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

161–170 of 361 posts

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

#161

Post by nerfhammer »

rb808 wrote: post #30
sampo wrote: post #25

Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who…

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.

Only for the first few redevelopments, after that prices will go down across the board.

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

#162

Post by nerfhammer »

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.

72% of renters have rent control and thereby have the primary reason to care removed

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

#163

Post by nerfhammer »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #110
briandear wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A total repeal of Prop 13.

This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that hav…

just propose a means test on prop 13 so they at least have a harder time justifying their opposition to it

this would mean proposing that the law that's supposedly meant to help old people would actually be limited to those old people

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

#164

Post by bluGill »

ajross wrote: post #81
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The renters - if they would vote (they typically don't) however have it in there interest to have more development: more places to rent places downward pressure on rent prices and thus limits their costs. Unlike homeowners (who benefit form prop 13), a renter faces the potential of their costs increasing yearly. If the large group that wants to move in can find a a place without having to displace someone else that limits landlords ability to raise rent. Renters now have to take rent increases because if they don't someone else will, but if the renter can respond by moving elsewhere instead...

Of course this assumes renters actually vote. As noted before, most do not. Thus the tyranny of the minority situation.

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

#165

Post by sabarn01 »

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…

You own your land not the conditions that surround that land.

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

#166

Post by nerfhammer »

lazyjones wrote: post #108

It's the same all over the world. Politicians seem to have too close ties with developers and real estate investors and they put unhealthy zoning laws in effect to drive prices into absurd regions and boost tax income as well. People should contact their representatives and ask them to change this. It worked in Span (admittedly, they overdid it), it would work anywhere. Unfortunately, there's no easy workaround for t…

It seems to be a Western phenomenon and much less of problem in Asia where NIMBYism is seen as being not socially responsible

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

#167

Post by mmanfrin »

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.

If only.

I pay more than 4x what my parents will ever pay in property taxes on their home that is worth more than 4x what mine is.

Prop 13 was, pardon my french, such a dumb fucking proposition.

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

#168

Post by matte_black »

tomc1985 wrote: post #158
matte_black wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling, and we can never get out unless we make the “right” choice (which is always implied to be the interests of the struggling) Maybe the choice has already been ma…

That's really easy... the wealthy can generally protect their own interests whereas the needy cannot. Ergo, charity

Not sure what you’re proposing

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

#169

Post by nerfhammer »

irq11 wrote: post #142
eecsninja wrote: post #94

Let's not forget this article from a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16704501 The great irony is that there are plenty of people in the SF bay area who think Tokyo is more expensive than SF just like it was decades ago, even though it's not true anymore.

Tokyo is still very expensive relative to Japanese incomes. Is it more expensive than SF on an adjusted basis? Hard to say, but it’s not as clear as you’re asserting. If anything, magacities like Tokyo and London show us that you can build like crazy, and still end up a very expensive place to live.

here's a thorough cost comparison breakdown: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Tokyo

rent in particular is drastically less expensive

Post reply on HN