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

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

#181

Post by pound » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #179

pound wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct, so I think the only chance we have is phased approach. Not repealing prop 13 as of now but start with excluding new homeowners from it (or at least increase limits on annual reassessments for them (from current no more than 2% a year)). There is an idea of excluding commercial properties from Prop 13 too (I think they shouldn't have to be covered to begin with, the whole idea of prop 13 was to "keep t…

"again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired" But if that isn't the case, then wouldn't a home have to be sold to cover the tax increase? So you couldn't keep a home in the family, either.

Is it a declared right to keep a home in the family?

Also why new homeowners not inheriting it are supposed to be paying property taxes in full?

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

#182

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

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.

But if you do that, the value of my neighbor's property goes down.

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

#183

Post by kyledrake » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:42 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #148

kyledrake wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded opinion for strong regional government with zoning control. If the property owner fiefdoms aren't going to address the problem, it's time to take solving that problem away from them. To give an example of how bad this is, the city of Atherton has sued Caltrain 7 times over the electrification project, the latest one related to (wait for it..) the use of 5 45 foot poles instead of 10 35 foot ones. https://www…

Wait, the fact that local residents can't even use the big ugly mass transit line going through their neighbourhood is meant to make them somehow more sympathetic to it?

As I understand it, there is discussion to start using the station again after they finish electrification, which of course assumes the town doesn't try to stop that somehow. It will also reduce air (and probably noise) pollution to nearby properties, because the trains will no longer be running huge motors spewing massive amounts of diesel exhaust while flying through the town.

None of that matters. Atherton is the wealthiest zip code in the country, and is comprised completely of high-end houses and mansions owned by the super rich, most of whom couldn't care less about mass transit or regional growth issues. They've got theirs, the hell with everybody else. Their strategy for keeping it this way is to fight all change, even if it's mutually beneficial.

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

#184

Post by flanbiscuit » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:44 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #106

News from 2029: Skylynr, the 'Uber of nanoassembled highrises', last night replaced 44 San Francisco Victorians with apartment buildings. Reached for comment, SF's Planning Department said the overnight construction violates a city moratorium, to study displacement issues, now in its 14th year. The Board of Supervisors plans to address the issue in an emergency session next Tuesday. A Skylynr spokesperson says over 4…

I believe William Gibson described something similar to the self-building towers in his book Idoru[1]. I think they were called nanotech buildings[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idoru [2] http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=83

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

#185

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:44 PM UTC

asdsa5325 wrote: post #154

khazhoux wrote: post #101

Or Google, Apple, Facebook could grow the next 200,000 jobs somewhere else? Everyone talks about housing affordability and NIMBYs and we get into class warfare and home-appreciation snobbery, but the simple thing I can't understand is how will the area's transportation infrastructure scale up? There's no credible solution.

This. If Silicon Valley is full, then don't move there! Live somewhere else, your wallet and your sanity will thank you!

Unfortunately, until the big guys and the startup scene decide to move elsewhere, or at least spread out beyond the Bay Area, that's not very practical advice. I recently had a couple interviews with Google, and basically, for the positions they wanted me for, I would be required to move to Mountain View. So your advice in my situation would boil down to "Don't work for Google."

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

#186

Post by shifter » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:45 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #175

The entire current population of the bay area (~9M) would fit within 165 of the 10,000 square miles of the CSA, if built at Parisian densities. That is less than 2% of the land. This is what boggles my mind: despite such a minimal land requirement, nobody in the entire fucking region will budge. Put it somewhere else, they say. It has become a game of musical chairs where nobody gets up for the next round. State inte…

Or, as the calculus on living in the Bay Area shifts [0], top tier talent starts to direct itself elsewhere. This stems growth in the Bay Area since founding successful companies in lower cost areas will be possible, housing investment slows as a result of that, and the market naturally cools down a bit [1].

[0] Don't fool yourself into thinking that only people without the income or capital to live well in the Bay Area would leave it. There are intangibles (culture, traffic, distance to skiing, etc.) that, for some people, are non-optimal. For others, it's perfect. That's okay, humans are a varied lot (and it's a good thing).

[1] Nothing major, it will remain expensive due to geography and talent/creativity/capital density.

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

#187

Post by ng12 » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

asdsa5325 wrote: post #154

khazhoux wrote: post #101

Or Google, Apple, Facebook could grow the next 200,000 jobs somewhere else? Everyone talks about housing affordability and NIMBYs and we get into class warfare and home-appreciation snobbery, but the simple thing I can't understand is how will the area's transportation infrastructure scale up? There's no credible solution.

This. If Silicon Valley is full, then don't move there! Live somewhere else, your wallet and your sanity will thank you!

Ok, but what about your kids? Are they going to live with you forever? Are they going to be able to afford $2m homes? I've never met so many 30 year olds who live with their parents as I did when I lived in South Bay.

You can't wave the problem away with "eh, transplants".

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

#188

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #92

I know we'd all love to fix the bay area housing problem here. The most obvious answer is to increase the supply. But, fixing the zoning laws and allowing developers to build isn't the only thing that's standing in the way. The problems are too numerous to fix: NIMBYs sueing developers, CEQA, Proposition 13, AND don't forget about the underlying labor cost (all our middle class people's aren't going to come back, aft…

I've been saying it for a while: YCombinator could show a lot of leadership if they started up YCombinator Toledo or something, to spread the startup scene out to other areas, areas with lower costs of living and the like.

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

#189

Post by pound » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

pound wrote: post #181

s73v3r_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired" But if that isn't the case, then wouldn't a home have to be sold to cover the tax increase? So you couldn't keep a home in the family, either.

Is it a declared right to keep a home in the family? Also why new homeowners not inheriting it are supposed to be paying property taxes in full?

Also in this case if you want to help someone to keep property they cannot afford then maybe tax assessment reduction should be based on new owner's income level and not on a year deceased relatives bought place

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

#190

Post by s73v3r_ » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

762236 wrote: post #145

pascalxus wrote: post #92

I know we'd all love to fix the bay area housing problem here. The most obvious answer is to increase the supply. But, fixing the zoning laws and allowing developers to build isn't the only thing that's standing in the way. The problems are too numerous to fix: NIMBYs sueing developers, CEQA, Proposition 13, AND don't forget about the underlying labor cost (all our middle class people's aren't going to come back, aft…

For another city to be a plausible substitute for Silicon Valley, it needs California's moonlighting-protection law. Without that, you can't reproduce this environment.

Is CA really still the only state that has that?