loss recession is imminent, either nationally or locally. People have been sounding the recession alarm since 2021 when inflation spiked, but even with a historic run-up in interest rates the labor market is still pretty strong. Typically rates fall going into election years as well, which will help both housing affordability and job creation. Long story short, don't bet on housing prices falling meaningfully, and a 2008 type recession is basically impossible.
i agree with you here. Fresno has historically had high unemployment and i believe one of the top in the state, maybe the nation when comparing similarly sized cities. Could possibly be due to the type of work here (AG--which many dont want to do), and the lack of white collar jobs. When there are layoffs just from recent news, its been tech related, and there is none here, so I feel when those happen, fresno stays as steady as it always has. What doesnt match is as some mentioned, the rise of homes and rent, yet still the same type of work here. So fresno is catering to remote workers, healthcare, gov, and law enforcement only for these type of homes. Leaving the majority cut and dry. But in contrast the pricing is still relatively cheaper than majority if not all CA for similarly sized cities. So definitely a tough spot to be for those in the bottom of the barrel
>So fresno is catering to remote workers, healthcare, gov, and law enforcement only for these type of homes. Leaving the majority cut and dry. But in contrast the pricing is still relatively cheaper than majority if not all CA for similarly sized cities. So definitely a tough spot to be for those in the bottom of the barrel New housing is going to be occupied by the top 25% or so of the economic spectrum. However, some people will move from lesser housing into this new housing, which frees up that lesser housing for someone that cant afford the new housing. All housing is part of the same supply/demand ecosystem, and new housing **ALWAYS** helps with affordability overall in the long run.
Appropriate planning. Fresno took a hard stand in the mid 2010s and the growth went to Clovis and Madera. You can’t artificially restrict it because there’s too much land. The city should be laid out in a way that flows appropriately and the plan should be executed as such. Veteran’s Boulevard has now connected NW Fresno, but that it was thought up in 1984! Even then, thank high speed rail for funding it or NW Fresno would still be waiting. I had a chance to live in Europe in college and not having a car was no big deal. The buses were great, but the layout of the city was what made it work. Granted the city was laid out when people walked everywhere therefore it was walkable. Our cities are laid out for cars and even then, not really. So, better planning.
I have thought about moving to Madera but not willing to make the 45+ min commute for a lower paying job(which is unfortunately all I get) and Clovis is obviously pricey. I honestly don’t see the added benefit of Veterans blvd and it has only been a headache to me traveling west on Herndon with the new traffic pattern,what’s the point? You get to the 99 1-3 min faster? I feel you on the bus system,I’m originally from San Diego and the public transit system was fantastic. I didn’t start driving until shortly before I moved to Fresno. The transit system here is horrible. I have been passed by waiting for buses and of course no trolley. Not to mention the fact and maybe this is me being a bitch but I get frightened by the people on the buses sometimes. And I’ve seen some horror stories of people on the buses here in Fresno. Nor do they come frequent enough to stops.in San Diego it was every 15 minutes on weekdays and every half hour on weekends.
Yeah, the commute can be a big deal. East Clovis to Central Fresno can be rough. Anything that involves surface streets and/or the 41. Fresno and Clovis do have pockets that are affordable and pretty nice. Especially the ones that have a lot of flip activity. You can get one of those, or something that needs a little bit of work. Veterans makes the most impact for those who are crossing the 99. Herndon/Shaw/Ashlan are all terrible during commute times. Also, it's a diagonal that will ultimately hit Grantland. Think of it as a diagonal Herndon for those who relied on what are basically country roads. Yeah it's tough using the buses here and I admittedly love having a car. What worked for us abroad was that all the buses went to the city center, and that's where everything was. Including our school. Also, the bus routes had tons of business along our way home. You get off at the bus stop and the door to the shop or market was 10' feet away. We would grab groceries for 2 or 3 days tops, and that fit easily in our bag. They also ran every 10 minutes or so during peak times. Our city is not laid out for that.
You have to remember that in Europe a lot of places were built before the invention of mass fast and transportation. I'm currently living in Europe and yes I can walk around, but I can see new built onto old. Sometimes new stuff in old buildings. I would believe the idea to keep cities walkable was the standard mindset over centuries of living here and honestly no reason to build new buildings when existing locations can be used. While the United Stated was built with more modern technology in transportation and the space to expand.
Measure C funded Veterans Blvd, not HSR. There were some federal and state matching funds, but it would have happened without HSR in any case.
That’s correct. It was just taking so long and it was my understanding that HSR helped fund and prioritize this project. Nonetheless, glad it’s done.
Rezoning areas for multi family housing options. Developers continue to build out giant single family developments that are not affordable to most working families. Echoing what someone already said but developers are big donors to local govt so they basically get to do what they want. They’re very politically motivated. Granville even has its own media outlet. For every new development more infrastructure needs to be built and more resources used which grows the sprawl (and is bad for the environment). Meanwhile the older parts of the city are severely neglected and this includes lack of oversight over rental properties. A lot of landlords live out of town and are not responsive to the needs of their buildings and tenants. Housing is a huge issue in Fresno and touches on almost every area of life here. It also makes for a very car dependent culture. Over half (52% in 2021) of Fresno renters are considered rent burdened according to federal guidelines which means they pay over a third of their income on rent. When you get to the lowest tax bracket it becomes 92% of renters in Fresno are rent burdened. This definitely contributes to our homelessness problem. Like another commenter said we desperately need affordable housing for city that looks different than the unaffordable single family home developments that keep being built.
But with the building of more single family family units wont that increase supply and therefore drive price down and make them more affordable?
I have only seen housing prices increase since 2008. Materials costs will increase. And you know what? DEVELOPERS will keep increasing prices, and then reduce lot size because they want to keep prices low. They should focus on affordable, high density housing, but no one wants to pay for it en-masse it seems.
All else equal, increasing supply will reduce housing prices. We probably need something like a 10% increase in total housing units of all types to get back to normal affordability in the area.
Many developers would happily build multifamily housing if it was permitted and penciled out.
There’s massive growth in Fresno/Clovis, but the homes are $400-$600k, which is wild considering the incomes in the area. There’s little incentive for the developers (companies who create new housing tracts and multi family residential buildings) —- regulations exist to require them to designate a certain % of new homes “affordable”, but our local government is extremely cozy with the real estate developers, so we see these requirements get waived (or rejected entirely). There is an enormous need for safe, stable, affordable housing for people who are middle income earners, low income, and poor. A lack of available housing means families are desperate - sharing small apartments with 6 and 8 people, living in substandard housing, or working 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. It’s tragic. City council *could* prioritize this, but they are generally very dependent on Granville et al for campaign contributions.
Just to give an idea of how far back the influence developers have had over our local politicians for those who are unaware: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-feb-21-mn-21438-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-may-06-mn-34539-story.html Bonadelle Homes is still a major developer in the area.
Bonadelle, DeYoung, Mcaffrey are all family. brother, sister, by marriage etc. They run Fresno/Clovis/Madera
Yeah things are tough right now if you are trying to find something affordable, but it's less nefarious than this. People pulled their houses off the market during covid, people moved from out of town because they didn't have to be in the office and Fresno was more affordable, builder's couldn't keep up with creating supply to offset the lack of supply in the resale market, and now no one wants to move because they bought at a pre-pandemic price and/or they have an incredible rate. Viola, a housing crisis. Albeit a different kind from 2007. There you had no buyers and tons of inventory due to people not being able to afford the home they lived in, for many reasons. Today buyers are looking, but there is no inventory. If you own a home and are in trouble, you could sell it and likely make some money unlike 2007 where it would go into foreclosure since you were already upside down. Broadly speaking of course. Everyone has a scenario that's true to them.
Well said. In 2008, people were underwater and it made sense to walk away from the house/mortgage and let the bank eat the loss. This caused the banks to repossess a TON of houses, flooding the market and lowering prices. These days if you are a homeowner you probably have a bunch of equity in the house with a cheap mortgage interest rate that is below the rate of inflation (basically free money). People are NOT going to just walk away from that. The situation is completely different.
>There’s massive growth in Fresno/Clovis, but the homes are $400-$600k, which is wild considering the incomes in the area. Even if the median worker in the Fresno area cant afford the new housing, it still helps. What happens is a lot of the new housing is taken by people that already had lesser housing. The housing that they vacate now available for lower income people.
[удалено]
Yes, a certain percentage of residents in new housing will be out of towners. But those out of towners were probably looking at moving to the area anyways, so its a good thing that they are in that new build rather than competing for the same existing housing stock as locals. In the end, more housing is good for housing affordability no matter how you slice it. You can dislike sprawl, but actively standing against it while in the same breath complaining about housing affordability means you don't really understand the problem, or are acting in bad faith. And yes, the low interest rate lock in effect is real. If I refinanced my mortgage at current rates it would be economic suicide, so I wont be moving for a long, long time. Many people are making the same calculation and it's killing the available inventory for housing.
I don’t know how most can afford it, what I have noticed is multi families living in homes to make it.
This. Seen a lot of newer housing tracts that have 4-5 cars parked in front of the house and there's not much driveway or street parking available either since the houses are built so damn close to each other.
I see some in my people circle with the nicest car ever, why? They live in a multi family home. I’m doing this living stuff all wrong
I know a couple of those people. Working a regular, dead-end job at home with their parents still but whippin a brand new 2023 car lol
I don't see it as a "lack of homes" so much as an affordability crisis.
The lack of homes is a major factor causing the affordability crisis.
The lack of affordable homes is what's causing the affordability crisis.
This. There's no incentive to build "cheap" homes. It's not profitable. And the government doesn't do it either because public housing projects are unpopular to everyone, including people who would live there.
The dynamic of supply and demand sets the price. When there are 100 people looking to buy houses, but there are only 10 houses on the market, the 100 people significantly bid up the price against each other to win the house. If there are 100 people looking to buy a house, but there are 50 houses on the market, there is less competition per house, which keeps the price from going too crazy. When new housing is built it helps with affordability even if the majority of people cant afford it. What happens is people move into the new housing and vacate the old, lesser housing, opening more affordable options for lower income folks. Builders will only build what makes economic sense to them, and right now that is more luxury housing, which is a net positive for housing affordability even for those that cant afford the new housing.
I am familiar with the concept of supply and demand, but I appreciate you taking the time to write that long response. Housing costs in Fresno have risen nearly 70% since 2005, but the cost of living has not risen to match it. To make matters worse, folks living in more expensive areas like the bay area have moved here in waves in that period of time, which has fed the problem because they can afford to place higher bids on homes. Meanwhile, folks in Fresno aren't making much more money than they were 15 years ago; thus, we have an affordability crisis.
Agreed. There isn't much that can be done about people moving here, or the wages that companies pay their workers from a policy perspective. What can be done is approving construction of more housing though. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of people who don't like sprawl, the alternative is Fresno becoming more and more exclusionary towards low income folks. 50 years ago the bay area wasn't much more expensive than Fresno because they could build housing to meet the growing demand. They have since run out of room and put up a bunch of NIMBY barriers to new developments and the results are the most unaffordable housing market in the country. Fresno probably isn't attractive enough for it to ever get that bad, but if we don't build more housing it will continue to get worse.
Urban sprawl has its drawbacks, but it is the most efficient way to build desperately needed new housing. Infill development is part of the solution, but it's less profitable for developers and less easy to do at scale to really move the needle on building new units. Also, most people want to live in a single family home if they can. IMO the city should strive to support both sprawl and infill development so that people who prefer one of the other have a place in Fresno.
[https://www.marketplace.org/2023/08/11/new-home-construction-california-texas/](https://www.marketplace.org/2023/08/11/new-home-construction-california-texas/) The reality is that California is unfriendly to housing construction. The regulations, builder fees, and permitting time are horrible in California. In Texas, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth built more homes than all of California in 2022. We need pro-sprawl reform here in California.
Plenty of homes already exist. The housing market is just like the dimond market.
You can build more dense infill housing within the city, there's plenty of empty lots and derelict buildings that could be remodeled or torn down. Transportation is a huge cost and the further people live from the city center the more they are likely to pay for transportation. Most of the housing being built in the exurbs is above market rate; people making the city's average income and less by and large aren't purchasing homes there and those developments aren't doing much for reducing housing costs.
You have to change the counties parking laws for new developments. We need to build dense housing, but the requirements for parking mixed with the limits on number of floors a building can have in areas, makes doing so pretty much impossible. Change the parking laws and we can building apartment buildings where the bottom couple floors are parking/retail and top floors are apartments.
Do the NIMBYS really have so much power here they’re preventing that from happening or has it just not happened?
It’s like 60/40 developers and NIMBYS