Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of Renting in the U.S

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 380 posts

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#361

Post by enjo »

SilasX wrote: post #305
enjo wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/06/birth-zoning-codes-h...

I know. Something under the name "zoning" is recent. My point was that the general concept (municipal governments not just letting you build whatever you feel like because of the surrounding area) is much older and more universal.

Ugh. According to like the first paragraph:

"Before zoning, cities mostly regulated what could be built through nuisance laws. If someone didn't like how their neighbor was using their property, they could haul them to trial and let a judge decide what to do about it."

That's not zoning by any modern definition. It was piecemeal lawsuits with varying levels of effectiveness. There was no comprehensive "you can build this thing here, but not here" plan in place. If you read further into the article you'll see that in Manhattan it was the inability to control what was being built that directly led to the adoption of an actual zoning plan.

So there was a (long) period in American cities in which people were generally building whatever they wanted wherever they liked. This is further outlined in a book I really like "Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism" which talks about how zoning codes and covenants conspired together to produce the modern American suburb.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#362

Post by SilasX »

enjo wrote: post #361
SilasX wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. Something under the name "zoning" is recent. My point was that the general concept (municipal governments not just letting you build whatever you feel like because of the surrounding area) is much older and more universal.

Ugh. According to like the first paragraph: "Before zoning, cities mostly regulated what could be built through nuisance laws. If someone didn't like how their neighbor was using their property, they could haul them to trial and let a judge decide what to do about it." That's not zoning by any modern definition. It was piecemeal lawsuits with varying levels of effectiveness. There was no comprehensive "you can build…

I have similar frustration at the miscommunication. You're making a very subtle distinction that was not conveyed by your original overbroad claim "zoning is a recent American thing", and which you should have clarified the first time around rather than only after someone pointed out clear counterexamples to the literal meaning of your claim.

Zoning in modern parlance is understood to mean "stuff in this zone can't be built or operated like this". That is the only "zoning" concept relevant to the discussion, and it is universal in the developed world, and has been for ages.

It is functionally zoning in that same parlance, regardless if it's an explicit code, or simply a common-law-like system of precedents of "well, everyone knows the planning board or the complaint system will reject your skyscraper or slaughterhouse in the residential zone".

To the extent that you're making an interesting, relevant distinction, it now seems to be about one particular kind of zoning, that of master plans for future construction that broke sharply from tradition and introduced unusually sharp barriers between residences and commerce. Sure, that's a recent American thing. But it's not at all conveyed by the understanding of "zoning" that existed in the discussion that you attached the remark to.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#363

Post by billmalarky »

tomp wrote: post #309
billmalarky wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You will never get ahead if you live in SF, period" I like the way you think, but this isn't absolutely true. I live in a high cost of living area (NYC) and I manage to invest a large portion of my take home. I find it's easier to control one's spending than it is to control one's income based on location.

Out of curiosity (I live in London but am interested in NY long-term), where approximately do you live, and how moch do you spend for (1) housing, and (2) life (food, groceries, ...)?

I live in Queens and commute to manhattan like everyone else (very short commute by NYC standards too). I spend roughly $1000 per month on rent and utilities (I have a roommate).

The thing about NYC is, the variance in spending is astronomical. If you try to keep up with the Joneses here you are literally competing at the global level of wealth. Luxuries here, like eating out, generally cost more.

On the flip side, the median _household_ income in NYC is around $50,000. So it's certainly possible to survive at a much lower cost of living than a traditional "Manhattan" lifestyle assumes. That said, life in NYC is objectively "harder" than anywhere else in the US so far as I've experienced (I imagine it isn't too different from London though tbh). If you want to live in comfort relative to say the midwest, you're gonna pay out the nose for it. Alternatively, you can save tens of thousands of dollars per year by opting for some relatively basic lifestyle changes such as having a roommate, eating at home, and not owning a car. Those 3 tradeoffs alone will max your 401k every year.

The consideration for accepting the "harder" lifestyle of NYC, is there are opportunities here that simply don't exist in cozier places to live in the US. That and you live longer due to all the extra walking ;-)

NOTE: All of this assumes you are child-free. Having children in NYC is a complete game changer cost wise from what I hear.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#364

Post by tomp »

timje1 wrote: post #359
tomp wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would women fear crime more than men? Statistically, men are more likely to get robbed, beaten up and killed.

The English crime statistics have violent crime happening to men at almost twice the rate of women. What I found interesting was a recent study that found rape has a much higher rate of PTSD occurrence than other crimes - maybe it's so uniquely traumatic (and the threat of it so terrifying) that it forces women to be more careful than men even when men are statistically much more likely to be assaulted by strangers.

> much higher rate of PTSD occurrence than other crimes

Well, you don't get PTSD after murder, and I would say that rape is the next worst thing that can happen to you, so I don't think it's that surprising...

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#365

Post by melted »

hwstar wrote: post #350
melted wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> on about 24k per year Horseshit. A family of 4 will spend about 2/3rds of that amount on healthcare (meaning insurance + deductibles and copays) alone. Then there's real estate tax as well, utilities, food, necessities. I'd say $50K is bare minimum, and $75k could actually be quite comfortable after some belt tightening.

24K is a magic number. You qualify for an enhanced silver ACA policy with very low premiums, deductibles and copays. I do own a home and rental property, and pay property taxes annually. I did my first year at a 24K annual income with a slight assist from after-tax savings after being employed for 30+ years. Being 55 in San Diego, and getting an electronics engineering position ain't happening right now.

Do you have a "family of 4"?

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#366

Post by d4rkph1b3r »

hueving wrote: post #292
d4rkph1b3r wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I guess we're doing this. I'll explain the basics of money to start. Money is a representation of your buying power relative to everyone else. So if everyone's money doubled, no one got richer . It's only when the percentage of buying power changes that anyone is really more or less poor relative to before. Ok, back to the argument... >Poor, because poor people are the only ones to be entirely in debt. Wrong answ…

>Ok, I guess we're doing this. I'll explain the basics of money to start. Don't behave like a child. It doesn't add anything to your argument. Also, you seem to be confused about the difference between interest rates and inflation. The value of money being cut in half is what's referred to as 'inflation' and it's not what is being discussed.

> The value of money being cut in half is what's referred to as 'inflation' and it's not what is being discussed.

So your claim is that low interest rates aren't a cause of inflation?

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#367

Post by hueving »

d4rkph1b3r wrote: post #366
hueving wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ok, I guess we're doing this. I'll explain the basics of money to start. Don't behave like a child. It doesn't add anything to your argument. Also, you seem to be confused about the difference between interest rates and inflation. The value of money being cut in half is what's referred to as 'inflation' and it's not what is being discussed.

> The value of money being cut in half is what's referred to as 'inflation' and it's not what is being discussed. So your claim is that low interest rates aren't a cause of inflation?

It would seem that they aren't as correlated as people are led to believe. Ask Japan about how much they were able to boost inflation with low interest rates.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#368

Post by outworlder »

marincounty wrote: post #246
lowglow wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I park it wherever, but mostly try to stick to cities where it's legal to sleep in your van. While I have parked in San Francisco, Redwood City, and San Jose, right now I'm crashing in and around Palo Alto, CA. I shower every morning at my local 24 hour super sport gym. I'm a sucker for hygiene. I don't really worry about my van being broken into because I think I tend to stay in low crime neighborhoods. I'm also not…

I think you should write a book, but don't go through the vanity press ripoff. Publish it yourself. I have known people who live out of a van/truck camper until cops realize what's going on. They will harass you to no end. The tickets are expensive. The days of " Just move on." are over. That said, in most counties, there is nowhere to park a vechicle overnight. We need to desiginate areas, in commercial areas, where…

> Parks have time restrictions

OMG THIS.

So, I found about the last meteor shower one day before its peak. So my idea was to find a place – any place – that wasn't near any buildings. Forget about light pollution, I just wanted a sky devoid of direct lights. So, parks would be a nice option.

But try as I might, I couldn't find any parks that would allow me to stay after 6PM. There's one in Palo Alto that allows that for 'stargazing', but you have to request a permit in advance.

A permit? Really? For stargazing in a notorious light-polluted area? And that has to be filed in advance in business days? Come on.

At this rate I expect that you won't be allowed to park in the middle of nowhere in Nevada after the sun goes down.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#369

Post by fineIllregister »

kmonsen wrote: post #130
meddlepal wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait and see on Bernie. NH democrats might as well be from Vermont and I don't think there is any doubt Bernie will eat VT's primary when it comes up.

He will probably not win, but he is doing much better than anyone expected. Same with Trump (except he has an outside chance at winning this year).

Why does Trump have an "outside" chance? He's leading in polls for most upcoming primaries.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#370

Post by maxwelljoslyn »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #273
themagician wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the US we like to sell people on the idea of "ownership", when the reality is that the bank retains all the real value. Only a fraction of so-called "homeowners" actually own more than 50% of their home. Most homeowners just rent from the bank. Many will rent from the bank for life. The way homeownership is sold in the US is nothing more than a way to get people to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars…

Here's a thread you may be interested in. I made a similar point and a pretty good discussion ensued.

Can you please post the link?
Post reply on HN