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

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by DrScump »

closeparen wrote: post #78
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…

  Multifamily buildings in America are too often cheap and hastily-built crap
I'd like to see your data on that, but if that is true, that would support the NIMBY case: "I don't want 'cheap and hastily-built crap' next door!"

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

#92

Post by DrScump »

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…

Sound walls, as implemented in SV, don't reduce noise, they merely displace it. I don't understand why they didn't choose only sound-absorbing materials... but they didn't. The noise in Kevin Moran Park (next to Hwy 85), originally negligible, became a serenity-killing din.

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

#93

Post by DrScump »

ng12 wrote: post #17
snomad wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> inherent problem of rapid-transit noise What inherent problem? Rapid transit is certainly quieter than vehicle traffic. Noise pollution comes from sirens and heavy trucking, not public transportation.

Surface level rail often has horn-sounding mandates near road crossings. Caltrain and freight raik through the Peninsula does, for example.

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

#94

Post by danieltillett »

wwgg715 wrote: post #74
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.

Property tax are not supposed to be a profit center, but cover the costs of providing services. Adding more people just increases the costs so it works out a zero for the existing residents.

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

#96

Post by imtringued »

Spooky23 wrote: post #13
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…

I'd suggest that you research why it's necessary for companies to cram so much demand for housing in a few areas. It's seems absurd in this day and age that we're still concentrating business to such an extent in places like the NY Metro Area and the Bay Area. IBM in the olden times leveraged locating facilities in nowheresville as a competitive advantage. I'm surprised it isn't catching on now that engineers are bei…

If physical distance to customers is no longer a significant problem companies will switch their priorities to other aspects like physical distance to potential investors.

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

#97

Post by yostrovs »

secstate wrote: post #60
yostrovs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To soothe your feelings, I now live in the northern Midwest where we have real winter. And since it is indeed a value judgement, I still hold to the fact that Califonia has great weather. I like warmth, sun, reasonable levels of humidity. I think the majority of people are with me on this one.

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

#98

Post by sokoloff »

nerfhammer wrote: post #88
sokoloff wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

It's because these housing shortages are paid for by everyone who doesn't live in the jurisdiction and cannot vote for them, so there's a perverse incentive for incumbents to treat shortages as free money that comes from nowhere. It's not unlike upper atmosphere pollution, as if every local community were able to have their own policy on it. The cost of pollution is paid for by no one in particular but principally ot…

Clean air, clean rivers/oceans, controlled CO2/GHG, banning leaded gasoline for highway use, and similar items I think of as different in a critical way than zoning or local housing shortages. There's no amount of money (or other resource) that an individual can expend to buy clean oceans, air, or lower GHG. There are no practical alternatives.

There is an amount of money that an individual can spend to buy a house in Palo Alto. That amount of money might be higher than some people would prefer or elect, or (in many cases) even be able to spend, but there are practical alternatives in any case (to include living in other communities).

In a case where no practical alternatives exist, I agree there's a much greater cause for collective input and decision-making (to include at a global scale in many cases, as these aren't even a state or nation-state level of issue, though it's the states and nation-states that enact policies and laws to implement/enforce collectively-agreed treaties on some of these topics).

Where practical alternatives exist, I find the most local government level to be the most desirable one to make the decisions that disproportionately affect the people who live there over people who don't live there but might like to.

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

#99

Post by alistairSH »

DrScump wrote: post #89
alistairSH wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don’t value money more than their current house. They bought a nice house in a nice area and don’t want to move. Depending on area and financial situation, they also might not like their increased real estate tax assessments. It beehives them to partake in NIMBYism.

It beehives them I think you mean " behooves them".

lol. Yes. Stung by fat-fingers and overzealous auto-correction.

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

#100

Post by krausejj »

rsync wrote: post #84
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.

"CA is also a democracy, so it's just one democratic outcome overriding a different democratic outcome." So, then, is the United States. Would someone like to bet me that there is nearly 1:1 mapping between (people who think CA should undermine local control over housing) and (people who think CA should exert local control over marijuana policy) ? Of course that's true. Now defend the principle, and benefits, of loca…

It has to be a balance. Throughout history, different levels of governments have stepped in to correct an injustice. The Civil Rights Act was one example; California not enforcing certain immigration rules is another example, in the other direction.

It doesn't matter whether the decision is coming from a democratic government above or a democratic government below; what matters is doing the right thing.

Post reply on HN