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

The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#51

Post by manfredo »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #41
krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

If you care about the rest of the country you should ask why the fire hose of investment money is directed at SF and New York and not elsewhere. Instead of asking what's wrong with San Francisco. Why not ask what's wrong with the rest of the US? Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes an…

I don't really follow what message you're trying to convey, but it sounds a lot like that you're starting the problem is with the demand for real estate in Silicon Valley, not the supply.

This isn't the case. Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc. are just on the leading edge of a larger tend towards greater urbanization. It's a pattern that's also happening in Austin, Portland, and more cities just to less extreme degrees. The simple fact is that in a developed country dense population centers are more efficient - both economically and environmentally.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#52

Post by burlesona »

st26 wrote: post #48
sampo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house. And because you didn't want to live near public transit,…

That's how it's supposed to work, but at least in Portland it's not panning out: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...

Indeed, thanks for posting this. I’m concerned that, while well-intentioned, the bill may not help.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#53

Post by aaronbwebber »

rsync wrote: post #43
krausejj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absolutely. this is both liberal and libertarian. it's a massive social justice issue. it's also a policy-failure that can be addressed by simply reducing regulations, which this bill does (by preventing local governments from banning density near public transit, the exact place it needs to go).

"absolutely. this is both liberal and libertarian" ... but not necessarily democratic. I am open minded about the housing policy debate in CA (and in Marin, where I live) but I am dismayed at the rejection of democratic outcomes when those outcomes are found to be inconvenient.

Why do you value democracy? My answer would be because democracy realizes liberal* ideas in a political process. But if liberal processes lead to illiberal outcomes, what do you do? I don't think you can argue that the past ~40 years of housing policy in California have produced liberal outcomes - there's been an immense concentration of wealth, particularly in property, displacement of underprivileged communities, exorbitant housing costs for many people, and hugely negative environmental impacts.

I'm willing to sacrifice liberal processes to get liberal outcomes. To somewhat invert the meaning of an aphorism, the means do not justify the ends.

* to be clear, we're talking about small-l liberal here, not "liberal" as in "left of center" as it is frequently (mis)used.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#54

Post by sokoloff »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #47
rsync wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"absolutely. this is both liberal and libertarian" ... but not necessarily democratic. I am open minded about the housing policy debate in CA (and in Marin, where I live) but I am dismayed at the rejection of democratic outcomes when those outcomes are found to be inconvenient.

CA is also a democracy, so it's just one democratic outcome overriding a different democratic outcome.

Two wolves and one sheep can also have a vote about what's for dinner and the outcome be democratic.

I don't know why people in San Diego or NorCal should have a vote about what happens with respect to zoning in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Why not let people in Butte, Montana put in their vote as well?

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#55

Post by yostrovs »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #41
krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

If you care about the rest of the country you should ask why the fire hose of investment money is directed at SF and New York and not elsewhere. Instead of asking what's wrong with San Francisco. Why not ask what's wrong with the rest of the US? Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes an…

I know that for myself and many others I know, it is California's weather, nature, and ocean that drew us there. Nowhere else in the continental US can you have great year round weather.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#56

Post by techenthusiast »

st26 wrote: post #48
sampo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house. And because you didn't want to live near public transit,…

That's how it's supposed to work, but at least in Portland it's not panning out: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...

That article literally gets supply and demand wrong...

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#57

Post by techenthusiast »

burlesona wrote: post #52
st26 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it's supposed to work, but at least in Portland it's not panning out: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...

Indeed, thanks for posting this. I’m concerned that, while well-intentioned, the bill may not help.

How does that article in any way compare in rigor to the most famous paper on the US housing crises?

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#58

Post by sAuronas »

krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

Transit-oriented development is great but not quite radical enough. It’s usually focused at rail nodes and if you take Oakland, as an example, you would barely move the needle on housing supply. One problem is that there is already some dense housing around these, and other nodes, in the Bay Area. The other is that these locations can only accommodate so much of the area’s housing supply. To address the housing crunch, there needs to be ubiquitous up-zoning of any — no EVERY — parcel, in any zoning category — by right. What that means is if you own a burger stand by the lake (using Oakland as an example again) and that burger stand is a one-story building with a big lot out front that is 90-percent empty virtually 100% of the time (if my memory serves me correctly) and you want to sell your lot to me and I can justify 50 units based on precedent of adjacency alone, then I should be able to supply those 50 dwelling units (60 with an affordable density bonus, 150 with a high rise even) and not have to litigate the local NIMBYISM for 5 years to do it. The cost of land in Oakland (my example again) is not that high on a per-unit, land basis cost. The issue is that people will come out of the woodwork (read: other parts of the Bay) to fight you and then the cost to litigate, the time value of money and the entitlement fees kill the desire to even start a project. If you could up-zone every single family lot to 3-flats, you could dramatically increase supply. Hell, you can focus on just one and two-story neighborhood commercial and rapidly decrease price pressure. And SV is not approaching $1500/sf without all the barriers to redevelopment of underutilized land (parking lots or otherwise).

To be fair, not everyone wants Manhattan so density, and even change, can be terrifying. But, to be fair, there were special and specific circumstances that created Manhattan that just don’t exist in SV or Oakland. So, that fear may not be justified. Still, is a step in the right direction...

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#59

Post by mertd »

manfredo wrote: post #51
Gibbon1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you care about the rest of the country you should ask why the fire hose of investment money is directed at SF and New York and not elsewhere. Instead of asking what's wrong with San Francisco. Why not ask what's wrong with the rest of the US? Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes an…

I don't really follow what message you're trying to convey, but it sounds a lot like that you're starting the problem is with the demand for real estate in Silicon Valley, not the supply. This isn't the case. Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc. are just on the leading edge of a larger tend towards greater urbanization. It's a pattern that's also happening in Austin, Portland, and more cities just to less extreme degrees. T…

SV is not urban. It is sub-urban and that's the problem.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#60

Post by secstate »

yostrovs wrote: post #55
Gibbon1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you care about the rest of the country you should ask why the fire hose of investment money is directed at SF and New York and not elsewhere. Instead of asking what's wrong with San Francisco. Why not ask what's wrong with the rest of the US? Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes an…

I know that for myself and many others I know, it is California's weather, nature, and ocean that drew us there. Nowhere else in the continental US can you have great year round weather.

Oh wow. Personal preference is thick in that last statement there. I can't stand places with wet and dry seasons. I can't imagine wanting to live somewhere without snow in the winter. "Great year round weather" is a value judgement.
Post reply on HN