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

61–70 of 380 posts

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

#61

Post by joe_the_user »

salimmadjd wrote: post #50

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…

Facebook has attempted to build more housing and sometimes succeeded.

Even a billion dollar company apparently has less influence than many people owning million dollar homes and living and voting in the city. It will eventually be up to groups like BARF to sue cities that let business build while refusing to provide housing for the employees of said businesses.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27717752/facebook-flo...

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

#62

Post by mrep »

salimmadjd wrote: post #50

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…

They've tried before and it hardly ever works.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about google trying to build 1000+ housing units in mountain view and the town shut them down as they didn't want the town to become controlled by Googlers.

Edit: @joe_the_user posted a link about facebook trying to

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

#63

Post by nickff »

ktRolster wrote: post #37
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…

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

What you say assumes that people want to purchase anything a developer builds, anywhere, at any price. In reality, market forces encourage developers to build nice homes in good areas well served by various amenities (which are publicly and privately available).

The problem is that development is so tightly restricted in most areas, that new residents have few options.

In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions.

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

#64

Post by icebraining »

ktRolster wrote: post #37
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…

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school.

Why would people with children move to a place without schools?

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

#65

Post by gech »

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.

Housing should be utilized. I could also say everytime this comes up someone is quick to start saying racist. I don't care the origin, I just care that this product could actually be used by locals.

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

#66

Post by tamana »

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.

We could test your idea if there were any French or Irish investors. Or even American investors.

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

#67

Post by tamana »

mc32 wrote: post #58
hodwik2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

They aren't buying houses becuase they might need to live in them. They could rent anywhere easily. They are buying them as investments.

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

#68

Post by hodwik2 »

no_wave wrote: post #57
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.

That's the same thing in the US. "Libertarian" is just what Republicans call themselves when most of their friends are Democrats, and they're worried people will think they're racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

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

#69

Post by tamana »

wmccullough wrote: post #20
vasilipupkin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too res…

Removing zoning permits does not equate to shoddily built houses. This is what you call, a straw man.

A straw house, even

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

#70

Post by tamana »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #51
Retric wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Doesn't matter. The point is to push the inventory mix toward smaller dwellings. Someone who want a big house won't buy 5 little ones.
Post reply on HN