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

41–50 of 187 posts

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

#41

Post by ghaff »

lr4444lr wrote: post #23
omegaworks wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's a very common pattern. Look at any state with significant urban centers. It's very common for the city schools to have significantly higher per-student spend than affluent suburbs while simultaneously often being near the bottom in terms of test scores--which, while imperfect, are at least a reasonable proxy for the overall learning environment at a given school.

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

#42

Post by ebikelaw »

phkahler wrote: post #25

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…

It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It doesn’t mandate anything. Existing limits are preventing market forces from working.

In Berkeley there is a subway station surrounded by a five-acre parking lot. The owner of the parking list wishes to build there, but the city refuses to rezone the land, which is presently “U - Unclassified”. This law would remove Berkeley’s authority in the matter.

In San Francisco 71% of the land is zoned for detached single family homes, despite virtually all of that city being within half a mile of a rail or light rail station. This bill would raise all of those limits.

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

#44

Post by jdavis703 »

viridian wrote: post #26

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…

SB-827 does not require the destruction of any housing. In fact it gives property holder's more freedom to build what they want on their own land. The reason is because it removes onerous regulations that have restricted the ability of a growing state to match it's housing needs. SB-827 isn't a long piece of law, I highly encourage everyone with an opinion on it to read the text of the law.

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

#45

Post by narrator »

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…

Money spent on education in the U.S has very little influence on test scores[1]. The top scorers on internationally standardized tests like Korea and Japan spend much less per student than the U.S. Countries that spend more have mixed results [2].

The education "debate" reminds me of the healthcare "debate" in which the sole issue debated is whether we should spend more money on it. The irony is is that we already spend plenty compared to other countries and in many cases get worse results.

We could adapt Japanese or Korean systems for teaching math and science, but that would be way too creative.

[1] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.... [2] https://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/money-cant-buy-genius

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

#46

Post by chewbacha »

theseatoms wrote: post #40
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doublethink is when an individual holds mutually contradictory views. There are 40 million people in California.

Then what's it called when two counteracting policies produce outcomes that are strictly worse than no policy at all?

Compromise

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

#47

Post by Pigo »

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…

>most vulnerable immigrant population

This strategic description really grinds my gears.

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

#48

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

gwbas1c wrote: post #43

I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels. Artificially manipulating prices via rent control mechanisms; or only building homes for a specific income level doesn't work.

I disagree. The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities. Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are. Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing(which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization), we need to address capital concentration.

edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Was something that I said inaccurate?

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

#49

Post by Wohlf »

numbsafari wrote: post #32
yostrovs wrote: post #29

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 uni…

It’s as though California is a giant state with a diverse population, both politically and geographically, with lots of competing interests that, over time, has gone through various political and leadership changes that reflect that diversity.

Apparently not, because 97% of the NIMBYs are winning.

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

#50

Post by Wohlf »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #48
gwbas1c wrote: post #43

I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to build more homes for all income levels. Artificially manipulating prices via rent control mechanisms; or only building homes for a specific income level doesn't work.

I disagree. The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities. Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are. Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing(which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization), we need to address capital concentration. edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Wa…

I guess you're a big fan of China's city planning then.
Post reply on HN