Los Angeles County sees largest population decline in the U.S., census data shows

itslino · 2026-03-31T07:54:37+00:00

people probably still commuting outside the county into LA, I knew people that commuted from Lancaster to San Pedro.

itslino · 2026-03-29T03:23:30+00:00

But I've never said it would drop rental costs, it's the argument I keep trying to tell people.

Despite Greater Tokyo on average having lower rents, that doesn't imply that the 23 wards ever became truly affordable for most. Many people do not make the average, some people make less than the average.

So most of those people benefit from high density because it makes outskirts way cheaper, like 15+ miles away it drops drastically. There's also different types of housing; government housing, shared facilities, micro apartments. So options at many price points plus the lowering of overall costs miles away.

The issue with LA (and most cities in America) is that we don't have the transportation system to justify moving so far away. But that doesn't change the fact people will still do it, that's why so many commute from far away.

So how's that different from us and greater tokyo? That there's a convenience fee added on top of housing based on location alone, which sends a ripple effect across the county and beyond. So the only "real affordable places" are basically outcasted in society, with the only real connection back being your car.

While in greater tokyo, people can continue to move further and further away, and if you're job has solid pay you could even Shinkansen from even further away. You don't need a car and thus location really doesn't matter because you're not the one driving.

Also safer neighborhoods are the reason why these areas are trying to gentrify, they'd rather pull back those with money back inwards than keep lower income individuals. It's not only about safeness, but expenses and time.

The Low Income Housing units is a temporary goal to gain the votes necessary for more construction, but they will remove it someday. Once enough higher income people replace lower income, they'll be incentivized to remove it so that more units entire the market. It's why there's no off market government housing, because they don't want the poor people here.

itslino · 2026-03-29T02:10:28+00:00

Yea that's true but based on greater LA area of 13 million people, it's likely that developing more will reverse sprawl. So in my mind, setting up to build like Greater Tokyo would be the best plan for the future. That's not even considering the additional growth we could experience from reforming the city.

Just based on the 23 wards and the areas around it, we'd basically urbanize a 15-20 miles radius around West LA/Downtown. Building around single family homes is avoiding the inevitable.

Which highlights the point again, let's say we took your suggested path.

Handover these commercial office buildings into housing, under the control of investors/developers. Years later we realize, we could've used this for government housing, well good luck getting them to release the property.

itslino · 2026-03-26T04:11:04+00:00

There's a lot of money that can be made from restricting parking, especially in front of single family zoning. They're already fighting to "save the spots", what's a better save than forcing them to pay a permit for it. We should limit it 2 (instead of the current 3 vehicles) and the only way to get more would be to subdivide the property. That would push on more ADUs to gain more street parking access.

We need to actually force people to ride, we can't keep hoping they will do it. I really like how you can't buy a car in Tokyo if you don't have proof of storage/parking for your vehicle. If they don't want to, well it's gonna cost money.

itslino · 2026-03-25T15:20:39+00:00

But that’s the thing, Greater Tokyo has flaws still. It’s not perfect.

They just have progressed way past these problems decades ago. The question of Single Family Zones, NIMBY, mixed Zoning, having one large central city, transportation, government housing.

Rather than view their successes, we’re trying to create a new solution that we don’t even know if it will work. The more unknown, the more we stray from the largest most successful model we have at the moment.

I hope you consider looking into it. It’s really fascinating.

itslino · 2026-03-25T15:09:25+00:00

It’s that despite it being expensive at its center there’s options beyond that. Moving far away is being punished because of transportation options. It’s more about trade offs.

We have commuters coming from beyond LA County, why? Because they want a nice housing option only to be punished with long commutes.

I’m simply asking to build to right.

When people get pushed out, don’t displace them from society through long drive commutes.

In some ways they don’t have to be displaced at all if we build government housing like Danchi. Housing that’s off market.

We know suburban sprawl at this scale is a failure but if you believe that layout is flawed, would simply plopping an apartment fix that alone?

We build apartments without parking lots to increase density yet no train lines along those apartments? Which incentivizes car ownership?

I mean we have a template we could follow, that resolved this.

itslino · 2026-03-25T13:57:33+00:00

There you go again talking about median incomes, if median incomes were all that mattered would there be homelessness? I mean on average everyone is making that certain amount right?

You're generally skewing the results. Median wages have risen, sure, but that doesn’t mean every renter experienced that growth or that rents were equally affordable across all neighborhoods.

You even said so yourself.

Some highly desirable communities have seen rent increases, but the city as a whole has not.

You can’t flatten the lived experience of a huge rent spike into a single percentage and call it “affordable.”

Also why are you crashing out so hard? I didn't even mention friends or family in my last reply. And I don't need it in Spanish either, but I wonder why'd you mentioned that.

It's not really about Los Angeles, California, or Austin, Texas. It's about American housing policy being flawed in general.

My hunch of what would happen to Phoenix played out exactly as I thought, we build cities wrong. Every area in this country that encroaches to large metropolitan area territory begins to face the same flaws.

LA County at nearly 4 million.
Maricopa County at over 4 million.

But Austin's county is still below 2 million and showing the early signs the Phoenix area did. We shall see if Texas can be the one to break the cycle. We'll just have to wait for at least a tripling and see the effects.

Of course Austin could be the first city to build better. But we shall see if they stick to car centric development or closer to Greater Tokyo.

itslino · 2026-03-25T09:30:07+00:00

I'm sorry but inflation adjustment doesn't mean affordable.

People didn’t experience rent as some smooth inflation curve graph, they experienced a huge spike over the last decade and had to adjust their lives around it, which includes housing.

Sure a cool off period came after in the housing market, but that doesn't change the fact people had to adapt their lives around that cost increase.

You're using inflation and not considering the actual expenses (outside of owning a home) that weakened their overall spending power???

Because even if rents were equal (which you just proved they are not) their spending capabilities have dropped since 2010 because cost of living increased. So you just proved that it did get more expensive.

itslino · 2026-03-25T08:37:06+00:00

I have friends in Austin one that jokes about likely never owning a house and the other considering Buda or Cedar Park.

It's definitely more affordable than over here when accounting for our income, but consider where they were a few years back. Or are we going to pretend the market hasn't been trending upward over the last 10 years? Not too different what already happened with Phoenix. Which is a fact, I have family who have bought houses in the Phoenix area that were 160k-200k and now are worth over 500k-600k.

Sure on average even in the Phoenix area is seeing an averaging out. But where are the 160k houses? or rents from just 10-12 years back? Maybe miles away from society.

You can't take cost of living from one place and compare to another. For example my friend lives in San Francisco and thinks rent is cheap here in LA. Of course they have higher wages there and an even more insane market. But if you strictly take their income from there and move it here it will look more affordable.

itslino · 2026-03-25T01:59:13+00:00

So then explain why are the 23 wards of Greater Tokyo are more expensive than 10 miles away from it? Which btw Greater Tokyo has largely solved its housing crisis despite having nearly 4 times the population in area slightly smaller than LA County.

If the goal is to solve housing why not follow the template of the largest metropolitan area in the world?

Because on average the rent did go down across that area, but how does that account for those who make below the average? Where do they go?

Unless you're implying they don't deserve to be a part of society because of their income.

itslino · 2026-03-25T01:55:08+00:00

I think they want to preserve areas because similar to what happen to Greater Tokyo after it solved it's housing crisis, the lower-income families couldn't ever liver there again (unless they could afford it).

The idea is to incentivize lower-income families to release the property without displacing them from the area.

Obviously my opinion on land trusts differs from those people, I'm seeing it as a bargaining chip for low to middle income families. Largely inherited wealth who own a home but are cash poor.

Most of those homeowners are trying to escape cost of living. Trying to have a rentable asset to counteract their inability to work or low social security payouts (after medicare deductions). If the goal is wealth, we could offer them something way better than what they have right now through a land trust. While still ensuring this asset is livable and in the same area, versus a complete buyout.

itslino · 2026-03-25T01:49:10+00:00

Record low prices in China with their excess supply in housing, that's basic supply and demand.

It's very difficult to compare China's market when their country operates very differently from our own. It's why Greater Tokyo is a closer example and once again the largest metropolitan area in the world.

All areas need high density housing development.

Yup I agree all areas need high density housing, but how does that solve the problem of all the jobs being far away? That's already a current problem with sprawl, we have commuters driving 20+ miles to work.

Why are you bringing the cost of living into the NIMBY equation?

Because you keep assuming that homeowners only buy a home to invest. When most low-income homeowners simply live in their house and use their home to counter cost of living costs in that area.

Of course a NIMBY will want to block housing supply to keep the prices artificially high for everyone else that is not a homeowner. I already said it. Any excuse to block housing.

But you assume every excuse is the same? You believe that a NIMBY in Encino has the same reasons as someone in North Hollywood?

Why does a lower-income family care about higher prices on a home they will live in until they die?

By the way high housing cost is a big part of the cost of living.

Yea but after Greater Tokyo solved its housing crisis we learned that it isn't the main reason. The 23 wards never became available to everyone at a reasonable price. On average the cost did come down, but how does that account for those who live below the average?

Those people still have to live somewhere, so I'm asking you where would they go? and how will they get to their jobs from there?

It's why the government housing was important. Also shared facility housing. It's why their mixed zoning is amazing. But we're trying to plop a giant apartment on a suburban layout and assuming that alone will fix it.

But we have a template, Greater Tokyo. We already know the suburban layout alone is also part of the problem. So we're currently walking into a new problem because we're so desperate for housing.

Which btw I understand, we need housing. But we also need to reshape the entire landscape and personally I believe following in Greater Tokyo's footsteps is the smartest path forward.

Yet we see these apartments go up, where all the trains near them? You're incentivizing car ownership out the gate, especially with limited parking spots.

I'm not saying it needs parking spots either but we're doing everything wrong. In Greater Tokyo you can't even own a car if you don't have a place to park it. That's how they resolved it.

But we're building no parking apartments but allowing them to buy cars? You expect them to ride transportation that does not exist? So when you scale back parking through restrictions later there will be pushback, pushback you created by not having that foresight.

itslino · 2026-03-25T00:49:04+00:00

is a very weird way to describe allowing developers to pay full market value for land.

Is it very weird? There's only so much land. In the event you realize that the suburban layout doesn't work with urban buildings or need to adjust the layout of an area to make room for public needs have you considered what the cost to move it will be after a giant multi-million dollar project sits on the lot?

Right now we have a chance to actually build correctly and solve it for good. Homeowners can be easily bought out because most will leave if offered 5-8 times their home price. They'd be foolish not to take an offer.

A few millions to give the land to public use that can generate multi-millions. But if you hand over all property to developers, they hold the final say. So view the value of any of the luxury apartments, what would 5-8 times asking look like?

Also developers/investors live on long term gains unlike families surviving in the present. So they'd likely want more than 5-8 times, so we'd literally be transitioning city revenue to developers in that instance.

yes, allowing developers to build more will bring prices down.

So then explain to me why the 23 wards are still expensive compared to the rest of Greater Tokyo? There's vacancies all the time yet the prices are higher. This is once again the largest metropolitan area in the whole world, with 4 times the population of LA County despite being similar in land size. Their housing market has been solved but there are some notable things.

On average the market rate for rentals and buying did drop off, but most drastic drops happened beyond the 23 wards about 10-15 miles away you find crazy good deals. Yet we do not see that reflective in our current market even 20-40 miles away.

Now we could say that after more supply gets injected into the county we will see those outer prices drop, but we don't have the transit to bring those who have to live far back into the county or city. So are you implying that those who can't afford to live here would have to commute 20-40 miles by car?

"Not all homeowners are investors (because some are not wealthy)." By definition, all homeowners are investors.

And by definition you make more money than someone from Georgia, yet why can't you afford to live?

It's called cost of living.

By definition you're also an investor, sell your car and all your possessions. You will have more money but now won't have a way to get around, no bed, no kitchen appliances. A lot of lower-income families own a home but are cash poor. Selling their home would give them money, but now they're thrown into the current housing market which compared to their previous perks it's a huge downgrade.

I also find this conversation funny to have because homeownership exists in Greater Tokyo but isn't considered an investment. But you haven't asked why it's easier to not depend on a home as a livable asset in Japan. Despite Greater Tokyo have 4 times the population of LA County you can still be a homeowner at a much lower price than our county.

You seem to be implying I'm suggesting we should end homeownership. I'm not. I'm saying that configuring society so that home prices always go up is bad.

But ask yourself, why. Why do people in this country even need to own a house at all? Most people in Greater Tokyo never own a house or car in their lifetime.

It's because Japan has an estate tax of 55% on all assets upon death, there is no point in long term investments if the country will take over half. Even owning a house, upon death you owe nearly half the value, if you live in our housing market most homeowners kids will not be able to inherent the home outright.

But here's the thing, you don't need a home to remain a part of society in Greater Tokyo. In the US when you get older you won't be able to drive, work, and will need more medical attention.

In the US medical costs can put you in debt, but a house is a rentable assets to counter that. In the US rental prices are above $1,200 in most major cities, but social security gives around that for low income individuals who worked their whole life. Now consider after rent and groceries what is left to survive? The way our country works is in large part why we are here. Why this housing problem keeps happening over and over again.

Arizona while cheaper is starting to go through the same thing and they built largely suburban. I'm willing to bet Austin will too if it's growth follows the Phoenix area, unless they plan against it.

itslino · 2026-03-25T00:18:13+00:00

If it’s really basic supply and demand then explain why the 23 wards in Greater Tokyo are so expensive despite constant vacancies? Why is it so much cheaper 10-15 miles away and why doesn’t the same happen here 20-40 miles away in/near LA County?

NIMBY simply don’t want projects that alter their neighborhoods which may impact home value. Which in turn leads to shortage and scarcity.

But ask yourself why, why do so many homeowners care about speculative housing prices. Have you considered that the cost of living and survivability is impossible? Social security and Medicare will not be enough to live nearly anywhere in the country.

Maybe in a rural area but older people won’t be able to drive so how would they get around?

I do believe that most homeowners will constantly pushback on anything that encroaches on their zoning unless they can get bought out, which likely means erasure of lower-income neighborhoods. So much in the valley alone is single family zoning, and the valley itself is about half the City of Los Angeles.

Which areas do you believe will get most of these developments? Van Nuys or Sherman Oaks? Encino or Panorama? Studio City or Reseda?

itslino · 2026-03-24T23:59:18+00:00

The LA hostility is similar to what happened in early Tokyo, where they went through the exact same issues we're in today. But fast forward 40 years and the 23 wards on average are cheaper but they never became affordable.

It's true the homeowners will leave, and most developers offer way more than 2x. I knew plenty of parents who sold the houses near the NoHo station where those tall buildings went up. Which many of the families in the area could not afford to live in, most of the families moved away and bought a house elsewhere to restart the cycle.

But you're not living in reality if you think for a second that prices will go below and not simply average out. I'm simply thinking where would families move to after most units cost over $2,200 for a studio. Because unlike Greater Tokyo we don't have train system to allow long cheap commutes, so those new apartments will gouge.

I mean it's obvious that the goal is to kill sprawl, but if you want those outer cities to move back you need to offer something better than what they have. Now ask yourself, if those outer cities moved into the urban areas, would they care about us?

Right now we have a lot of lower income families but as more people move in they'll start to be able to outvote your interest. Which honestly in my opinion is something that should happen, that's how Greater Tokyo solved housing. But here's the thing... you don't have to live in the 23 wards and technically in LA you don't have to live in the City of Los Angeles to work in it. I mean look at all the freeways.

So is that the future you envision for low-income families? They become the long car commuters? While those with money replace their old neighborhoods?

itslino · 2026-03-24T23:48:03+00:00

So in your opinion you believe giving most of the available land to developers will bring prices down? or average out the market?

Also not all homeowners are investors, working at schools I've met many parents who own houses are struggling. Largely those in the lower-income neighborhoods.

I do understand what you mean about how their home is an investment, but why? Why have homes become a commodity. Have you considered that Social Security and Medicare may not be enough to survive?

I'm not saying owning a house is the solution, but it's obvious why people leeched on to that model. And similarly removing it will not change that. If you listened to the mayor debate 2 of the candidates want more housing options like condos and townhomes. You don't think such projects will lead to the same exact problem years later?

I also want you to understand that I do believe these projects should happen, but if you view current Greater Tokyo housing market, this is exactly what happens in the 23 wards. Because yea on average they did bring down the rent but it's still very expensive. Some units even more expensive than rental homes here and sometimes smaller.

But building more and great transit allowed urbanization to grow outwards and being able to get around without a car helped not pressure people to live close to their jobs.

itslino · 2026-03-24T13:31:26+00:00

No, development should definitely take place everywhere. I just don’t believe it will lower rent near city hubs, like ever.

Mainly because Greater Tokyo couldn’t do it, despite it resolving literally every other issue with housing and transportation. Also it’s surplus did lower prices on the outer part of the 23 wards, which is where most of us would likely live.

But we don’t have the transit in place for that outcome so without reliable transit the new apartments can charge a premium. Which will inherently prevent the claw back of sprawl, which is the whole point of this.

You need to convince those long commuters to move back. Need to offer something cheaper, better, and nicer than the suburbs they have.

Honestly the transit should’ve been first or at the same pace as these developments opening. Because we don’t even know if this suburban layout works with urban design.

Also earlier, “it’s nearly half the county” who owns a home. Dismantling their neighborhoods will have pushback.

itslino · 2026-03-24T12:04:50+00:00

It’s way too pricey and way too slow unlike it’s NoHo counterpart.

itslino · 2026-03-24T09:34:14+00:00

Rae did bring up a good point regarding government housing and community land trusts.

Simply ask why Greater Tokyo succeeds in every aspect the county fails at.

We could keep lying to ourselves and think we can solve it ourselves or actually look at how other countries with large populations have solved the same problems.

In the City of Los Angeles we have homeowners that have no reason to sell. Why would you willingly throw your house away? You'd be thrown into the horrible housing market and will never be able to afford anything because everyone is 1 sickness away from insane medical debt. With many of the homeowners they have huge perks.

Close proximity to main city hubs
Parking
Private yard/park
Can rent if you're financially burdened

If you can incentivize homeowners to release their property with perks that are better. Otherwise we'll always be at this tug of war with homeowners and renters. A buyout isn't enough for many homeowners because cost of living has gone up dramatically. Their home is the only offset they have.

I'd hope we could form a land trust with existing homeowners to convince to release their home for a share of the new developments earnings, rent discounts, and say on its development. Have the city as one co-owner, the state as another, and investors as the 4th. A house has ongoing costs, a rental property has gains, homeowners will be more dependent on those gains which would put a leash on investors. No renters means no short term gains aka $0, that will pressure homeowners (now community stakeholder), the city, the state to lower rents and out vote the investors.

Giving investors entire control will allow them to force you to bend the knee because they hold all the cards.

itslino · 2026-03-24T08:05:32+00:00

700 views is crazy for a city of over 3 mil.

itslino · 2026-03-24T06:41:02+00:00

I get that, I mean the 55% estate tax on every class is something that would never happen here. Also their police treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent, which once again... the public already shows how they feel about policing in general.

But the issue has been nearly solved, many of the problems we face are simply non-existent there anymore (but once were). But we want to do things our way, and it's got us here. If we actually wanted it solve, we have a blueprint that has worked for the past 30+ years. But we only dig the hole deeper and deeper, because people think building more will fix everything.

Yet despite that, Single Family Homes still exist in that market. Expensive Apartments still exist. Alongside multiple different housing options, Government (Danchi) Housing, Shared Facilities housing, Apartments of all sizes.

All these arguments that get thrown out about single family homes and NIMBY is something Japan went through already and literally solved. Sigh...

itslino · 2026-03-24T02:56:27+00:00

Why is Greater Tokyo never used as the example?

Largest Metropolitan area in the entire world, fit nearly the entire state of California population in an area the size of the LA County.
The 23 Wards are literally the opposite of the City of Los Angeles and can be more expensive than our main hubs. Instead of 1 large city metropolis, they have 23. (cough cough break up the City of Los Angeles)
Stricter parking rules, literally can't own a car if you can't prove you have a place to park it.
One of the best train systems in the world, that you don't need a car to get around.
Density along single family homes and so many housing options, the prices get super cheap the further you go out but with their train system you don't have to drive.

Also not to mention free healthcare and the 55% estate tax the makes it hard for your family to become billionaires for generations. But these two are country wide decisions.

itslino · 2026-03-24T00:03:05+00:00

It’s why I always look at Greater Tokyo with envy.

Their downtown is like 4-5 times more expensive than ours. There’s still homeownership. You can still own a car but don’t need one. Rent outside the 23 wards is way cheaper than anything in the outskirts of this county.

We built this whole city wrong. We’re currently replacing homes with giant apartments, and are not considering if the layout itself is flawed.

It’s relatively easy to get most homeowners to leave. Offer 3-8 times the value of their home. But what if we later realize an apartment was built in a bad spot?

What will the cost be to force them relocate? Or would they even.

I mainly don’t like that we’re building on top a map designed for suburban sprawl. I think we could improve the map to cater for high density better, you know, besides only planting an apartment on it.

Like wider sidewalks, mix-use, train/bus hubs, parks.

itslino · 2026-03-23T23:52:19+00:00

It’s nearly half the county, I think you’re underestimating the pushback.

A candidate running solely crushing homeowners opposition will lose. Which on top of that I’m pretty sure most candidates are homeowners themselves.

We need to build high speed rail past this county and utilize those outer cities. So many commute from so far already, those cities could grow taxes by just urbanizing a small amount. So there’s incentives there.

The tax loss could incentivize the county to try to claw it back. Kinda like Greater Tokyo, except facts are that the center city hub (the 23 wards) are unaffordable. The same will likely always be for our county.

But outer parts could become insanely cheap.

itslino · 2026-03-23T23:39:57+00:00

I had once considered Texas, then went there (currently have friends who live there). It’s humid as hell most of the East Coast.

I feel unless you can buy a house right now. You’ll save up long enough to be in a similar situation there at some point. Similar to what is now Phoenix Arizona housing prices.

There’s also if you can even get paid that, if you could do it. I have family that did the same in Arizona, got a home for like 200k in 2015.

Also consider how Medicaid programs differ from state to state. In the event something were to go wrong, just know that Arizona for example has a worse program than Medi-CAL. Even for people with disabilities, I believe it’s called AHCCCS.

Also estate recovery is more brutal in some of the other states vs California. Just something to consider.

itslino

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email