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

Housing in the Bay Area

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#31

Post by rconti »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #25

Even if this bill passes and substantially more multi-family housing starts getting built, do not be surprised if house prices remain extremely high. Vancouver doesn't have the same anti-development issues that SF has, and has been building multi-unit condos and apartments all over the region for decades. Multi-unit housing starts are about at its highest level ever. The average price of a detached house however is C…

Nobody's expecting housing prices to drop by half overnight. It's just the best thing we can do to limit future growth and make it SOMEWHAT affordable.

(and, frankly, as a homeowner, I don't WANT my housing prices to drop in half overnight, but I DO what the region to be affordable to more people, and hence I support this even though it's against my own personal interest).

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#32

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

branchless wrote: post #15

Won't work. Imagine supply is met, housing is cheap. People then want to live there more. Eventually the point of equilibrium is restored which is that banks keep on creating fiat money until land prices reach a point where you can just about eat and afford the interest repayments. Land value tax is the answer for all those who don't simply want a quick in so they can get on the gravy train and actually want their ki…

I tend to agree with you, but you've got it all wrong. People already want to live there like crazy.

The demand keeps piling on and supply has not risen to meet it. I agree that land value tax is a big part of the problem, but new, high-density development is the only solution.

And even then, housing won't be cheap. You just might be able to get a reasonable mortgage on a place built in the last 50 years.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#33

Post by rconti »

sytelus wrote: post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

I'm a lowly wage slave homeowner, but I support this.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#34

Post by davmre »

sytelus wrote: post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

You've described why it's almost impossible to do anything about housing policy at the local level. That's why state-level action such as this bill is so important. The state legislature represents a much broader constituency, including lots of people who would like to live in SF but can't currently afford to.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#35

Post by branchless »

cylinder wrote: post #26
branchless wrote: post #15

Won't work. Imagine supply is met, housing is cheap. People then want to live there more. Eventually the point of equilibrium is restored which is that banks keep on creating fiat money until land prices reach a point where you can just about eat and afford the interest repayments. Land value tax is the answer for all those who don't simply want a quick in so they can get on the gravy train and actually want their ki…

Yeah, it's always going to be a function of income in the area. People value housing enough to pay up to 50% of their income towards it in desirable cities. If more inventory is available more people will elect to live in SF and rents will find equilibrium at around the 50% of incomes

In large part because many people own/mortgage multiple homes because it's a one-way bet under the current system where all productivity gains flow to land.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#37

Post by branchless »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #32
branchless wrote: post #15

Won't work. Imagine supply is met, housing is cheap. People then want to live there more. Eventually the point of equilibrium is restored which is that banks keep on creating fiat money until land prices reach a point where you can just about eat and afford the interest repayments. Land value tax is the answer for all those who don't simply want a quick in so they can get on the gravy train and actually want their ki…

I tend to agree with you, but you've got it all wrong. People already want to live there like crazy. The demand keeps piling on and supply has not risen to meet it. I agree that land value tax is a big part of the problem, but new, high-density development is the only solution. And even then, housing won't be cheap. You just might be able to get a reasonable mortgage on a place built in the last 50 years.

We've seen what happens when you meet supply in a speculative bubble. The USA, Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had big supply and banks kept on lending into it because it costs them zero to create fiat money to rent out against land.

Then you get a massive crash again.

How would demand be if you force a big wedge of people who own/mortgaged more than one home to sell up? I think it would ease considerably. How many SF tech "entrepreneurs" are leveraged on housing? Flush 'em out with land value tax.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#38

Post by s3r3nity »

This is one of the top factors preventing me from moving back to the Bay Area. It's good to know there's at least SOME serious attempt at a solution (even if folks around here are mostly pessimistic.)

It still surprises me that an industry that's all about connecting the world through the internet and allowing anyone to work with anyone else on anything says "yeah but you need to work in this small area of the country to do it."

The armchair economist in me says that high housing prices in the Bay Area will cause a market "correction" of sorts with other cities exploding as tech sectors -- see NY, Boston, Chicago, Austin, Las Vegas -- as those cities can get away with much better housing for cheap, even if the opportunities aren't as plentiful (yet.)

The cynic in me likes to think that VC's and other wealthy tech execs are trying to keep housing prices high by artificially creating this in-elasticity ("you can have my funding if you live in SF" or "we don't allow remote workers"), as they all probably own houses in the area; the incentives for them would be to have housing prices keep rising, NOT fall, as they would lose significant real-estate equity.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#39

Post by vhiremath4 »

weisser wrote: post #10

Cannot believe I'm posting here but relevant: I have a room in my house in the Sunset opening next month. $900. It's month-to-month rent. Looking to house a founder/hacker/designer/etc currently struggling with SF rent (or someone who wants to move to SF but didn't think they could afford to live in SF) My email is in my bio.

This is pretty chill of you man.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#40

Post by honkhonkpants »

When I look at this bill I have to wonder if it will really help. Outside of the city of San Francisco itself, almost nothing is being built, because the construction costs are too high. Not the permitting and planning costs, but the actual guys-with-hammers-and-saws costs. For example in Oakland there are number of properties that are fully entitled to build and have been sitting that way for years. So how does Brown's bill help?
Post reply on HN