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

In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 380 posts

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#41

Post by mountaineer22 »

seibelj wrote: post #29
mountaineer22 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that? Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it. And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested th…

Why would people use his property to park cars? The developer would purchase property and include a driveway / garage. You are being ridiculous. The problem is that regulations wouldn't allow an 8 family home. I live in a dense area and there are single families, triple deckers, and apartment complexes all around me. Welcome to Boston

Why would I need to purchase or develop additional property?

He supports my right use the house I purchased (next door to his) in any way I see fit.

So, If I have 8 families living in a single family home, there may be some sanitation and parking problems.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#42

Post by extrapickles »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #7
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would inc…

Pretty much the only zoning needed is low noise and high noise (airport, late night music venues, etc). All the other things that tag along with zoning are not needed. The only reason for noise zoning is to prevent people from moving next to an existing high noise activity and pushing it out.

Zoning laws effectively turn into a tax on new comers to an area as things like "protected views", height restrictions just add to the cost of housing and running a business. Also these laws reduce density which makes having good public transportation harder and means you have to commute more to your job.

Permitting could be more streamlined, but should be required for any non cosmetic change as people try to cut corners to save $0.50 that can easily kill someone.

Disclaimer: I own property next to a large airport.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#43

Post by llamataboot »

stcredzero wrote: post #35
llamataboot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.

People can pay for class segregation. I suspect if we let them, it would become separated from race segregation over time.

Depends on your time scale I guess. Arguably class and racial segregation are highly linked in the US and is the primary way that racial disparities continue to be reproduced so persistently. See, for example, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#44

Post by ktRolster »

yardie wrote: post #12
cpitman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?

Property tax comes after the fact. You move to a new area with kids now. You pay your property tax at the end of the year. But the kids need school right now and the district has to: find property to build a new school, raise bonds to fund it, build the damn thing, hire staff. A modern tract home can be built in as little as 2 weeks with modern prefab construction. Schools take much longer.

A modern school can be built in a couple days with modern portable classrooms: http://www.modulargenius.com/portable-classroom.html

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#45

Post by varelse »

llamataboot wrote: post #31
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.

One problem is that one need not be particularly racist for segregation to occur spontaneously:

http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#46

Post by beachstartup »

rayiner wrote: post #28
mountaineer22 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that? Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it. And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested th…

My parents live in a subdivision with 5,000-6,000 square foot houses occupied by empty nesters. There is a growing Hispanic population in the area and a lot of opposition to Hispanics moving into such houses with big extended families. But so long as everyone followed other laws, letting those extended families move in would be a win for both economic and racial integration as well as the general character of the nei…

anyone can move in to those places if they have the money and the property is for sale. your restaurant idea is actually happening in some parts of south and east los angeles, illegally - i've seen youtube videos documenting the phenomenon.

having said that, i don't think those existing homeowners would be any more willing to let white extended families move in and open up burger joints downstairs either.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#47

Post by pj_mukh »

hodwik2 wrote: post #32
pj_mukh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes. I don't get the impression these people would be as worried if the foreign investors were of French or Irish parentage. If I've misunderstood the issue, people correct me.

Well given that I'm South Asian, I don't think their race is an issue to me personally, and people in Vancouver who've brought this problem up are the most racially progressive bunch there is (including a huge native Chinese population that has been there for decades). Chinese money is flooding in because of issues in the Chinese investment market and they are increasing their investment in the SF market too now.

The by-product is that the demand side is doubled up! Protectionism doesn't work, so what do we do? I'm firmly in the 'Build More' category but this one problem, I'm not sure how to solve.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#48

Post by mountaineer22 »

rayiner wrote: post #28
mountaineer22 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that? Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it. And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested th…

My parents live in a subdivision with 5,000-6,000 square foot houses occupied by empty nesters. There is a growing Hispanic population in the area and a lot of opposition to Hispanics moving into such houses with big extended families. But so long as everyone followed other laws, letting those extended families move in would be a win for both economic and racial integration as well as the general character of the nei…

"But so long as everyone followed other laws"

Would you agree that the population density of an area has some correlation to the crime in that area?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#50

Post by salimmadjd »

SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth, investment and R&D.

I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house prices down and it will allow many new startups to afford local hires or bring developers over here.

Post reply on HN