Live data from Hacker News

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

sfexaminer.com

311–320 of 361 posts

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

#311
post #98

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…

High-rise construction is expensive, but high-rises aren't necessary for density. Wood-built low- and mid-rise is far more cost efficient, especially when you don't require 1-2 parking spaces per unit. The reason why we get too many high-rises and too few low-rises is because of regulatory burden. In particular, the long, drawn-out, and capricious manner in which the laws are administered and challenged. In that kind…

>Wood-built low- and mid-rise is far more cost efficient

And also tends to be drastically worse build quality and sound isolation. Given a mid-rise or a high-rise built in the same year, you definitely want to live in the high-rise, all else being equal.

Higher quality multi-family buildings that middle-class people could see themselves living in would go a long way towards changing public opinion. Unfortunately, our multifamily housing stock is bifurcated between shoddily built crap for the poor, and ultra-luxury high-rises for oligarchical investors. If people don't want to live in a building themselves, it's harder to accept its externalities for the benefit of others. Most people do live in apartments as students and young adults, and they'd never go back.

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A total repeal of Prop 13.

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…

They should change the 2% limit to change according to the CPI. Interest rates were crazy high in the years when it passed, now that rates are low it's rewarding those who bought when rates were high (and prices were low). Prop 13 just defies all sense

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

#313
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.

Wait, so do you think single family housing prices will go up if the city bulldozes all of the high density housing downtown and south of market street?

You're saying that if you have the only single family house in a high density area that house will actually be worth less?

I think it's very unlikely either of those things would be true.

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

#314

An amazing amount of land opened up in the Bay Area that could have been used for housing developement with the closing of many military bases (The Presidio, Treasure Island, Alameda Naval station, Concord Naval Base, Hunters Point) and the closing of salt production in the South Bay. While a few of these areas are finally seeing some construction[1] 20 years later, the density is often low and the amount of acres se…

Salt ponds being turned into natural wetland is a HUGE win for the environment, particularly water quality and fisheries. Being entirely mud, they are literally the worst place to build in an earthquake-prone region. "Affordability" just means a balance between jobs (which produce people needing housing) and the supply of houses. There are TWO ways of fixing supply and demand problems like that. It is insane that the…

Fremont's jobs/housing ratio is 1.44 which is larger than the regional average.

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Where these sorts of articles comes from is observers who would like to change that narrative.

The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.

I actually agree with you here, I'm just pointing out that there is no indecision of any sort on the part of homeowners.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* *

> All homeowners benefit when the teachers, police officers, nurses, librarians, postal workers, garbage collectors, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, retail clerks, gym trainers, restaurant servers, hairdressers, taxi drivers, artists, etc. etc. etc. can afford to live somewhere within a reasonable commute distance. No, they don't. All homeowners don't have the same utility function. Not living near people…

[deleted]

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

#317
post #212
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I know in San Francisco don't own cars You must not know a big cross section of people then. Maybe in the downtown core, but a trip across the city will show very little available street parking and most houses with garages filled with cars. It's a small minority of the city that don't have cars.

"Between 2000 and 2012, the city has seen a net increase of 11,139 households, and 88 percent of them have been car-free." http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/08/15/car-free-households-are... "Census: 95% of New SF Commuters Since 2006 Don’t Drive Solo" http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/09/25/census-95-of-new-sf-com...

We're not talking about people recently moving to SF.

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

#318
post #260
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First I've heard of that law, why do you think it is so fundamental?

It lets you own your ideas and work that you perform at home, such as a startup you run on the side. In other states, your employer will typically have you sign a work contract granting the employer all rights to everything you create at any time and any location.

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

#319
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…

“We lived in the Portland Avenue Stacks, a sprawling hive of discolored tin shoeboxes rusting on the shores of I-40, just west of Oklahoma City’s decaying skyscraper core.”

― Ernest Cline, Ready Player One

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

#320
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

It sounds like you may have missed one of the GP's points when you're blaming renters for not voting. I'll reiterate it with a specific example, although I am on the east coast. Lots of people want to live in Cambridge, MA. Cambridge is lovely, walkable, and bursting with jobs. But not everyone who wants to can live in Cambridge, because Cambridge has large areas of inappropriately low density that homeowners fight t…

GP made the claim that 63% of SF is renters. While you are correct that there are those who wish they had a vote who cannot, the power is actually in the hands of current renters if they would vote.

This assumes that the claim that 63% of SF is renters is correct. I don't know the truth of that.

Post reply on HN