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

To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 361 posts

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#81

Post by ajross »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #73
ajross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by comp…

While there's no denying there's a strong bias towards property owners, it doesn't have to be this way. Renters can and should vote to change policies to favor them. SF is 63% renters! It is unfortunate that the most disenfranchised demographics are the ones least likely to vote/organize.

That's true, but potentially not enough. The fraction of the population that is renting now is still (by definition in the case of a hot market!) much smaller than the fraction of the demographic that wants to move to the area and needs to be served by a just housing policy.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#82

Post by pascalxus »

briandear wrote: post #71
api wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-s…

A total repeal of Prop 13.

Repeal 13 and lower the property taxes from 1.3% to 0.6%.

Of course, about 80 to 90% of the existing homeowners (in many neighborhoods most people bought they're homes more than 20 years ago, you can verify this for yourself on zillow) won't like that, as they're currently paying about 0.1 to 0.05%! So, it's a pretty hard sell.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#83

Post by tabtab »

austincheney wrote: post #76

If 60,000 people continue to move from there to Texas every year then 20 years from now when the area has lost over a million residents the housing prices might well flatten organically. This madness is causing housing prices to climb in Texas though.

Tell you what, we'll send all the jerks to TX and keep the non-jerks ;-)

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#84

Post by weeksie »

marcell wrote: post #69
weeksie wrote: post #38

Just a reminder that the growth rates for SF, SV, Seattle, Portland are all pretty puny compared to the growth rates of, e.g. Detroit at its peak. Hell they're not even that crazy compared to growth rates those cities have handled before. People just aren't interested in any perceived threat to their property values so they're strangling growth based on an entitlement mindset. No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price a…

> No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price appreciation isn't a right Doesn't increased density help property values? If I can build a high rise on your 1 acre plot of land, its value should go up.

Depends! Increased density should drive up the price of land.

However, if you are in a neighborhood of single family homes and a huge multi family building is constructed on your block, your home price will go down because there will be enough supply to meet demand, taking pressure off the single family homes.

If you are in an already dense city and regulations are relaxed so that more high rises can be built in more neighborhoods, the price of your condo all else being equal will be lower because there will be more supply. The land price may well go up but your individual apartment would likely be worth less.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#85

Post by rsynnott »

marcell wrote: post #69
weeksie wrote: post #38

Just a reminder that the growth rates for SF, SV, Seattle, Portland are all pretty puny compared to the growth rates of, e.g. Detroit at its peak. Hell they're not even that crazy compared to growth rates those cities have handled before. People just aren't interested in any perceived threat to their property values so they're strangling growth based on an entitlement mindset. No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price a…

> No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price appreciation isn't a right Doesn't increased density help property values? If I can build a high rise on your 1 acre plot of land, its value should go up.

In principle, yes. However, if the value of your house is driven by artificial scarcity, easing that scarcity may change things.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#86

Post by downrightmike »

tabtab wrote: post #83
austincheney wrote: post #76

If 60,000 people continue to move from there to Texas every year then 20 years from now when the area has lost over a million residents the housing prices might well flatten organically. This madness is causing housing prices to climb in Texas though.

Tell you what, we'll send all the jerks to TX and keep the non-jerks ;-)

Then there wouldn't be anyone left.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#87

Post by Veelox »

TomVDB wrote: post #70
rb808 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…

I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#88

Post by deadmetheny »

raiflip wrote: post #53
rb808 wrote: post #8

Because big dense cities like NY are affordable?

I have a friend who recently bought a house with his fiancee in a decent neighborhood for 250k, which for more rent-minded folk corresponds to monthly payments of 1180. Add in maintenance and the monthly payments increase to about 1600 a month, or 800 a person. Using a standard affordability modifier of 40, and a single person could afford the house on a 64k income, or two people with 32k each. Given the median incom…

>Add in maintenance and the monthly payments increase to about 1600 a month

$400ish a month in maintenance seems very optimistic in my personal experience. There's always little bits of work to be done in a residence, and will be compounded when something major inevitably ends up going tits-up and needs replaced or serviced. Then on top of all of that, you have to have insurances and whatnot. Owning a house is great, but there's a fair bit more to it than just swapping the phrase "rent" for "mortgage payment" in regards to expenses.

>Given the median income in the US is 59k

For clarity, this is the median household income rather than individual.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#89

Post by ardit33 »

rb808 wrote: post #8

Because big dense cities like NY are affordable?

I live in NYC, you can find cheap places if you look around Queens, Brooklyn, or Jersey City. None of them have the troubles of Oakland (crime). Eg, Queens is very safe, but kinda "boring", hence the cheap prices.

All within 20 mins of subway within Manhattan.

https://streeteasy.com/for-rent/queens/price:-2500%7Cbeds:1

Also, if you want something a bit more trendy and family friendly, you can find plenty of apt. in Park Slope, (the equivalent of Noe Valley)

https://streeteasy.com/for-rent/park-slope/price:-2500%7Cbed...

SF just doesn't have the same amount of options.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#90

Post by Max_aaa »

nwah1 wrote: post #52
jartelt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a decent portion of the land value tax just be passed on to renters in the form of higher rent charged by their landlord?

No, because the supply of land is perfectly inelastic, and it already commands the highest price that can be obtained. "A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations "It is in vain in a Country whose great…

Actually they will be able to ask for higher rents, as with lower sales and income taxes, the renters suddenly have extra cash that will eventually trickle towards rent.
Post reply on HN