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

California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

lao.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 230 posts

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#151

Post by prostoalex »

davidw wrote: post #126
krausejj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absolutely. if you want to go beyond simply pressuring politicians on sb-827, and be part of continued movement to increase housing affordability in california, you should support the YIMBYs. also the "head yimby's" Q&A on the bill with Vox is a must-read: https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...

Maybe they're doing it but keeping quiet about it, but I'm kind of surprised VC type people aren't funding the YIMBYs in a massive way. Think of how many millions of their investment dollars simply go towards paying exorbitant rents in SF and elsewhere in the bay area.

That implies a VC deploying capital in a place with cheap rents will harvest higher ROI. But the biggest exits so far (WhatsApp, Snap) don’t reflect that.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#152

Post by krausejj »

vondur wrote: post #150
krausejj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support. UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal muni…

Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.

some redevelopment is likely to occur. McKinsey did a deep dive here and came up with a 3 million number for new units (https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-...)

this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#153

Post by seanmcdirmid »

adamrezich wrote: post #120
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true of the entire US: rural areas are mostly red, urban areas are mostly blue.

That's the cliché but it seems a bit unfair, because in my mind, "rural" evokes small towns of 21 people and vast expanses of farm/ranch land. My hometown has a population of about ~70,000 spread out over 55 square miles (~1,300 people per square mile); is that "rural" or "urban?" What I'm getting at is, it's more precise to say "most of the US--rural and urban--is red, while the densest population centers are overwh…

The threshold from red to blue corosses at 800ppl/sqm:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/11/what-republicans-are-...

The definition of "urban" according to the USA census department have cores of 1000ppl/sqm and are surrounding by areas of 500ppl/sqm.

So if you have a density of 1,300, then there is a higher chance the area went blue. Of course, there can be lots of exceptions, and 1,300 is rather close to the crossover point.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#154

Post by davidw »

prostoalex wrote: post #151
davidw wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they're doing it but keeping quiet about it, but I'm kind of surprised VC type people aren't funding the YIMBYs in a massive way. Think of how many millions of their investment dollars simply go towards paying exorbitant rents in SF and elsewhere in the bay area.

That implies a VC deploying capital in a place with cheap rents will harvest higher ROI. But the biggest exits so far (WhatsApp, Snap) don’t reflect that.

They could get more bang for their buck in the bay area (which they aren't likely to leave anytime soon) if housing prices weren't quite so crazy.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#155

Post by AFNobody »

whatshisface wrote: post #40
antimatter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my fear as well. As a Californian who's looking to move to Texas at some point in the future, I really hope the people leaving aren't taking "California values" to Texas with them.

One of the greatest strengths of the Texas legislature is that almost everything is written in to the constitution, thereby being almost impossible to change. So for this reason the (proven disastrous) legal and business theories that have messed up housing costs in California would have a very hard time taking root here.

> One of the greatest strengths of the Texas legislature is that almost everything is written in to the constitution, thereby being almost impossible to change. So for this reason the (proven disastrous) legal and business theories that have messed up housing costs in California would have a very hard time taking root here.

Prop 13 is a constitutional amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

CA is virtually identical to Texas in the sense it has an extensive constitution that is almost impossible to change.

So, be careful what you wish for.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#156

Post by chipotle_coyote »

cody3222 wrote: post #95

It would be really interesting to see the difference in trends between the Bay Area, LA, and the more rural areas. Seems the housing price issue is much more of a problem in the Bay Area.

According to Trulia's market trend reports, both LA and Sacramento's median housing prices have increased faster in the last five years than San Jose's: LA went from $400K to $779K, a 94% increase, while Sacramento went from $143K to $305K, a 113% increase. San Jose went from $490K to $865K, a "mere" 77% increase. Stockton also more than doubled in the same period.

Obviously one could argue San Jose was already overpriced, but in terms of trends, California's housing prices are kind of on fire -- you don't have to be in the SF Bay area for costs to be rising much faster than the national trend. (Which is still higher than I would have guessed: the median price over that five-year period across the entire country rose from $154K to $205K.)

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#157

Post by krausejj »

kbrackbill wrote: post #137
krausejj wrote: post #15

this is related to an article i just submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 it costs too much to live here because of zoning. zoning is largely driven by local governments, dominated by homeowners who benefit when prices rise. but california might fix it with sb-827, which would prevent local governments from banning density near transit hubs. california builds https://standupcalifornia.com (this is…

FYI the link to my state senator's (Nancy Skinner's) site is broken- it's http://sd9.senate.ca.gov/ but should be http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/

fixed. thanks.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#158

Post by curuinor »

adamrezich wrote: post #120
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true of the entire US: rural areas are mostly red, urban areas are mostly blue.

That's the cliché but it seems a bit unfair, because in my mind, "rural" evokes small towns of 21 people and vast expanses of farm/ranch land. My hometown has a population of about ~70,000 spread out over 55 square miles (~1,300 people per square mile); is that "rural" or "urban?" What I'm getting at is, it's more precise to say "most of the US--rural and urban--is red, while the densest population centers are overwh…

In turn, I was born in a hospital next to a Seoul apartment complex that was part of a 3-apartment complex thing that had more people than your hometown. That's density.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#159

Post by aidenn0 »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #33
joelrunyon wrote: post #21

San Diego is bleeding people to Austin. I wish San Diego would just make it's own state, adopt Texas' taxes and it'd be hands-down the best place to be in the US.

You want 2% property taxes at San Diego property values? Without Prop 13?

My house is worth almost double what I paid for it and yet I would vote against prop 13 in a heartbeat. Even if it were repealed today, it will take at least a decade to recover from the harm it has done to the municipalities.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#160

Post by krausejj »

prostoalex wrote: post #144
krausejj wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you have a chance to check out the nber article i linked to at the top? it does a deep dive on construction costs and land economics. here is the direct link: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 (it is a super interesting read, even if you just read the intro) i too am skeptical of magical fix-all solutions, but I actually believe this could be a silver bullet. many of the issues you describe are circular—constructi…

I guess I am kinda agreeing with the thesis - I am observing that “marginal, physical costs of new construction” is not as low as people expect it to be. Downtown SJ is another good example - they zone pretty much anything, the debate in the local papers is whether developers deserved tax breaks, not whether the zoning decision was right. Prices are below SF and PA for sure, but we’re still not seeing dramatic drops.…

i believe that's because the bay area's housing costs are set by bay area labor costs, which are extremely high due to high housing costs, so even if San Jose is building (which, per capita, it's doing just as badly as other california cities, fyi), it will still be screwed by the regional issue
Post reply on HN