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

51–60 of 187 posts

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

#51

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

viridian wrote: post #22
dang wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From what I see, the issue really isn't the ideology, it's the tone and/or substance of a post that really matters. "of course there is insider trading, duh" is significantly different from "Spoiler alert: Central planners' plans fail to materialize." The latter uses a speech pattern used in clickbait to illicit an emotional response, and the phrase "central planners" is a politically charged amplification of the actual situation.

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

#52

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

Wohlf wrote: post #50
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know a thing about China's city planning. How is it relevant to the conversation?

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

#53

Post by candu »

Pigo wrote: post #47
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…

>most vulnerable immigrant population This strategic description really grinds my gears.

In this sense, GP's references to "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigrants" are also strategic: they betray an obvious bias towards one side of this debate. (This is leaving aside the barely coded racism - and, ironically, questionable grammar - of their other statements, such as "You're only as good as who you surround yourself".)

I see no problem in providing a counterbalancing perspective. After all, it can be simultaneously true that these people have immigrated illegally and that they are among the most vulnerable. Issues like this are complex, and there aren't easy answers. To wit: what about US-born children - do we now split up families in service of proving a moral point? What about the opportunities for children in diverse schools to learn from other cultures and viewpoints? There's also the longstanding "no human is illegal" debate.

(As you may have guessed by this point, my own bias is globalist / humanitarian. I'd argue we have a moral duty to help those in need, and that it is fallacious to argue this necessarily takes resources away from others because that presumes economics, aid, etc. are zero-sum games. I also think, in a practical sense, that many of our laws around residency, immigration, etc. ignore the reality of an increasingly mobile and globalized world, and that the sooner we can transcend nationalist bullshit the better. Finally: I believe that American prosperity has had a net extractive effect on much of the rest of the world for the past century, much like the colonial empires of yore. Moral / reparative dimensions of that aside, it certainly creates a less peaceful world.)

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

#54

Post by slothtrop »

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…

Is it not more accurately a fight against sprawl and call to increase density in city cores?

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

#55

Post by ebikelaw »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

My experience in driving through California's interior doesn't jibe with that headline. When I stop for lunch or a break I like to check out the local real estate scene and its often the case in these cities that there are many houses and other living accommodations available at modest prices. Hard to imagine a city like Mojave not meeting it "goal". Of course if you limit yourself to cities of 1 millions residents o…

Part of the point of SB 827 is to reduce CO2 emissions from transport by building at walkable density and increasing demand for existing mass transit services. Building a house in Mojave does none of those things.

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

#56

Post by shams93 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

My experience in driving through California's interior doesn't jibe with that headline. When I stop for lunch or a break I like to check out the local real estate scene and its often the case in these cities that there are many houses and other living accommodations available at modest prices. Hard to imagine a city like Mojave not meeting it "goal". Of course if you limit yourself to cities of 1 millions residents o…

Are you gonna commute from Mohave to Santa Monica for work every day?

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

#57

Post by DataWorker »

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…

To think in terms of a false dichotomy like building/not-building just reduces a very complex policy area down to something so oversimplified as to be meaningless. It’s like asking, “technology good or bad?” Not very useful.

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

#58

Post by amyjess »

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.

Houses under $200K in Bakersfield, CA:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Bakersfield-CA/3506_ri...

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

#59

Post by DataWorker »

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.

Markets don’t restrict themselves based on the income level of buyers. As long as there are more people who want to come to California than there are houses, all house prices will increase. You can build a cheap home, but unless you means test buyers, it could be purchased by Bill Gates and rented out for twice the mortgage rate.

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

#60

Post by Pigo »

candu wrote: post #53
Pigo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>most vulnerable immigrant population This strategic description really grinds my gears.

In this sense, GP's references to "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigrants" are also strategic: they betray an obvious bias towards one side of this debate. (This is leaving aside the barely coded racism - and, ironically, questionable grammar - of their other statements, such as "You're only as good as who you surround yourself".) I see no problem in providing a counterbalancing perspective. After all, it can be s…

I agree with you on the term sanctuary city being strategic. I think these phrases get under my skin because we just parrot back what we hear on CNN/NPR/Daily Wire, without adding anything new to the conversation.

I'm not sure I could disagree with you more on a lot of what you said, but it doesn't grind any gears to read your opinion because I doubt you copy/pasted that from a VICE article. I really think you've thought about that, and that is your opinion. It does worry me that there doesn't seem to be any common ground though.

Post reply on HN