Live data from Hacker News

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

221–230 of 329 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Supply isn't the thing expected to raise boundlessly whenever demand goes up. Prices are.

In this case supply is said to be bounded by government. But imagine an alternate reality where SF was Tokoyo-fied to the max. The city has every last housing unit that could possibly be squeezed in. The peninsula is slowly sinking into the ocean. And there is still more demand for housing. What then? Supply isn't going to rise then, either.

So all I see is a whine that the government should prioritize one interest group's desires for lower prices over all the other desires and interest groups that coalesced to constrain housing in the first place.

Want to talk about the market not functioning like a market is "supposed to"? Look no further than consumers overpaying to pack into a city for salaries that do not offset the higher cost of living.

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it 100 a year? that seems quite affordable to me even if someone is making 8 dollars an hour.

It's not, though. I once observed that a few of my college-aged friends were subsisting on canned tomatoes and beans, and struggling to make ends meet. I suggested that they use my Costco membership to buy a months worth of supplies at once for roughly half to two-thirds or what they were spending. They patiently explained to me that part of why they lived this way was because they were already barely living within t…

sounds like a good situation for giving your friend a loan for a couple hundred dollars. Not necessarily you personally, but it would be a step towards being above hand-to-mouth if they could borrow a small amount of money to get the benefit of some economies of scale.

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

#223
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…

You complain but you still put up with it which is why nothing ever gets done

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually, I was quite surprised during a recent visit to Japan. There aren't many cars, but most of them are big saloons (lots of Crowns). Then again maybe if you can afford a car in Tokyo or Osaka, you can afford a big one.

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

#225

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…

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.

If the problem is severe enough I see no reason in theory to not apply Eminent Domain in such cases. In practice what would likely happen is a local councilman's friend gets the lucrative development plot in an act of corrupt capitalism.

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

#226
In NJ a state supreme court ruling created something called the Mount Laurel doctrine, which according to Wikipedia: requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.

How hard would this be in CA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine

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

#227
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…

"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…

> 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.

Prop 13 prevents this, and in fact makes it so that only redevelopment or change of ownership allows increases in property value to be taxed, which is one reason owners might prefer not to redevelop.

Full value assessment (even retaining the Prop 13 limit on tax rates) would encourage redevelopment because underdeveloped properties would still be paying taxes based on value increases from potential uses.

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

#228
post #28

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,…

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…

> A city like Fremont was master-planned with enough space for both, but is being forced by the state to build houses instead for people who will work in Sunnyvale which has too many jobs and not enough houses.

The legislation discussed in the article is largely about making Sunnyvale (and the rest of the job-heavy housing-light peninsula cities) build more housing.

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

#229
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF housing politics has taught me anything, it's that the nastiest of human behavior is revealed by parking disagreements :( I never understood the residential parking permit argument anyway. Public dollars built the road, which now contains public parking spots. Implementing residential parking permits is a transfer of value from the public domain to private land owners. In Palo Alto (and the rest of the Bay Area…

I think you're right. I my observation (though not in SF) the top 2 sources of dispute are 1.) parking, and 2.) dogs. Not infrequently, there's a correlation between offensive parking and promoting bad dog behavior. Of course it makes sense that would be the case. Inconsiderate people are likely not to care about encroaching on others' driveways when they or their guests leave their vehicles. They're also not likely…

Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

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

#230
I've been in Silicon Valley for close to 20 years, and I have been concerned about this for a long time. I want to say it was somewhere around 2010 that I began noticing a sudden increase in the number RVs I see in non-RV places, such as large parking lots and along industrial area roads. Now it seems like I hardly go anywhere and not see several RVs that are clearly out of place - they used to only be found in sideyards, RV parks, or driving down the highway.

Next, the homeless situation has truly grown to epic proportions. Take a peak into any of the inbetween areas, and you'll find a small encampment. How many of these exist, I can't say, but once I began to understand where the homeless go, I started to venture and take small peaks - they're everywhere.

Next, the homeless started showing up, en masse, in large public places. The most obvious is the parks near San Pedro square in San Jose. Yes, this area has always had an "element" to it, but that element used to live in the nearby housing. Now, the element is in the park.

I was talking with a friend who lives in a very expensive and beautiful home near this park, and this friend was really annoyed at how the homeless population around this house has really exploded. At the same time, this friend had not identified any link to the homeless population and crazy median home prices, now approaching $1 million for San Jose. I asked this friend to please consider the statistic of a $1 million median home price in a city with a population of 1 million, and what does that really mean for its residents?

My feeling is that, in time, this is going to be incredibly bad. The first problem is an increase in property crime. When people are forced out of their shelter, they will become desperate. Some percentage of any population is going to be pre-disposed to considering crime, so increasing the number of people who are desperate will increase the absolute number of people who will turn to crime.

Police forces do not exist to protect - they are really just for cleanup, and currently there is a new trend that will eventually get reported of how the nature of burglaries, especially in the San Jose area, have changed. It used to be that perps would case and then burglarize when owners were out for a weekend or vacation. Now, the owners are out for only a few hours and return home to find they have been burgled. Obviously they are using some more sophisticated surveillance or network tech of some sort. In at least one precinct, the police have yet to catch anyone performing burglaries in this manner.

With this new trend, a group of, say, five clever people can do 10s of millions in property damage annually. As these small groups are increased, the dollars in damage become very real, plus the emotional impact of feeling insecure in your own property will often push people over the edge to sell their homes or at least move away, converting their residence into a rental unit.

The second trend that I fear will begin to occur is the less clever criminals who simply mug, loot, and smash-and-grab.

Finally, there will simply be violence against the property owners. People are not dumb, as we can see by this article that even the politicians and bureaucrats are beginning to get concerned for their jobs. In San Francisco, there was the violent demonstrations against the Google buses. I don't know in exactly which way the violence comes out or is directed, but when you force enough people in to desperate circumstances, you will eventually have enough of those who are pre-disposed to violent "solutions" that they will find a target.

In all of this, people will begin selling and moving out. The property values will drop, not because of increased supply of housing, but because of an exodus of existing buyers coupled with a sharp reduction in new buyers. Eventually, companies start moving jobs or entire companies to other areas (owners, executives, and managers don't want to live in all of that), and demand for residential housing falls yet further.

As the prices drop, people will consider selling to get equity, so the prices drop further (selling encourages selling). Getting things to go up from here will be a serious problem. All of the governments are maxed out, credit-wise, and their revenues will tank.

At this moment, today, it seems like increasing housing is a bad idea for cities and property owners because they will lose at least some of the current equity in their homes, but depending on the property owner's time-horizon, they may well lose all of their equity.

Post reply on HN