How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers? • Hacker News Board

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#131

Post by OvidNaso » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

alanh wrote: post #75

moultano wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't their home value they are protecting though. Increasing the zoning limit on a plot only causes its value to increase. It's the "character" of their neighborhood. Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial inter…

> Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I am trying to find a polite way to indicate that I find this to be a completely absurd reversal of the historical trend. Only within the last few generations, certainly within the last century, has it become so common to relocate far and/or frequently instead of most men living the who…

Then how is it our species has colonized most of the planet. Surely their is an intense, universal, drive to migrate.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#132

Post by closeparen » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #77

ScottBurson wrote: post #60

“Cities will tell you that from a property tax perspective, housing is a loser,” says David Cogdill, president of the [California Building Industry Association]. I was trying to make this point a few weeks ago here on HN, in a discussion on Prop. 13, and got pushback. I take this quote as evidence that it's common knowledge among people in the housing industry. Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. Pro…

> Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. disincentivizes cities from adding low-density housing Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. But for multi-family high rises different cities have a number of additional requirements. Minimum parking spaces, minimum number of feet from the sidewalk, minimum footage of "green zones" consisting of lawns or trees -…

>Minimum parking spaces

Minimum parking requirements are a big deal for low-rises, where the parking area is an appreciable portion of the building's overall square feet.

The gleaming 40+ story high-rises in the Civic Center/Van Ness area run from around $3000 to $5500 for a basic studio or 1-bedroom. There are also several parking garages in the area, distinct from the residential buildings, where a monthly reserved parking space is around $375.

Assuming parking is built into rent (it isn't) and a 1:1 ratio of parking spaces to apartments (it's actually less), removing minimum parking could only bring the rent down by $375.

I think the real explanation is that desks are much smaller than apartments. Approximately everyone at Twitter, Square, Uber, etc. is willing to pay a substantial portion of their six-figure salary for a trivial walking commute. To have a corresponding apartment in the neighborhood for every desk at Twitter, Square, Uber, etc. would require dozens of residential towers. So when only 3 or 4 are going to exist, they have to priced to skim off only the very top of the corporate ladder at those companies.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#133

Post by positr0n » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

niftich wrote: post #111

moultano wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). If the area being "preserved" was limited in some…

Your points have some merit, but this: > the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country is just not true. There's plenty of greenfield building going on in the metropolitan areas of Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Vegas, St. George, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Raleigh, Atlanta, and South Florida. These are areas that have all shown po…

Also the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex is growing like crazy and there are cranes everywhere from downtown Dallas out 20 miles north where even the suburbs are getting high rises along the highways.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#134

Post by closeparen » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:48 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #109

ScottBurson wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are height limitations in most of Silicon Valley (except maybe downtown San Jose?) -- I think the limit here in Sunnyvale, for example, is eight stories -- but earthquakes are not the reason for them. People just want to preserve the suburban character of the area. How that can be done when a lot more people want to live here is not clear to me.

It's a bit more insidious than preserving the character. Tall residential towers generally require certain amount of parking spaces, which in turn require more expensive structural support for the (usually) underlying garage. Developers would justify the cost of the parking structure by adding a few residential floors on top of the tower. But that's where height restrictions kick in and price out low-tier and middle-…

>“Well, how about guests?” asked Lucy, before the conversation turned to shadow impact and wind tunnels.

This has a very simple answer: no overnight parking. Keeps residents from owning cars if they don't have off-street parking, so there is always street frontage for visitors. You get a limited set of overnight parking passes for overnight visitors.

In the long run, it's probably the only way to get people to stop blocking development over street parking. Take it away from everyone, except short-term users like guests and car-sharing.

Bonus points of you make an exception for motorcycles/scooters, since they allow far more people to benefit from motor vehicles per square foot of parking.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#135

Post by closeparen » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:52 AM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #90

prostoalex wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. disincentivizes cities from adding low-density housing Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. But for multi-family high rises different cities have a number of additional requirements. Minimum parking spaces, minimum number of feet from the sidewalk, minimum footage of "green zones" consisting of lawns or trees -…

> Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. Combine with earthquake regulations essentially limiting buildings to a small number of stories and ScottBurson's comment is pretty spot-on.

NEMA is more than 40 stories. Jasper appears to be even taller. Would earthquake regulations prevent someone from building a few dozen (or hundred) more NEMAs?

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#136

Post by closeparen » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:58 AM UTC

sbov wrote: post #43

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger issue, IMO, is the mis-allocation of resources that happens when people aren't able to transmit information through prices and market mechanisms. Like, the empty-nester who works in downtown SF and happens to own a 4BR townhouse in Mountain View should really trade places with the family of four commuting from a 1BR condo in SF and commuting down to Mountain View. If they both bought their place at a tenth…

IIRC most counties let you transfer your prop 13 status to a smaller dwelling. But I think it has to be within the same county. I'm not sure how accurate that is, it was just something my mom mentioned in passing a while back. She lives in a 4 bedroom in San Jose she bought in the early 70's and has been considering downsizing. However, her property taxes are so low it wouldn't make sense to make the switch to a cond…

>prop 13 was passed because of rapidly increasing property values

The owners who passed it are content to sit on their houses in perpetuity. If property values had continued to rise past owners' appetite for property tax bills, CA homes would be occupied by people under financial pressure to sell them. It seems reasonable to think that would leave prices lower than where they are today.

It wouldn't stop the pressure, probably wouldn't keep those people from getting displaced, but it'd be a relief valve for the tech workers trying to move in.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#137

Post by closeparen » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 5:00 AM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #88

jvm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that reassessment is capped so when the market goes crazy people aren't driven out of their homes By definition, the people who would be "driven out" have seen their home values wildly appreciate and they have by that token become substantially wealthy. This is like saying that if someone is on food stamps but then becomes a millionaire, it's unfair to take away their foodstamps or raise their tax rate.

So how do they get that wealth while still being able to live in their home? Or, to put it another way, why should they no longer be able to live in their home just because the market went crazy?

>why should they no longer be able to live in their home just because the market went crazy

The market didn't go crazy, it saw an uptick in demand. They should be booted because their homes should be replaced with high-rises with enough room for them AND the new demand.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#138

Post by Frogolocalypse » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 5:34 AM UTC

As an Australian, I always muse at what people consider expensive.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/most-expensive-cities

There is only one city from the US on that list (New York) of a hundred cities. Sydney Australia is 18th.

And you want to talk about bubbles?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-hou...

Australia tops the list (and Sweden, apparently). That list indicates the price of real-estate has tripled in 15 years.

So yeah...

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#139

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 6:38 AM UTC

ckluis wrote: post #74

ScottBurson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I've started to wonder whether there is anyplace in the US that has both (a) California-style restrictions on non-compete clauses in employment contracts and (b) a Land Value Tax [0] as its primary local tax (not necessarily excluding a state income tax). Since the LVT is not widely used, it looks like the answer is probably No. I think anyplace that wants to attract tech companies should enact both of these thi…

If Florida would get better about non-complete clauses it would be ideal. Beach, sales tax base via tourists, no income tax. Alas… it has fairly strong non-complete compliance.

And hurricanes which require occasional abandonment of all your property to save your life. No thanks.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#140

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 6:43 AM UTC

breischl wrote: post #58

StillBored wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, its probably less than 10%, which is less than the sales taxes on most other things being purchased. We could just as well complain about the profit the builder is making, which is likely a lot more given how much most sub contractors are making. Its sounds like a big number until you consider the final cost, aka everything is relative, it would be a much bigger deal if the houses were selling for $100k beca…

Yes, but the whole point is that the fees are part of the reason why the house costs that much. If you wanted the final house to cost $100k, then you'd have to actually build it for $50k. Which may not even be possible, or if it was it would be so tiny that nobody would want it. They're basically forced to build a (relatively) big expensive house so that the final cost seems reasonable despite the $50k in fees buried…

Fees are like 5-10% of the reason. What's the other 90%?

Edit: there are no entry-level houses because zoned land in places where people want to live in the bay are is more expensive than a lot + house in most other places. There are lots selling for >$500k or some for just as much with tear-down houses on them. That's not due to the fees.