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

221–230 of 361 posts

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

#221

Post by TomVDB »

Spooky23 wrote: post #116
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.

That's not the way it works. The reality is that the apartment building goes up and you house is worth nothing unless the government allows an eminent domain for your property or a developer with the bucks to buy out the neighborhood shows up. Until that happens, your house lost a third of its value because there's an apartment next door. If you're unlucky, rates go up and you're stuck.

I don't understand why you're being down voted.

Is it really controversial to say that a regular single family house in a single family house neighborhood will go down in value when somebody decides to plant an apartment complex right next to do?

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

#222

Post by CyberDildonics »

TomVDB wrote: post #216
davidw wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.

Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)

I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse?

You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.

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

#223

Post by taysic »

api wrote: post #208
ScottBurson wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complete repeal is politically impossible, but there are two changes that should be made. One, as mentioned above, is to restrict it to owner-occupied residences only. The other is to change the 2% annual increase limit from a limit on the amount of tax assessed to a limit on the amount due in a given year. If the assessed tax exceeds that limit, the locality would receive a lien for the difference, this lien becom…

Personally I think we should just go for the first one, which is why I didn't mention anything else. Proposition 13 limits should be for owner occupied residences only. This would go a long way to fixing the financialization of real estate problem, which is an often under-discussed contributing factor. You'd get a lot less resistance there. You're not messing with cost of living for owner occupied homes, just second…

One of the reasons Prop 13 happened was to go hand in hand with rent control and help offset the negative costs of rent control. (An advantage for the owner and renter). So I think you'd need to get rid of rent control to get rid of Prop 13 for a large group of people and that would be very hard.

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

#224

Post by TomVDB »

rmk wrote: post #191
TomVDB wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that the zoning laws are driven by developers and real estate investors? In most Bay Area cities, they are the wishes of the residents who do not want more development. My neighborhood in Sunnyvale was recently rezoned to be single story only and that process is entirely driven by the residents, not the politicians. It was the 25th neighborhood in Sunnyvale to do so, and it cost around $200 per resident…

Palo Alto has a 50-ft building height limit. The height of greed, that is!

50 ft is plenty, 3 stories, and has little to do with greed.

The new zoning rules in our neighborhood limit height to 17 ft.

And greed wasn't the driving factor either.

People are much more concerned about the new neighbor tearing down the single story house next door and building an ugly two story McMansion from which you can look straight down in their garden/pool.

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

#225

Post by Trundle »

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…

I don't think entitlement or rights need to come in to it. It's entirely possible to have a want and act on that want without invoking moral righteousness.

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

#226

Post by TomVDB »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #222
TomVDB wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)

I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.

You buy a house in a nice neighborhood with nice single family houses and well kept gardens and very little traffic. You like it that way. You pay a lot for that.

You don't like it when some of those houses are replaced by an apartment complex.

What is there not to understand?

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

pound wrote: post #189
pound wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by TomVDB »

beavisthegenius wrote: post #218
TomVDB wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As an SF resident, you people are ruining the city.

I'm ruining my city because I went to a bunch of open houses, choose a house that I like in a nice neighborhood and paid (a lot) for it?

That's definitely an original kind of argument.

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

#229

Post by TomVDB »

hinkley wrote: post #219
TomVDB wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much are your property taxes these days?

$25k per year. I don't see how that's relevant though.

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

#230

Post by jonny_eh »

Trundle wrote: post #225
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…

I don't think entitlement or rights need to come in to it. It's entirely possible to have a want and act on that want without invoking moral righteousness.

If you've read any NIMBY literature or comments, they very often do invoke righteousness, at least in tone.
Post reply on HN