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

71–80 of 187 posts

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

#71

Post by bmmayer1 »

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…

You're being downvoted because your comment doesn't make any sense. To elaborate:

> The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities

This is a pretty bizarre claim, since by definition a city's housing crisis is a local affair, so what does it have to do with capital being concentrated in a 'handful' of cities? But assuming your claim is that wealth in a city ---> housing shortage, then you need to explain how you make that connection.

> Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are

What does this mean? If you mean that you need money to build housing, then shouldn't capital concentration to a city mean more housing? If you mean that wealthy or powerful people benefit from less housing, show your work. If you're trying to demonstrate the above connection between wealth and housing shortage, there are a plethora of cities with high wealth and no housing shortages (Singapore, Chicago, Budapest, Seoul...)

Also, aren't housing costs driven by the same forces that drive the cost of anything else? Namely, supply and demand?

> Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing

If the definition of the housing crisis is 'not enough housing for the people who need homes' then why would "increasing housing" - the literal solution to the crisis - be considered slapping on a bandaid?

> which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization

Again, this makes no sense. If more houses means more wealth concentration, then shouldn't the wealthy want to build more houses? But in your previous comment, you made it sound like the wealthy don't want to build more houses.

> we need to address capital concentration

This is a altogether different point that you are welcome to argue on your own time but it really has nothing to do with housing shortages unless you want to expound upon the above a little more clearly.

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

#72

Post by pessimizer »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #52
Wohlf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's no well-known city planning being done in Venezuela, so there was a reversion to more traditional enemies.

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

#73

Post by api »

Wohlf wrote: post #49
numbsafari wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing.

Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment.

Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax increases for existing homeowners. This eliminated one of the major checks on real estate hyperinflation. You can further add the fact that the San Francisco Bay Area (the region with the highest prices by far) is geographically constrained and the fact that earthquake risk imposes additional site preparation and construction costs.

It's really a perfect storm for real estate price insanity, specially in the Bay Area. It's less insane in SoCal but still pretty high, especially when compared to median income in LA County and San Diego. SoCal is less geographically constrained.

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

#74

Post by mixmastamyk »

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…

Yes. So, you are saying there is a big demand for housing in the city close to jobs? True dat.

Econ 101 tells us the way to meet that demand without increasing prices is to increase supply. That part hasn’t been done. No amount of “housing denial” and rent control will change it.

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

#75

Post by clhodapp »

jrs95 wrote: post #36
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…

Intentionally impeding federal law enforcement from arresting and deporting illegal immigrants probably isn’t helping them on those metrics either. But until just recently, they were allowed to have non citizens counted in the census for representation, and of course there’s always potential future amnesty and birthright citizenship ensuring they produce more loyal Democratic voters. Seems to me like CA doesn’t mind…

Being the most populous, California is the most underrepresented state...

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

#76

Post by wickawic »

api wrote: post #73
Wohlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

You can be a homeowner and also not be a misanthrope at the same time. The min/max attitude of tech workers has always disgusted me in his regard.

Edit: I don’t retract my statement, but at the time of posting this my parent comment only contained the first paragraph. I agree with most points brought up

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

#77

Post by logfromblammo »

ISL wrote: post #70
ebikelaw wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered ineffective.

Wow -- from afar, that's a great way to inspire local residents in bedroom communities to fight public transit.

Which is exactly why it should apply uniformly to the whole municipality.

It's the same mentality that uses the "within X' of a school" that elides over the fact that a sufficiently large X will cover everything in the jurisdiction. The PLSS grid system put a school at every other corner, so there was a school every 2 miles, and no child would have to walk more than 1.414 miles to reach one. So if you had defined a zone "within 7500' of a school" that would have been a synonym for "everywhere" that bakes in "think of the children" to your legislation.

"Within X' of a public transit station" instead bakes in "think of the hordes of poor people".

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

#78

Post by api »

wickawic wrote: post #76
api wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

You can be a homeowner and also not be a misanthrope at the same time. The min/max attitude of tech workers has always disgusted me in his regard. Edit: I don’t retract my statement, but at the time of posting this my parent comment only contained the first paragraph. I agree with most points brought up

Averages matter a lot. You can be magnanimous but it doesn't take that many greedy bastards to have an effect.

I also think closet classism/racism plays into it. California has a liberal facade but there's a lot of "we don't want those kinds of people" in our neighborhood sentiment below the surface. Making sure housing is unaffordable for minorities and the poor is a great passive-aggressive way to implement segregation without having to admit it.

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

#79

Post by theseatoms »

api wrote: post #73
Wohlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

> The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing.

In the long-run you want economic development to happen though.

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

#80

Post by briffle »

api wrote: post #73
Wohlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

I don't really get this mentality. Yes, its good to have your home go up in value, but when you sell, are you moving to South Dakota? If not, then the houses your hoping to move into have ALSO gone up in value. The difference being that nobody can afford 'starter homes' at the low end, so people have a harder time selling them, and moving up to a nicer house.
Post reply on HN