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?

#141

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 6:54 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #132

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 -…

>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…

Offices also typically have meeting rooms, hallways, showers, locker rooms, gyms, cafeterias, parking, bathrooms...it'd be interesting to compare the average space in sqft per employee in offices vs space per resident in apartments. I'm guessing it's not as different as the desk vs apartment analogy suggests.

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

#142

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 6:58 AM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #57

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.

No, it's like saying that when someone has an illiquid asset theoretically worth $1 million but not actually capable of being traded for cash, it is unfair to take away their food stamps and leave them with no way to buy food. The general idea is that it is impossible to trade in the value of your house for any replacement for 'spend my retirement in the area I spent my working life in', because the other houses that…

...and it's based on the assumption that it is one's right to continue living in a place just because they've lived there for a few decades, current market conditions be damned.

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

#143

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 7:01 AM UTC

snrplfth wrote: post #112

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.

Right - people don't realize that if people had to actually pay non-subsidized rates for water, and had to pay the same rate no matter whether they were using it for irrigation or household use, then most of these wasteful agricultural applications would end pretty sharpish.

But then you'd be taking away their jobs since they've built empires which rely on such subsidies.

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

#144

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 7:07 AM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #35

laurentoget wrote: post #20

I do not know much about real estate cost but it is interesting to see someone blaming a $50,000 regulatory fee for the $400,000 or so difference in median house cost between CA and other states.

It's not just about the 50K. There's an additional 20% for building impact fees. And all these regulations prevent builders from using more cost effective means for building. And, by far, the worst part of it is, it makes innovation in housing a complete non-starter. It's tantamount to: if in the 1980s (before the shape of the internet was known) the government had decided to tax every page download 20 cents. Imagine…

Land would still cost a lot because a lot of people who make a lot of money want to live there, and most of them want single-family homes with yards and driveways and school, churches, shopping centers, parks, and residential streets nearby.

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

#145

Post by nradov » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #100

r00fus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

The FAA has imposed a height limit of about 15 storeys on downtown San Jose. It's right in the takeoff path from SJC.

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

#146

Post by Tempest1981 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 8:27 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #84

xrange wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

This is the big complaint here in the Austin area. There's a huge flux of people into this area, and a significant portion is coming from CA. Many of the locals feel that the CA emigrants didn't learn their lesson; they don't realize that the reason they needed to leave was because of those very policies, and so stupidly begin to make the same mistakes here, pushing to create the same situation.

Yet they keep encouraging Californians to relocate to Texas, bragging about low costs and a pro-business environment: https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com

Perhaps a screening process is needed?

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

#147

Post by Tempest1981 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 8:57 AM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #76

Grishnakh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's also frequently very wastefully used in agriculture. More water-efficient agricultural practices need to be mandated.

I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.

But instead, we have rulings like this:

"Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution"

http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/20/california-drought-cou...

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

#148

Post by bloopalert » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:07 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

xrange wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

The problem is, when you move somewhere else, and you buy your home, you become the person that wants their home value maintained/protected. Are you going to vote against your own interests? If so, I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just distributing the problem across the country, as tech money flows through workers in secondary cities (inflating property prices in Austin, Denver, Boulder, Nashville, Portland, Seattle…

Yes, I do. I'm a home owner and I continuously vote to allow construction and development.

Increased supply is likely the cause of a lot of the demand (jobs + cheap housing nationally) so cutting supply only seems maliciously harmful and not directly in anyone's interest.

You move to SF despite land costs. You move other places because of it.

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

#149

Post by scruple » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:09 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #84

xrange wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

This is the big complaint here in the Austin area. There's a huge flux of people into this area, and a significant portion is coming from CA. Many of the locals feel that the CA emigrants didn't learn their lesson; they don't realize that the reason they needed to leave was because of those very policies, and so stupidly begin to make the same mistakes here, pushing to create the same situation.

This has been a trend associated with the California refugees going back as far as the 70s, as I've been told by acquaintances in Oregon and Colorado.

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

#150

Post by stedalus » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #141

closeparen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Offices also typically have meeting rooms, hallways, showers, locker rooms, gyms, cafeterias, parking, bathrooms...it'd be interesting to compare the average space in sqft per employee in offices vs space per resident in apartments. I'm guessing it's not as different as the desk vs apartment analogy suggests.

Still much denser. Around 150 ft^2 per employee.

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+ft+per+employee