Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

thebaycitybeacon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 187 posts

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#21

Post by sheepmullet »

marcell wrote: post #17
blasteye wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes only make up 1/4th the school budget in CA. Also let's do some math shall we. California has 12.3% illegal immigrant student population. Remove them and the same funds that currently exist would be funding 87.7% the current student population. California currently spends $8,694/student. If you remove the illegal immigrants that becomes 8,694/0.877 = ~9913/student. Not great but a $1219/student gain in…

1. The parents of those children contribute to the economy and pay taxes, and by deporting them you are harming the local economy, and also reducing your tax base. Thus the gain will be less than $1200/yr. 2. Some of the kids of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens, if they were born in the US, so your number 12.3% is not accurate. That is the number who's parents are unauthorized. Edit: According to the source yo…

> The parents of those children contribute to the economy and pay taxes

It's unlikely the parents pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits like free schooling for their kids.

And at the same time by working here they illegally decrease wages and jobs for the most marginalized Americans.

> Some of the kids of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens

They wouldn't be here in the first place if we enforced our immigration laws.

> With proper education, these children will grow up to be productive

Not with current levels of funding they won't.

And I don't see any political will in California to double the education spending per child.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#22

Post by viridian »

dang wrote: post #3
joeblow9999 wrote: post #2

Spoiler alert: Central planners' plans fail to materialize.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

For what it's worth, I partially agree with jnordwick's comment. I've noticed an uptick over the last couple of months in the comments that receive public callouts feeling ideological in nature. It may just be based on who flags posts, since a lot of non polemic low quality posts seem to go dead after a few hours without any flagging, but it may be worth looking into this pattern, because I imagine you don't want to give off the perception that the public callouts come from having the wrong opinions instead of nonconstructive ones.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#23

Post by lr4444lr »

omegaworks wrote: post #8
blasteye wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And being 42nd out of 50 on K-12 education and highest poverty rate, aren't good things to lead with. Lots of opportunities to improve. How much does that have to do with its sanctuary status & high illegal immigration numbers. California is home to 2.3 mil illegal immigrants, and 12.3% of all k-12 students in California are illegal immigrants. Other states with that high of an illegal immigrant student demographic…

>How much does that have to do with its sanctuary status & high illegal immigration numbers. Zero. It has zero to do with how California treats its most vulnerable immigrant population, and everything to do with how California funds its schools. The Berkeley CA School board recently had to make hard choices in its yearly budget. Berkeley is one of the wealthiest cities in the state. It was forced to slash safety offi…

Thereally are several examples of per pupil expenditure against student performance that suggest you are wrong. NYC for example spends about $22K per kid. Results are middling at best, even with a number of troubling things done to mask how bad things like attendance, test scores, and graduation rates really are. A similar situation exists in Washington DC. Money is simply not the answer to all problems.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#24

Post by phkahler »

masonic wrote: post #20
DoreenMichele wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple of questions: 1. What do you consider modest prices ? 2. What exactly do you do to check out the local real estate scene ? Because I recently left California to get off the street after moving around California a bit in search of affordable living and doing like 3 years of research, and my point of view and yours are so not on the same page, they aren't even in the same book.

He referred specifically to the California interior . Most counties not on the coast or bay have very affordable areas; I've driven the northern 2/3rds of I-5, most of US50, and all of I-80 in CA and seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Things look different once outside of a Bay Area (or San Diego) bubble.

>> ...seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices.

Anything under 300K? How about 200K? A fraction of the Bay area doesn't necessarily mean affordable.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#25

Post by phkahler »

The part about increasing density near public transit was interesting. It's true that high density is a must to make public transit viable. However, I presume there is little vacant land near public transit. In that case, a mandate to increase density would be telling people to demolish and rebuild with higher density than what's there. If that's the case then the comparison to Putin might be justified - and perhaps the crony capitalism part depending who profits from this "upgrade".

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#26

Post by viridian »

This little bit of political sparring was my favorite part of the article:

>SB 827, Wiener’s bill to mandate increased density near public transit, was recently the subject of a spat on Twitter between the Senator and former Beverly Hills mayor John Mirisch. Mirisch began his tirade by calling the bill “a bizarre combination of Soviet-style master planning with raging crony capitalism…the urban planning lovechild of Vladimir Putin and the Koch Bros.”

>“Not quite sure how he got to this conclusion but definitely scores high in the melodramatic response competition,” Wiener responded. “Interesting to say that my authoring a bill to allow more housing near transit makes me Putin, since I sort of got the idea from a guy named [President Barack] Obama,” he remarked wryly.

The name dropping and mudslinging here is pretty laughable. The reason reason for conflict seems to me to be misaligned incentives though. The idea that a place like Beverly Hills is going to have to throw up a bunch of new housing to please CA congress is ridiculous, since essentially the city now has to find a way to destroy existing housing or places of business in order to throw up new, cheaper housing, assuming the bill passes.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#27

Post by Firadeoclus »

sheepmullet wrote: post #21
marcell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The parents of those children contribute to the economy and pay taxes, and by deporting them you are harming the local economy, and also reducing your tax base. Thus the gain will be less than $1200/yr. 2. Some of the kids of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens, if they were born in the US, so your number 12.3% is not accurate. That is the number who's parents are unauthorized. Edit: According to the source yo…

> The parents of those children contribute to the economy and pay taxes It's unlikely the parents pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits like free schooling for their kids. And at the same time by working here they illegally decrease wages and jobs for the most marginalized Americans. > Some of the kids of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens They wouldn't be here in the first place if we enforced our imm…

> It's unlikely the parents pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits like free schooling for their kids.

I think it's a mistake to assign the educational benefits people receive (whatever age they are at the time) to their parents.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#28

Post by jtx1 »

marcell wrote: post #18
blasteye wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Test scores show otherwise: http://laschoolreport.com/latinos-and-english-learners-are-b... The majority of LA's Latino / Illegal Immigrant student body failed their standardized tests. 66% failed english language arts 76% failed math And Latino's also had ~5% more kids failing than the average of LA's Scores. Its a fair argument that removing this population from the schools increase the % of kids who pass these tes…

> The majority of LA's Latino / Illegal Immigrant student body failed their standardized tests. You seem to be conflating two groups: "illegal" immigrants, and Latinos. They are separate groups. > Its a fair argument that removing this population from the schools increase... While this is true, this is also the type of ethnic engineering that isn't acceptable in modern society in the United States. We don't remove et…

Who are you to state what is generally acceptable in the United States?

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#29

Post by yostrovs »

California always amazes with its goals, decade after decade of leadership among the states. Building is promoted to improve affordability. Building is discouraged to preserve the environment and maintain a local culture. Building is promoted to provide new transportation options. Building is discouraged to reduce congestion, contain sprawl. Building and not building at the same time helps California maintain its unique logical and psychological balance.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#30

Post by ghaff »

phkahler wrote: post #24
masonic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He referred specifically to the California interior . Most counties not on the coast or bay have very affordable areas; I've driven the northern 2/3rds of I-5, most of US50, and all of I-80 in CA and seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Things look different once outside of a Bay Area (or San Diego) bubble.

>> ...seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Anything under 300K? How about 200K? A fraction of the Bay area doesn't necessarily mean affordable.

You look at, say, Fresno and there are properties for sale under $200K (although that's below the median of $300K+). I assume those are not the most attractive places but they certainly exist. That's the 5th most populous city in California so it's not exactly the middle of nowhere.
Post reply on HN