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

71–80 of 380 posts

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

#71

Post by tamana »

ktRolster wrote: post #44
yardie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you have somewhere to put it.

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

#72

Post by shoegumfoot »

extrapickles wrote: post #42
mountaineer22 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ad…

Zoning isn't needed just for low and high noise.

You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

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

#73

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

The NYTimes had an article on an absolutely unregulated city in India. Sewage bumped in vacant lots is a problem. Safety outside developed areas is a problem.

Still, removing parking requirements might be a good thing if creates incentive for public transit. Removing single family home mandates seems like it would be great for avoiding sprawl. But as you say, just these two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/asia/09gurgaon.html

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

#74

Post by tamana »

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…

Increase crime, or expose more rich people to crime?

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

#75

Post by saryant »

hodwik2 wrote: post #68
no_wave wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's certainly not true.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

gech wrote: post #65
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by davidf18 »

What has happened in SF, NYC, London, is that the high cost of housing is caused by market inefficiencies as pointed out by a number of economists (eg, Edward Glaeser, Paul Krugman, Tim Harford) called “rent seeking” where politics is used to artificially limit supply (in this case through zoning restrictions) to create artificial scarcity. This is true of NYCs 13,000 limit on Taxi medallions which caused them to have a market value of $1.2 million until Uber came along and provided alternatives (the values have dropped to about $700k).

The “rent seeking” is a regressive tax which transfers wealth to billionaire real-estate developers like Donald Trump from the middle class and the poor. It also harms the economy as a whole since more income is going towards rent and housing mortgages less income is going towards goods and services. It also artificially limits construction so there are few fewer construction jobs than there would be if the market inefficiencies were removed.

Edward Glaeser is author of “Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier”

Tim Harford is author of “The Undercover Economist, Revised and Updated Edition: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor - and Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!”

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

#78

Post by tamana »

hodwik2 wrote: post #13
mountaineer22 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved." I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right. >"Do you own real property?" Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But…

Zoning isn't a federal issue and won't be one in the next 8 years.

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

#79

Post by nickff »

pj_mukh wrote: post #17
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 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.

This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing foreign and domestic purchasers to compete instead of collaborate.

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

#80

Post by edderly »

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…

It's been tried and the problem is that you end up with slums.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London

Post reply on HN