Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#181

Post by mahyarm » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

palakchokshi wrote: post #179

mahyarm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those new buildings and people will result in a far higher property tax revenue base since they are new units not starting from a 1980s prop 13 tax base. From that you can build new schools, hire more teachers and police and develop more transit.

But that revenue will have to be saved for a few years before there's enough to build new schools with, hire teachers with, etc. Moreover there might be other budgetary needs that might want that money unless the money is tied to improving schools, streets, etc.

That is a mismanagement problem there. Why would new permanent income flows not get allocated to support the new flows?

Municipal bonds backed by future property tax flows in the one of the wealthiest cities in the USA is pretty secure, so you wouldn't have to save for a few years.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#182

Post by shados » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 2:04 AM UTC

baron816 wrote: post #9

Why are people so adamantly opposed to density? Well, I know the reason is to prop up the value of their homes, but if you think about places like New York, London, and Paris, that argument doesn't exactly hold. Those cities are incredibly dense and expensive, but people love living there enough to pay the high prices. People who can live anywhere choose to live there. I'm willing to bet that SV could triple its popu…

As a Canadian who now lives in one of the US tech hubs, the reason I see at least is that Americans can't respect each other if their lives depend on it.

So density WILL make your life miserable. HoA rules, municipal laws, etc, are virtually not enforced. So you find a spot you consider tolerable, and you hope to god it stays that way. If someone decides to build a rental building near by, then it's basically over. You either learn to sleep through idiot screaming and people keeping a pair of saint bernards barking in a studio apartment near by, and frat parties that the cop will never do anything about or you move out.

Contrast that with up north, where I totally could call the cops on someone walking too loud at night and they'd do something about it (which virtually never needed to happen, since people were much more considerate. And I lived in quite a few places).

Now, I know what you'd say. In Canada/Europe/Whatever, it's just as bad! I had happened a ton of times!.

No no, these situations don't "just happen". It's a constant, multiple times a day thing. And it's a constant struggle between those who don't care and can't understand those who do.

I actually consider it one of the biggest reasons of the divide between the rich and the poor. You have the people with enough money to live on the 40th+ floor of a nice building in NYC, and those dealing with the stress, noise and neighbors at the bottom, thinking they're fine with it (but it probably drastically affect their sleep patterns, productivity, happiness, etc...they just don't realize it). The rich just "run away", because we can't agree on rules and respect them so we can live together.

Also, don't forget how terrible public transportation is. NYC has one of the best systems in NA, and it's not exactly fantastic compared to what you can see in many densely populated cities on other continents. Nevermind other North American cities (Hello Boston?)

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#183

Post by ceras » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #120

Johnny555 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because they are so attached to their cars, and more density brings more traffic. Especially when starting with a low-density neighborhood that's poorly served by transit and everyone that lives there is tied to their car. Places like NYC, London, and Paris have great public transit systems, it's easy to live there without a car, but much harder to do that in spread out Silicon Valley, even if you live n…

That's surely one aspect in this case, as accommodating traffic is an important part of city planning. However, there's way more resistance to building high-density housing in San Francisco, which has an even worse housing crisis than the South Bay but all of the public transit infrastructure required for a car-free life. NIMBYism and dogmatic recreational activists can be powerful forces everywhere. :(

There are even high levels of NIMBYism in downtown Manhattan neighborhoods like the East Village.

My understanding of the problem is some people really dislike change, and those same people disproportionately vote in local elections and attend city planning meetings. Because planning decisions are hyper-local in America, there's no "regional growth" advocate at these meetings, and nobody is going to attend planning meetings to fight for some developer to build their high-rise, so the opposition wins.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#184

Post by DrScump » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

Perhaps coincidentally, this from today's Wall St. Journal:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11854989

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#185

Post by landryraccoon » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:05 AM UTC

WWKong wrote: post #167

djcapelis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The majority of voters in SF aren't homeowners. 2) ROI isn't the most important thing about a home. 3) Even if you value property values over other values, affordable housing that can support a strong and diverse environment that is vital to maintaining the strength of the region. If you kill that engine, you kill the thing that created the high values to begin with. You can shoot the golden goose if you want, but…

#2 Sure ROI isn't everything. But when you forgo every other saving/investment opportunity to buy a house, then ROI becomes almost everything. Because that is your investment/future. #3 I buy it that adding housing is overall better. I'm pro-housing. But what do you tell the folks who bought million dollar studio this year? That we are going to improve things for everyone (mostly coming in after you) at the expense o…

One or two bedroom apartments don't decrease the value of single family homes.

More jobs and more population density increases the overall value of a city. New grads and singles moving into a city need a place to live, and rental units provide it.

Think about it this way - if you demolished all the apartment buildings in San Francisco or New York, would the value of single family homes go up or down? Would brownstones in New York be worth more if there were no apartment buildings Harlem or Queens? If you walled off and burned down the Tenderloin and Point Richmond, would that mean that houses in the sunset would be worth more? I doubt it, since the city overall would be a less desirable place to live with fewer opportunities to work, and lower density means that fewer bars, restaurants, retail establishments, museums etc.. could be supported.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#186

Post by toast0 » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:07 AM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #173

phlakaton wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but do the good people of Sunnyvale vote for infrastructure projects? Do they allocate enough funds for building that infrastructure, and/or do they have rational expectations for where those funds will come from? Even if you fear putting the cart before the horse, it simply begs the question of why you don't already have the horse. And the answer to that, I think, is back to what was stated above: fear of chang…

There is a new school being built but it's in an area that's already underserved and bussing kids pretty far. SCUSD (much of Sunnyvale is in the Santa Clara Unified School District - why school district boundaries are disjoint with municipal boundaries around here I can't explain) passed a $419M bond measure in 2014 (Measure H) which includes classroom expansions. Sadly it's not quite so easy to increase road capacit…

Schools district boundaries are distinct from municipal boundaries in California because school districts are separate from municipalities. A school district need not fall within a single county either. Often, you'll hear mayoral candidates campaigning in a platform of fixing schools; they are either misinformed or disingenuous, mayors in California have no official influence on schools.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#187

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:16 AM UTC

palakchokshi wrote: post #160

guyzero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well as an actual Sunnyvale resident the fears are slightly more rational: cars on roads, kids in schools and no increase in infrastructure to go along with the thousands of new residents. Some of the buildings have less than one parking spot per apartment which in theory is supposed to help encourage people to use transit, in practice people fear it will lead to more street parking in adjacent residential neighbourh…

I don't know why you're getting down voted either. will the down voters please address the following concerns? 1. Considering that some of the apartment dwellers will become homeowners and their place will be taken by new apartment dwellers, how will the overcrowded schools support the influx? 2. Considering people will take public transit to go to work, they still would use cars to move around locally in the area on…

There are a couple of things at play of course. Apartment ownership pays parcel taxes just like single family home owners. However 1/3 of the budget is tax revenue. Of the taxes, the two big heavy hitters are property tax (16%) and sales tax (9%) of the total revenue[1]. More people, more business transacted, more revenue.

As revenue increases, city services can be expanded. Schools on the other hands are basically crooks as far as I can tell. The reason being that I have yet to get the Fremont Union Highschool District to offer up actual budget numbers and actual spend. They will argue all sorts of things about "confidentiality of teacher salaries" or "we're not a government so we don't have to give you that information." but generally I have not been impressed with the way they operate. [2]

Traffic and parking is a legitimate concern. Traffic has gotten worse again (after getting better after the dot com crash). But many programs are targeted at making the city more bike accessible for easier access.

[1] Page 12 -- http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/FIN/FY%2015-16%2...

[2] I had an administrator at the district tell me that it was "illegal" to be home schooling my children.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#188

Post by gozur88 » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:20 AM UTC

shostack wrote: post #177

gozur88 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>New owners in the area shouldn't have massively disproportionate tax burdens because they moved there a few years later (in some cases that is a very large difference). But they're paying for new infrastructure that didn't need to exist if they didn't move there. How is it fair to ask existing homeowners to pay more because new people moved in nearby? Mello-Roos is really no different than developer fees included in…

Let me paint a picture for you and you tell me if you think this is fair. If you moved to the area in 2012, odds are you got a very good deal. If you moved in 2015, odds are you paid several hundred thousand dollars more for your home than your neighbor in a comparable home. Do you think there is such a radical difference in infrastructure needs during that period to warrant shifting a disproportionate percentage of…

>If you moved to the area in 2012, odds are you got a very good deal. If you moved in 2015, odds are you paid several hundred thousand dollars more for your home than your neighbor in a comparable home.

I don't see what that has to do with new infrastructure. If you moved in 2007, people moving to the area in 2011 were paying half what you paid.

>Do you think there is such a radical difference in infrastructure needs during that period to warrant shifting a disproportionate percentage of that burden to the person who bought only a couple years later?

When you move into a Mello-Roos district you're paying for the infrastructure that was built for you. That's not a shifting tax burden. That's paying your own freight. If it's too much, don't move there. There are plenty of old houses that were either never in a Mello-Roos district or for which the bonds are paid off.

>Further, long-time owners in the area have been paying massively less than newer residents despite taking advantage of any new infrastructure funded by newer taxes thanks to Prop 13. Oftentimes to a comical degree.

That's true, but it's also true for new residents who move into an older area.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#189

Post by drwl » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:54 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #187

palakchokshi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're getting down voted either. will the down voters please address the following concerns? 1. Considering that some of the apartment dwellers will become homeowners and their place will be taken by new apartment dwellers, how will the overcrowded schools support the influx? 2. Considering people will take public transit to go to work, they still would use cars to move around locally in the area on…

There are a couple of things at play of course. Apartment ownership pays parcel taxes just like single family home owners. However 1/3 of the budget is tax revenue. Of the taxes, the two big heavy hitters are property tax (16%) and sales tax (9%) of the total revenue[1]. More people, more business transacted, more revenue. As revenue increases, city services can be expanded. Schools on the other hands are basically c…

Fremont isn't the only town/city in SV and not all school districts in SV are crooked. Also, you didn't really address one of the big concerns the parent commented pointed out, that is new dwellings would be a DoS on current infrastructure for most places. It's not like you can get that infrastructure in time for it.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#190

Post by drwl » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 3:57 AM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #181

palakchokshi wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that revenue will have to be saved for a few years before there's enough to build new schools with, hire teachers with, etc. Moreover there might be other budgetary needs that might want that money unless the money is tied to improving schools, streets, etc.

That is a mismanagement problem there. Why would new permanent income flows not get allocated to support the new flows? Municipal bonds backed by future property tax flows in the one of the wealthiest cities in the USA is pretty secure, so you wouldn't have to save for a few years.

Even if you diagnose the problem it doesn't help with the symptoms. Infrastructure (i.e. transit, public institutions, etc) will not be able to support it in the short-term.