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

71–80 of 105 posts

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

#71

Post by wwgg715 »

deathanatos wrote: post #32
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…

First, thanks for taking the time to put that together; it's always reassuring to see someone take the time for democracy. Quick question: why does "Tell me how they vote" require my email address? Couldn't that information just appear when the area is clicked on, or am I misinterpreting that feature?

i believe the bill hasn’t been voted on yet

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

#72

Post by wwgg715 »

snomad wrote: post #15
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…

Every time I see this posted, I ask about noise. Dense housing near rapid-transit, particularly rail, has led to lots of people getting exposed to massive volumes of noise, even at night. This is the type of long-term negative that get people to move out to the suburbs (e.g. self-defeating the policy) or call for more construction such as sound walls. You can see Reno for a perfect example of this. Everyone moved out…

if noise deters others and means i can buy a condo, cool beans. i’ll get some earplugs.

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

#73

Post by wbl »

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…

New Hampshire, libertarian paradise, has none of those things. And no income tax and low sales tax.

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

#74

Post by wwgg715 »

danieltillett wrote: post #63

The problem with all real estate development is all the profits flow to the developers and all the costs flow to the existing residents (more traffic, infrastructure, etc). I am surprised that anyone is in favour of development in their neighbourhood unless they are a developer. The solution is to share the benefits of new development with the existing residents so they gain from development. Get this right and commu…

more units equals more property taxes for the municipality to pay for services, and more people buying stuff and paying sales tax, and use fees like the $11 BART ticket.

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

#75

Post by manfredo »

sokoloff wrote: post #54
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because housing availability seriously impacts economic and social mobility. It's hard to work one's way out of poverty as it is. It's even harder when the cities with the Lion's share of the jobs hardly build any housing and cause rents to skyrocket as a result.

> 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?

I'd be totally okay with nation wide housing policies (and I have lived in one of those cities you mentioned, and I currently live in Silicon Valley so I'd be impacted by this change). I think poor housing policies are big drivers of economic immobility, and people everywhere in the country are affected by it. Someone in Montana may not live in San Francisco, but if they have to turn down a job in SF due to insane rents then they are impacted by SF's housing policies. Consequently, if there was a push to ban nativist policies like rent control, proposition 13, or other barriers in the housing market nation wide I would both think it is fair and I'd support it.

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

#76

Post by closeparen »

sokoloff wrote: post #54
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Americans are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of the laws everywhere in America. Cities are not sovereign nations. They don't get to control migration or treat natives preferentially.

While it's nice to govern as locally as possible as a matter of general principle, when cities are hoarding wealth and opportunity and dumping the downside on the larger community, the larger community is right to reconsider the limits of the authority it delegated. Part of what it means to be in the State of California (or the United States of America) is accepting migration from, and influence by, others in that category.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

sokoloff wrote: post #54
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by closeparen »

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…

Upzoning creates multifamily housing. To many, that is not really housing, it's something for other people. The younger, the poorer (in suburban areas), the richer (in gentrifying urban neighborhoods), the transient, the childfree. Upzoning will encourage the demolition of single-family detached homes, which in their mind is the only kind that real families care about. Even if you can get someone to acknowledge that greater supply will make condos cheaper, affordable condos don't offset the increasing cost and scarcity of backyards. To be forced into a tower is as bad as being displaced entirely.

Developers aren't helping the matter. Multifamily buildings in America are too often cheap and hastily-built crap polluting the suburban landscape, or gleaming ultra-luxury alien invaders menacing vulnerable urban neighborhoods. It might help with sentiment if we had more multifamily buildings that were pleasant to live in and that middle-class voters could actually identify with.

I'm as YIMBY as anyone, but the actual recent condo buildings I can point to are making it hard to challenge the preference for single-family homes. Anything that looks as good costs twice as much, or more with HOA fees.

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

#79

Post by closeparen »

danieltillett wrote: post #63

The problem with all real estate development is all the profits flow to the developers and all the costs flow to the existing residents (more traffic, infrastructure, etc). I am surprised that anyone is in favour of development in their neighbourhood unless they are a developer. The solution is to share the benefits of new development with the existing residents so they gain from development. Get this right and commu…

Silicon Valley cities can collect those profits just fine by building offices instead.

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

#80

Post by sokoloff »

manfredo wrote: post #75
sokoloff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because housing availability seriously impacts economic and social mobility. It's hard to work one's way out of poverty as it is. It's even harder when the cities with the Lion's share of the jobs hardly build any housing and cause rents to skyrocket as a result. > 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 peo…

Your last sentence struck an interesting chord of agreement-and-disagreement with me. I also oppose rent control and ill-considered tax controls like Prop13, because I think the downsides for communities far exceed the upsides in both cases.

That means I would consistently vote against them in my own community, but I still support the rights of people in other communities to make choices different than my own. If they prefer the outcomes under rent control or Prop-13 type initiatives, who am I to say that they're wrong for their own community? Of course I can have an opinion that they're wrong, but I'd rather not force them to comply with my opinion over their own and their neighbors'.

Side note: the reason I don't live in Silicon Valley right now is that when I went interviewing out there and had job offers from two companies at a healthy increase over my then-salary, neither would allow me to afford to purchase a comparable level of housing and lifestyle to what I have out here. That was in 1998 or 1999.

Post reply on HN