Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs • Hacker News Board

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#191

Post by twoodfin » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:27 PM UTC

averagewall wrote: post #173

whyenot wrote: post #76

I have what would appear to be a good middle class job at a state university but because I live in the Bay Area, half my paycheck goes to rent. Many of my coworkers are now working weekend jobs just to stay ahead. Positions remain unfilled for many months because the jobs don't pay enough. The chances that the state will give us a meaningful pay raise is basically zero. The California Faculty Association negotiated a…

It sounds like working at a university in the Bay Area is what's unsustainable. Why not just let the market sort itself out? If the university can't find staff, they'll have no choice but to raise salaries or move out. No need for union pressure. You've chosen to take the low pay and high cost of living, so it must be good enough for you. Perhaps at some point you'll be pushed over your limit and move out yourself.

The point of this article is that "the market" in housing is not functioning as one. Supply isn't rising to meet demand because it's being constrained by arguably unjust political restrictions.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#192

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:28 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

> if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact

That would likely lead to a solution that's actually worse than the problem. Court cases to resolve these violations will take years to adjudicate and will in most situations lead to a settlement that still fucks over those who were victimized.

A better approach would be to reform our legal system so that it isn't and/or hire more court employees, judges, etc. If our court systems are perpetually overburdened, it makes sense to clear the bottlenecks to give them the resources and reforms so that they can meet their obligations.

It's a travesty that in all the places I have lived in the US, going to court for some minor infraction or permitting issue will take me at least 3 hours or more, necessitating me taking a vacation or sick day if I didn't work remotely. When my number is called, the actual process takes usually no more than 5 minutes. Perhaps a relatively small investment in our legal system could lead to a large return

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#193

Post by jessaustin » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:32 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #122

tomcam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

Forgive my ignorance, but are taxes really earmarked in the US? As far as I understand, in most of Europe the government and municipality just collect their dues and spend according to an approved budget with no earmarking whatsoever.

...in most of Europe the government and municipality just collect their dues and spend according to an approved budget with no earmarking whatsoever.

If this system were used in USA, our shameless politicians would regularly just completely fail to fund schools. The fact that some money goes directly to schools means that most of them can at least keep the lights on.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#194

Post by bbarn » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:34 PM UTC

erispoe wrote: post #143

timr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across th…

SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all…

Aren't the buildings somewhat limited in height for earthquake related reasons?

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#195

Post by JulianMorrison » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:35 PM UTC

oftenwrong wrote: post #185

skewart wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason w…

It goes beyond the lots and what is built on them - just look at the streets. A random residential street in SF: https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52 A random residential street in Tokyo: https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2 According to my google maps eyeballing, the SF street is about 6 times wider building-to-building.

It's American cars. Y'all drive barges. Contrast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#196

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:35 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #37

cjensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under existing rules, developers do not pay enough fees to allow the School Districts to build new schools to support the new housing. Now you'd like to rubber stamp this? For example there's a new development in Fremont of a few hundred houses: the school district had to zone it as "we'll provide school for you, but it'll be wherever we have space across the entire city." That's not good. To me the idiocy is this: t…

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

In California, under the Prop 13 tax reform, property tax values were rolled back and frozen at the 1976 assessed value level and only allowed to raise at 2% per year.

Property values (and therefore property tax receipts) vary relatively modestly with the economic cycle, but income tax receipts are fully exposed to the booms and busts of the stock market. What this leads to is school funding that is somewhat directly tied to the financial markets :( So if you're in school during a recession, it sucks

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#197

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:38 PM UTC

rplst8 wrote: post #184

hpaavola wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"or the owner of the land doesn't want to redevelop it" I don't know the English terms here, but that kind of situation where individuals are earning massive profits because everybody else built city around them, is just wrong. That unearned rise in the property value should be taxed away. So, just zone more apartments in that area and put big enough property tax on underdeveloped land area. That way the economic inc…

> That unearned rise in the property value should be taxed away. That is so wrongheaded I don't know where to start. Increasing property taxes is the exact reason you have older folks be forced out of their homes after having lived there most of their life. No one should have a continuously growing tax burden over time.

Why should society subsidize someone using a piece of land, when another potential tenant will pay taxes on its true value? The government has to fund itself, so a reduction in property taxes means increases in other taxes. If the replacement taxes apply to everyone equally, that means wealth is effectively being transferred from average people (who are likely in debt with little savings) to people who completely own homes often worth 800k+.

The old person will make a good amount of money selling their home, and they can use that windfall to buy a nice new home somewhere warm and cheap, so it isn't like they're being trampled on.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#198

Post by twobyfour » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:39 PM UTC

ReligiousFlames wrote: post #134

Instead of growing vertically up, cities ought to consider down because it doesn't ruin existing property owners' view and the community's beauty of not turning into a concrete, brutalist jungle. Furtheremore, there's effectively infinite subsurface real-estate while the maximum usable height of buildings is finite. Musk's Boring Company transport ideas are also onto something but housing and office space should also…

Building downwards into space that has no natural light makes for housing that is unpleasant and in many cases dangerous in case of fire (on the 1st to 4th stories, roughly; windows provide a secondary means of egress; and above that, fire escapes).

Additionally, building downwards is extremely impractical where downwards is below the water table, which is the case in many parts of most major cities (since cities tend to have historically developed along rivers or shoreline for access to drinking water and transportation).

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#199

Post by matwood » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:39 PM UTC

abalashov wrote: post #74

panzer_wyrm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Renting with no road to purchase turns you into serf. Owning your dwelling is the most basic form a security a human needs. I own a condo that I rent and live renting in other part of my city. The rents cancel each other. It works very nice for me. I definitely wish more people own their homes. I also love highrises.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

Where did you go rent a place for less than your 160k mortgage?

I agree that owning a house is not right for everyone, but if you're planning on staying in a location for awhile it can make a lot of sense (although ATL is its own special hell). If I had not bought a house in 2011, I actually could not afford to live in the area I currently live in. Sure, taxes, insurance, and maintenance will always be ongoing cost, but for the most part my housing costs are fixed way below what rent would be now.

I also do not know what's wrong with professionals doing things like cutting the grass and trimming hedges. Every hour of my day does not need to be spent in some highly productive fashion. An hour/week in the summer, outside doing the yard while listening to music is a great way to relax and unwind.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#200

Post by InitialLastName » Wed, May 10, 2017, 12:41 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #140

ianamartin wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.

Here in Japan your neighbour can build pretty much anything they want (within zoning constraints) and there is little you can do about it. The zoning here is pretty different than in the US though. The government created a national, unified zoning standard consisting of 12 zones. Local governments can split their land into more-or-less arbitrary regions, and choose which zone type they want each region to have. They…

It would be interesting to see if this is related to Japan's slightly bizarre real estate market. As I understand it, Japan has a culture that heavily emphasizes purchasing a newly built residence to live in for life. As such, the resale market for homes is limited.

Lots of NIMBYism is inspired by some level of home value protectionism. It's possible that if you don't expect to resell your home, you don't have to worry so much about protecting its value.