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

51–60 of 380 posts

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

#51

Post by mountaineer22 »

Retric wrote: post #34
ec109685 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of the burden of paying for additional services to support additional housing being spread around to all residents, if you bake the cost into the permitting process, developers will be forced to charge more for the new housing to make up the cost.

Or build smaller homes 40k @ 6% is only 200$ a month. Further people would be paying this anyway and new development directly competes with normal home sales. It may promote smaller homes, but that increases affordability.

How do you ensure it sells for $40k and the person that buys it lives in it (not renting or sub-leasing for a profit)?

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

#52

Post by hodwik2 »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #30
ec109685 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.

Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point? My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights? Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him. Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights. What if it keep…

I can put cameras outside of my home, I can have cars towed away, I can find the ripped up bill in their trash bag that tells me the perpetrator is John Q. Badguy.

But that is neither here nor there. My desire for comfort is nullified when it's being weighted against someone's human rights.

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

#53

Post by namlem »

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.

The Chinese people who are buying up houses aren't buying them to live in, they're buying them just to speculate. The owners stay in China. It would be just as bad if they were from another country, it's just that they happen to be Chinese.

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

#54

Post by powera »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #30
ec109685 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.

Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point? My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights? Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him. Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights. What if it keep…

Yes you are advocating trespassing and litter. Saying that you'll rent to 8 families and they'll have no choice but to trespass and litter is advocating it. You literally say "I told my [hypothetical] tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it."

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

#55

Post by jbapple »

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.

> Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem?

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the concern is partly about non-resident populations. Non-residents buying homes as investments or as a hedge against corruption driving them out of their home countries uncaps demand. More demand might end up causing wealth transfer from the renter class to the owner class.

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

#56

Post by hodwik2 »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #41
seibelj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If 8 families want to live in a single family home, it must be an exceptionally desirable area, with very little housing.

It stands to reason there are probably many more people who want to move in to the area, but who aren't willing to be one of 8 families in a single family home.

So given the huge amount of pent-up demand, there must be some building laws in place keeping this specific city from growing upwards, and generating supply for this demand.

This is probably a building limits problem.

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

#57

Post by no_wave »

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…

You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

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

#58

Post by mc32 »

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.

It's not because the buyers are Chinese it's mostly due to the volume of purchases affecting the market so directly. They could be "Newfies" if you had as many driving up prices so dramatically, you'd get an outcry. It happens in the US in Portland you'll occasionally see signs about No Californians.

It doesn't help that many of those are not "regular" Chinese but people with money and connected, the Chinese .1%ers, so to speak, who are buying properties as a pied de terre in the event things go bad in the homeland and they need to hightail it as well as a place to park their connected money.

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

#59

Post by hodwik2 »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #33
ec109685 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of the burden of paying for additional services to support additional housing being spread around to all residents, if you bake the cost into the permitting process, developers will be forced to charge more for the new housing to make up the cost.

I guess we are not on the same page. So, how does this work? More specifically, what ensures the new development is "affordable"? Surely, the deciding factor is not the permit cost.

As the supply increases, and a greater proportion of demand is met, the cost will decrease. Remember this from Econ 101?
Post reply on HN