Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Housing Market of the San Joaquin


As part of an innovative initiative known as Smart Valley Places, fourteen cities and four regional non-profit organizations in the San Joaquin Valley came together in 2010 as part of a collaborative effort known as Smart Valley Places to further the goals of sustainable planning, community engagement, and regional integration. The exorbitant expense of housing in California has been extensively reported. California’s average housing expenses have exceeded the rest of the country, and the situation is particularly dire in coastal communities. With rising housing costs, individuals “overpay” for housing, “over commute” by traveling long distances between home and work, and “overcrowd” by living in close quarters, all of which have a negative influence on the quality of life. People may become homeless under severe circumstances, either overtly on the streets or less obvious due to housing instability and coping with temporary and unstable accommodation. In California’s rural locations, high transportation expenses often outweigh the benefits of lower property prices due to lower demand. Residents in rural regions may experience a cost of living that is equivalent to that of their urban and suburban counterparts due to the combined burden of housing and transportation expenditures. Aside from that, high housing costs — and the problems associated with housing instability — raise health-care costs (for both individuals and the state), lower educational outcomes (which affect both individuals and the state’s productivity), and make it difficult for California businesses to recruit and retain employees. The state of California seems to have failed to keep pace with population or employment growth throughout the late 1990s, despite a solid overall economic performance during that period. Indeed, the state’s most recent economic boom seems to have resulted in a scarcity of housing, especially in heavily populated coastal districts, as indicated by the quick growth in the value of the residential real estate. As additional evidence of the housing crisis, some analysts have referred to the trend toward larger family sizes as a source of further concern. A key recommendation of the assessment is for grant recipients to participate in a participatory process of community discussion and decision-making that begins with data collection to develop action plans that reduce racial segregation, improve equal access to opportunity, and aggressively push fair housing for all residents. The emphasis of this study is on the fourteen compact communities that received grant monies, but the data and stories also contain discussion and analysis of the whole eight-county San Joaquin Valley area, which is included in the research.

Literature Review

According to various indicators, California looks to be in the throes of a catastrophic housing crisis. When compared to previous levels, the new building is abysmal. The cost of living is high in many parts of the world, and in certain places like the Bay Area, it is extravagant. Vacancy rates are quite low, particularly for rental apartments. Furthermore, the number of people living in each housing unit has increased in California, despite the fact that it has decreased in the rest of the country(Severen,18). According to other metrics, the crisis is not as severe, or even that there is no crisis in large parts of the state, as previously thought. When inflation is taken into account, the median value of a house in the state was lower in 2000 than it was in 1990, according to the data.

Furthermore, salaries increased at a greater rate than rents or housing costs in most states. Prices and rentals in California’s most significant urban regions continue to be higher than in the rest of the country, although this may result from a long-standing phenomenon linked to salaries and amenities. New house development was also substantially slower in the United States than in previous cycles in this economic cycle. As previously stated, the source of California’s population growth—children and immigrants—could also account for the state’s larger household sizes. Our investigation of California’s housing markets and our effort to explain why house building has underperformed in the 1990s compared to earlier economic cycles are the subjects of this paper. Could a unique set of macroeconomic events and demographic shifts that occurred throughout the 1990s be responsible for the slow pace of building in the decade before the millennium? In order to answer this issue, we examine the influence of macroeconomic and demographic variables on the housing market in California. We discover that the slowdown in new development throughout the 1990s may be attributed to many variables, but we also discover evidence of housing shortages in the state’s main urban centers during this period. As a result, the slowdown in house-building during the 1990s was felt both nationally and in California, demonstrating that the slowdown in new construction during the 1990s was at least partially explained by the national macroeconomic events that occurred during that time period. The severity of the 1990 recession, the delayed pace of recovery, and the demographic shifts that occurred in the state are all factors contributing to the state’s more significant economic slump.

Characteristics of the Housing Stock

The housing divide represents the percentage of single-family housing vs multi-family housing in San Joaquin County. The 1-year estimates from the US Census Bureau were used to compare the number of multi-family and single-family dwellings developed in a given year. One or more connected residences or apartment complexes are considered multi-family housing. As the graphic illustrates, the proportion of single-family homes to multi-family homes has remained stable. In recent years, detached single-family houses have accounted for around 75 percent of all housing units in the county, with multi-family units accounting for approximately 25 percent.

Single-family houses account for most residential units built in San Joaquin County between 2000 and 2016, accounting for more than 93 percent of all residential units built between 2000 and 2016. On the other hand, the bulk of the units built-in California at the same period were multi-family dwellings. The abundance of space and low cost of real estate in the North San Joaquin Valley contribute to the type of house development. The construction of big single-family dwelling projects in metropolitan regions such as San Francisco and Los Angeles is more challenging than in other places.

Residential Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plans are developed every eight years by SJCOG to determine how many new housing units each jurisdiction in San Joaquin County should build to ensure that housing remains accessible and affordable for the county’s growing population. The plan is updated every eight years. The demographic and employment predictions used to determine the requirement for housing buildings are shown here. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 40,360 additional units must be built in San Joaquin County between 2014 and 2023. As of 2017, just 6,881 new homes have been constructed. By 2023, if the current development pace is maintained, there would be a huge housing supply shortfall of more than 20,000 units, which will signal the end of the housing component cycle.

Comparisons With Other States And Regions

Most of the methods mentioned above alter growth patterns, although this is typically a side consequence of other policy goals, such as better traffic flow, resource protection, or economic development. Of course, these technologies may be used to manage regional expansion by restricting or guiding its “footprint.” However, state policy commitment is frequently required, particularly for regulation. In California and the US, such commitments have been made. California’s Coastal Commission and Tahoe Regional Planning Entity, a bi-state agency between California and Nevada, both regulate regional land use for environmental preservation. However, in these and other examples, like the Adirondack Park Agency, significant constituencies, such as environmentalists, claim an interest in the territory. 76 Other states have adopted state-level growth policies. Urban development boundaries are required under Oregon’s well-known “top-down” regional planning system. Maryland has a budget-driven system that prioritizes state budget goals to stimulate development in certain sectors and conservation in others, but they are the exceptions.

The capacity to plan successfully for urban growth in a situation where local government dominates decision-making is likely to be very location-dependent. As indicated before, localities on the urban fringe are less likely to be amenable to influencing development in the interests of longer-term and larger geographic constituents (Michael et al. 2224). Things may alter as growth increases. As the Bay Area overflow counties of Stanislaus and San Joaquin, Riverside County is huge, fast-growing, and politically conservative. Riverside County was under significant state and federal pressure to establish a multi-species protection strategy. Faced with increased population and citizens traveling to Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, the county sought to create new transportation routes. Instead of doing this piecemeal, the county spent millions of dollars coordinating planning for wildlife preserves, transportation, and—at least in unincorporated areas—land use. The outcome is the Riverside County Integrated Project, which supports the county’s future expansion in both “green” and transportation infrastructure. The Riverside County experience was not perfect—the county land-use plan did not match the city land-use plans—but it may serve as a model. In fact, Riverside is more significant than the three Bay overflow counties combined and almost as big as Kern County; therefore, the 77 Integrated Project addressed with regional challenges. However, it is just one county, but the San Joaquin Valley is eight counties wide. As stated before, the San Joaquin Valley has the policy instruments to cope with regional development challenges. The Valley may lack the political will, or even the cultural or ideological predisposition, to deploy these instruments in concert.

The San Joaquin Valley’s history and present features imply it may not follow California’s usual urbanization pattern. People today have greater access to knowledge on urban challenges than ever before, thanks to over 50 years of environmental debate and unprecedented mass communication. The Valley has been more vocal about the concerns discussed in this report—farmland preservation, transit improvements, and urban growth—than other historically rural communities facing urbanization. Nevertheless, the Valley’s people are being assaulted with contradictory signals. It is not always simple to determine what Valley people know and think about regional development challenges.

Tiebout Sorting Model

In order to conduct our investigation, we create a two-region variant of the general equilibrium model developed by Sterk. For two representative families f, each of which has a continuum of members, the model is specified in terms of two time periods, each of which is t. We distinguish between a safe and a dangerous zone, denoted by the letters I = safe and r = risky. The distinction between vulnerable and resilient households is similar to that made by Sterk. We distinguish between two types of households: one that is dependent on obtaining a mortgage for financing a move (vulnerable households) and one that is not (resilient households), i.e., f = vulnerable(vul), resilient (re). As stated in the introduction, it is conceivable that, in the absence of a flood occurrence, flood risk has only a minimal direct influence on the decision-making of individuals and families (Hintermann and Florian 1166). However, if flood risk influences credit markets, the demand for houses in high-risk locations may continue to decline. In our version of the model, we distinguish between equilibrium home prices (which are endogenous) and property appraisals (which are exogenous), which a fake real estate agent performs. It is via the real estate agent that the credit markets are used to value risk, and this is included in the model. Property valuations define the collateral value of a housing unit, while equilibrium housing prices have an impact on the demand for residential real estate. As a result, property assessments are only directly significant for the movement of disadvantaged families.

The labor and housing markets in a particular area serve as a conduit for interaction amongst the actors in that region. Two sample families and one company owned by the resilient households fill each area, which is divided into four sub-regions. In order to calculate equilibrium housing prices, the (fixed) supply of housing must be matched by an equal amount of aggregate demand.

Monocentric Model

Due to urban sprawl and functional diversity, the monocentric city model’s predictive effectiveness in predicting urban spatial organization has been questioned. By merging numerous monocentric city models, the fundamental unit in assessing urban space, this research attempts to overcome the model’s inability to describe current cities. A floor area ratio and geographically weighted regression are used to assess the model’s applicability to Haikou. Over the last several decades, the rising tourist function along the sea coast has challenged San Joaquim’s conventional spatial organization as a provincial capital where production activities are centered. Instead of a strong, asymmetrical, and unevenly distributed marginal influence on urban space like the long-established monocentric “city” model does, the new monocentric “city” model along the coast has a modest, one-sided, and evenly distributed marginal effect. Therefore, a monocentric “city” model based on several “centers” with unique urban roles might describe the existing spatial organization of san Joaquim. On the monocentric city, this integrated city concept grew.

For much of the 20th century, the Alonso monocentric city model was empirically tested. A broad theory of land values and uses in cities were constructed using neo-classical demand and substitution theory, agricultural rent theory, and concentric ring market theory. With bid rent curves in a monocentric city model, a single homeowner trades off the size of the dwelling plot (residential density) for proximity to the city center (or workplace). Instead of direct consumption of land by humans, some scholars devised a more realistic monocentric model where land is an intermediary input in home production. However, these models modify the notion of agglomeration economies to imply that commodities production happens exclusively in one continuous region — CBD. So it is crucial to develop fundamentally new models that reflect the 7 evolving urban spatial organizations based on the concept of monocentric.

Agglomeration economies and congestion conflict come from city development, allowing employment sub-centers to form, contrary to the monocentric hypothesis. Exogenous sub-centers and the CBD are assumed in urban land-use models. Departing from the CBD, the land rent gradient displays an upward tendency to a local maximum at sub-centers before falling further. Some experts argue that a general equilibrium model should establish job locations endogenously rather than assuming a priori locations. Accordingly, non-monocentric city models are created, with many equilibria for various parameter values. Without theoretical derivations or empirical verification, these models assist to better comprehending how contemporary city growth alters spatial arrangement. A city with many goods and functions has several centers for diverse activities, making the notion of monocentric unworkable. More than 20 years later, today’s cities are distinguished by company diversity, organizational complexity, and product variety. Company, unit, and product location choices drive demand for various city centers. We created an expanded city location concept with two developers to meet this additional demand. For example, a city’s commercial sector splits into two, each with one developer, as it grows (Florian 2). Assuming the city has multi-unit enterprises, a primary labor market arises at the city’s core, while secondary labor markets emerge in the suburbs. The monocentric city concept extends the manufacturing mode and the city services such as transportation and housing. As a result, the urban spatial organization alters fundamentally as each function has its own premium position, ranging from the financial CBD to recreational facilities.

Modern cities are increasingly populated by individuals with diverse tastes, reflecting the diversity of production systems and municipal roles throughout the decades. As a result of many job sites, workers with varying educational backgrounds, abilities, and duties tend to create bid-rent curves. Consumer heterogeneity decentralizes the linear urban form by “flattening” rent and population density gradients, making the present city spatial structure more complicated. However, most of the aforementioned models lack simplicity and variety in expressing urban spatial organization compared to the monocentric city model. They help us understand how contemporary cities’ functional diversity alters the geographical arrangement of metropolitan regions by generating sub-centers. Some issues remain unresolved in earlier work despite extensive modeling of cities with diverse roles and different hubs. First, different models are seen as substitutes rather than complements in cities with sub-centers. Contrarily, non-monocentric models attack monocentric models for their lack of current ideals, while monocentric models defend themselves for their simplicity and flexibility. Deuxièmement, developing a well-developed model in modern polycentric cities, has been slow.

Future Directions And Conclusion

When it comes to equitable land use planning, protecting underserved and vulnerable groups from the negative consequences of land use and ensuring that they have access to the benefits of community infrastructure are the most critical considerations to consider. The systematic exclusion of low-income people and people of color from land use and planning choices, on the other hand, has led to the existing disparity that communities in the San Joaquin Valley are dealing with today. As a result of discriminatory land-use rules and inequitable urban investment, marginalized populations continue to suffer the consequences of their exclusion. In order to ensure the creation of inclusive and healthy communities that are shaped by local engagement, policymakers, planners, and activists must take proactive actions to ensure that underserved and vulnerable people have more access to opportunity. In order for the San Joaquin Valley to expand and flourish in the future, equitable, sustainable, and efficient land use is required. It is also critical for the health and well-being of children and families in the area. In light of the many problems that the Valley is experiencing, it is critical to acknowledge one of the region’s most valuable assets: its people. The area is home to a varied and expanding community of individuals who are dedicated to ensuring a brighter future for their children and their grandchildren. With a projected increase from around 4 million in 2010 to 7.4 million by 2060, the population of the San Joaquin Valley is forecast to almost double, with the fastest growth happening among Latino, Asian, and mixed communities. For the San Joaquin Valley to fully capitalize on its people’s vitality and dedication, institutions must aim to be more inclusive and strengthen the capacity of locals to construct more sustainable, equitable, and prosperous neighborhoods. In order to maximize the effectiveness of these initiatives, attention must be paid to both the immediate needs of children and families experiencing crises and the wider structural causes that contribute to health disparities.

Works Cited

Bailey, Michael, et al. “The economic effects of social networks: Evidence from the housing market.” Journal of Political Economy 126.6 (2018): 2224-2276.

Kuhlmey, Florian, and Beat Hintermann. “The welfare costs of Tiebout sorting with true public goods.” International Tax and Public Finance 26.5 (2019): 1166-1210.

Kuhlmey, Florian. Local income tax competition with progressive taxes and a fiscal equalization scheme. No. 2017/17. WWZ Working Paper, 2017.

Severen, Christopher. “Commuting, labor, and housing market effects of mass transportation: Welfare and identification.” (2018).


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics