More Bubble Trouble in California?

Bank-owned+home.jpg

Just six years since the last housing bubble, California is blowing up another. This may seem like good news to homeowners and speculators alike but it could further accelerate the demise of the state's middle class and push more businesses out of the state.

On its face, a real estate turnaround should be a strong sign of an economic recovery. In Southern California, home sales have jumped 14 percent over last year and the median price is up 16 percent, some 25 percent in Orange County. We may not quite be at 2007 super-bubble levels but we're getting there, particularly in the more desirable areas.

Yet, before opening the champagne, we need to look at some of the downsides of this asset recovery. We are not seeing much new construction, particularly of single-family homes, so the supply is not being replenished as inventory sinks. Meanwhile, many of the homebuyers are not families seeking residences, but flippers, Wall Street types and foreign investors. A remarkable one-in-three Southern California home purchasers paid with cash, up from 27 percent from last year.

It's clear that this increase is not being fueled primarily by income growth among middle-class Californians; these "prices are rising disconnected from household incomes," notes one analyst. Indeed, California incomes have been dropping somewhat more rapidly, down $2,600 per household from 2007-11, according to the American Community Survey, compared with a $200 drop nationwide. California incomes are still 13 percent higher than the national average, but a lot less so than in the past, particularly given the much higher costs and taxation.

This leads to what is becoming the biggest problem facing the state – a decline in the rates of affordability. The previous bubble left us a legacy of more-affordable housing, an advantage we may now be losing. Historically, and in much of the country, the median multiple, which compares the median-price home to median household income, was in the three range. At the height of the previous bubble, the median multiple for the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area, reached 11.5 in 2007, then fell to a still-elevated 5.7 in 2009, notes demographer Wendell Cox. It remained steady in 2011, but in just the past year the measurement has shot up to 6.2. A few more years at this rate, and housing affordability could worsen materially.

The new bubble can be seen elsewhere in the state. The most prominent inflation in housing values can be seen in the San Francisco Bay Area, which has enjoyed the most buoyant recovery from the recession. Never a cheap area, in 2006, San Francisco reached a median multiple of10.8 and Silicon Valley (San Jose) rose to 9.3. When the bubble imploded, the median multiple fell to 6.7 in both metropolitan areas, still well above any level recorded before the housing bubble. But now, amidst a concentrated boom in the western side of the Bay, the median multiple rose the equivalent of 1.1 years of income in San Francisco (to 7.8) and 1.0 years of income in San Jose (7.9) in a single year.

Of course, you can argue that the higher prices in the Bay Area are explainable at least in part by a growth in employment and wealth generated by tech start-ups. But what about soaring prices in places like the Inland Empire (Riverside-San Bernardino), Sacramento or Fresno, where economic growth has been torpid, and unemployment remains well north of 10 percent? Over the past year, Sacramento's median multiple has risen from an affordable 2.9 to 3.2, the Inland Empire from 3.2 to 3.7 while Fresno's has gone from 3.1 to 3.5.

As these prices rises, the California dream, already increasingly off-limits in the coastal areas, begins to become less achievable even in the inland areas. Already, barely 55 percent of Californians own their own home, down from the bubble-period high of 60 percent in 2005 and compared with upward of 65 percent nationally.

Traditionally, the pent-up demand for houses would be met in the marketplace, but California's Draconian planning laws make this very difficult. In the first 11 months of 2012, the Census Bureau reports that the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area had half as many construction permits than much smaller Dallas-Fort Worth, 60 percent of Houston's permits and fewer even than the relatively tiny Austin, Texas, metropolitan area. More to the point, more than 70 percent of L.A.'s construction was in multifamily units while the majority in most areas, (except for such areas as New York, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego) was in single-family homes.

Given the state's planning preference for high-density housing, even in suburban and exurban areas, there's little hope that California single-family home buyers can expect much relief. As millennials age, and seek out this form of housing as they start families, they will likely look increasingly elsewhere, for example, in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Phoenix or Atlanta. The great California exodus, which slowed during the housing bust, will likely pick up, joining up with the continued movement of employers to more business-friendly states.

In the short run, of course, not everyone loses from a new bubble. Owners of homes, particularly along the coast, will see a big increase in their net worth. There could be good times ahead again for what author Bob Bruegmann calls "the incumbent's club." With projected new units running at one-half their 2007 level until 2015, scarcity will help the state's graying gentry. These same citizens also enjoy a double bonus, since most are protected by Proposition 13 from paying higher property taxes on their rising property values.

The bubble may also have short-term positive impact on local governments, which may benefit from high property taxes if more homes change hands at higher prices. The "wealth effect" could also bring new capital-gains income to a state government whose revenue stream increasingly depends on the upper-class taxpayer, particularly after the passage of Proposition 30, which increased the state's reliance on high-income earners. In this sense, the asset inflation could help Gov. Jerry Brown enjoy his much-trumpeted surplus, and he may even avoid the deficit projected next year by the Legislative Analyst.

These positive effects may be outweighed by bigger concerns. The pushback against single-family homes will restrain the growth of the construction industry, still down 400,000 jobs from its 2006 peak. This is particularly critical for working-class Californians, many of whom previous made decent livings in this industry.

But workers and homebuilders won't be the only ones affected; so, too, will consumers. Without a loosening of regulatory constraints, pent-up demand for housing, particularly the single-family variety, will remain largely unaddressed. This will further inflate the bubble even in unfashionable areas. We may soon see a surplus of rental apartments, but not enough single-family homes; the ownership market, as evidenced by the rising median multiples, will continue to tighten, and prices could rise even more, even in a mediocre economy.

The groups hit hardest by this scenario will be middle- and working-class Californians, particularly above the age of 30-35, most of whom desire to own their own home. Unable to qualify, or unwilling to overleverage, many will be forced either to give up their dreams or look elsewhere, taking their talents and, eventually, their offspring, with them.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

This piece originally appeared in the Orange County Register.

Photo by Sean Dreilinger: One of two adjacent bank owned homes.



















Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the median multiple, which

the median multiple, which compares the median-price home to median household income, was in the three range. At the height of the previous bubble, the median multiple for the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area samuel

He later deleted much of it

He later deleted much of it but Zachary Quinto, the openly gay star of the current batch of Star Trek movies, had seen enough and decided to take to Twitter to give Trump a little lecture about finding more constructive ways to spend his time.zorpia

The "wealth effect" could

The "wealth effect" could also bring new capital-gains income to a state government whose revenue stream increasingly depends on the upper-class taxpayer, particularly after the passage of Proposition 30, which increased the state's reliance on high-income earners. icon brickell for sale

Still, a robust recovery

Still, a robust recovery appears unlikely, and some regions of the country are expected to suffer fallout from the bursting of the housing bubble for years to come. That includes California, which is now tied with Oregon for the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation, behind Michigan, Rhode Island and Nevada. The U.S. unemployment rate is 9.4%, down from 9.5% in June. ~ 1800fairoffer.com/siliconvalley/blog/

California tracking the UK experience a few decades behind

The UK is the classic case of what urban growth containment does to an economy and to society. It is tragic that this has not been the focus of study on the part of people elsewhere who are deciding whether to adopt the same policies. They commenced these policies around 1950; California was about a quarter of a century later to the same thing.

The UK economy consists of London: with global finance, insurance, media and bureaucracy - all convenient "weightless" sources of inflow of income. Most of the rest of the country is a stagnant socio-economic disaster, having destroyed the real industry on which THEIR cities depended for decades, while cyclical property price bubbles and relentless economic land rent inflation transfers whatever wealth is being truly "created", into the hands of the non-productive rentier class.

The construction sector has steadily shrunk in the UK even as the actual shortage of housing, and its average age and condition, becomes more and more of a social crisis. Each "cycle" of the property market involves a greater "price" response and a lesser "supply" response. They were building 5 times as many houses 50 years ago.

California is set to follow the UK into "once great" status, for the same reasons. At least Californians have somewhere to flee. Pity the poor British - they have no equivalent of the USA's affordable, pro growth South or heartland, that is as easy to migrate to.

same ol' stuck up bull crap

"People do not move to Texas because of it's physical beauty and pleasant weather."

Just because you don't see the beauty in the Great Plains doesn't mean that everyone is blind to it.

Here's another bubble...

"In the first 11 months of 2012, the Census Bureau reports that the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area had half as many construction permits than much smaller Dallas-Fort Worth, 60 percent of Houston's permits and fewer even than the relatively tiny Austin, Texas, metropolitan area"

You have missed a serious geographical issue here. Housing in Texas is nothing more than a commodity where the next planned community looks exactly like the last planned community and the geography is consistent. This is why home appreciation is very low in Texas. People do not move to Texas because of it's physical beauty and pleasant weather.

In California, the farther away from the coast you get, the cheaper. California housing costs are all related to the value of the land and housing is simply a monetization function of the land.

Is California in another housing bubble? Well of course..that's not up for debate. But I will tell you another bubble that will be far more spectacular, the energy bubble. And it will not be pretty.

The new "deniers"

So how do you explain California's decades of very rapid growth and affordable housing before they started obstructing new development?

And how do you explain dire unaffordability of housing in all cities in England, regardless of the presence of plenty of surrounding flat land, regardless of undesirable climate, and regardless of economic stagnation?

And how do you explain dire unaffordability of housing in all cities in Australia, given that their natural endowment is more like Texas than California, and given that Australia is 0.4% urbanised, and many of its cities are adjacent to massive flat hinterlands?

The term "denier" is becoming more and more appropriate for the economic slope-brows who do not see any connection between regulations that "quota" the supply of something, and the resulting equilibrium price.

F A Hayek was absolutely right about the kind of mind that would be attracted to "planning" as a profession. It seems that this kind of mind inevitably has no capacity whatsoever for basic economics; and pity help the people who end up under their rule. Parallels with the advocates of the "planned economy", which resulted in the human catastrophes of the former USSR, Mao's China, etc, are appropriate.