A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable • Hacker News Board

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#101

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #78

FussyZeus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we can make more computers, execute more healthcare services, etc. Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so. Add to it, land is the primary method by which "old money" remains in that category.

> Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so. Yes, but that sum in the US is huge . Drive around the midwest or any region outside of an urban core and its empty space as far as the eye can see. The problem is large-scale economic and demographic changes. The US used to have: * A culture that prized living in suburbia away from dense…

> large metropolises which can't absorb the growth

They choose not to.

> more dense housing in those cities… turn them into concrete boxes

A "US NIMBY-like" viewpoint. Paris is denser than the average city and lovely, as are many EU cities. US cities designed before the car took over usually nicer and more space-efficient as well, but are few and mostly on the East coast.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#102

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #80

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distance costs money or time (basically the same thing at the macro level). When you have things spread out people need to eat the large opportunity cost of forgoing jobs or other opportunities that are far away or spent a lot of time and money commuting. If cities prioritized making it easy to commute in and out that would make distance cost less, effectively the same as increasing density. The problem is that there…

Instead of trying to put cheap homes where the jobs are, we could also try to put jobs where the cheap homes are. People constantly talk about the former, but I almost never see people talk about the latter.

Jobs that require "facetime" can't do that. The only ones that can are remote work. I'm in favor, but most companies resist even when feasible.

Not to mention a city is more than housing. It's nice to walk to the corner pub, go to a theatre, sporting event, etc.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#103

Post by pcwalton » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #90

pcwalton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AB 2923, which overrides local zoning in order to allow BART to develop on its parking lots, recently passed both houses in California, despite NIMBY objections. And the Housing Accountability Act, which NIMBYs loathe, has long been law (and was even strengthened relatively recently). Renters are a growing political force.

> Renters are a growing political force. Renters (often under rent control) are NIMBYs as well, don't understand or are convinced that supply and demand don't apply to housing.

> Renters (often under rent control) are often NIMBYs as well

This is a very SF-specific view of the world. :)

Rent control is specific to just a handful of locations and is often subject to statewide restrictions (e.g. Costa-Hawkins). In general, renters are less inclined toward NIMBYism. This is especially true for the younger ones, who don't benefit as much from RC even in the locations where it exists. And even rent controlled tenants don't like the fact that they can't move.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#104

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #93

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #45

As with most things, engineering a blunt policy solution will lead to unintended consequences. If this proposal goes into effect, by clobbering local zoning codes, anything with sufficient money behind it is going to get built. This typically means projects that optimize for the developer's ability to extract rent from residents: 3 or 4-story apartments with small unit sizes, basic finishes made to aesthetically look…

This is right, and this is the problem with solely YIMBY/market urbanist approaches to housing. Developers will all chase tech workers who can pay significantly more money for housing, and the housing market is segmented enough that it doesn't really free up housing at the low end. See this article for more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-expensive... We do need to build housing, but it can't all…

When housing supply is constrained and regulations prevent affordability, rich folks are able to outbid everyone else. That's a fact that won't change.

An oversupply on the other hand, would lead to older units being forced to lower prices, but won't happen until NIMBYs get out of the way.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#105

Post by ramblerouser » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #58

ramblerouser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of it is wage stagnation too. The average American hasnt had a meaningful raise since 1973, that's half a century. Not good. Growth of the labor supply and repeal of trade protections for industries that employ low-skill workers have caused it.

This metric is comparing returns to capital to total returns to labor, not the median returns to labor. Median wages haven't been doing too well recently due to rising inequality but gains by the best paid professionals would be enough to make up for that on this metric except for rising housing costs.

I dont see how a low median return plays no role in total returns. If the median were higher surely the total would be higher no?

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#106

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #80

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distance costs money or time (basically the same thing at the macro level). When you have things spread out people need to eat the large opportunity cost of forgoing jobs or other opportunities that are far away or spent a lot of time and money commuting. If cities prioritized making it easy to commute in and out that would make distance cost less, effectively the same as increasing density. The problem is that there…

Instead of trying to put cheap homes where the jobs are, we could also try to put jobs where the cheap homes are. People constantly talk about the former, but I almost never see people talk about the latter.

The former problem is much easier than the latter. In order to accomplish it we just need to governments to stop actively blocking it from happening. We have no idea where to even begin with the latter. The best we can do is throw a whole bunch of untested ideas at the wall and hope one works.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#107

Post by closeparen » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #14

matchbok wrote: post #9

Seems like it could work. Nonsense local policies to encourage "affordable" housing like inclusionary zoning have been huge failures. In big cities, we just need way more housing. Yet NIMBYs fight it at every step, esp in SF.

You can’t just add in “moar housing” in a vacuum and declare mission accomplished. Let’s say SF doubled its housing. Where are all these new residents going to park? So, now it’s housing and parking that needs to be fixed. Assume none of these new residents have cars? Ok now it’s housing and public transit that needs to be fixed. Where are their kids going to go to school? So we need more school capacity, too. How mu…

Developing higher-value land uses increases the tax bas available pay for all of those things. SF scaled from zero to where it is now; it can scale further.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#108

Post by saosebastiao » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #106

munificent wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of trying to put cheap homes where the jobs are, we could also try to put jobs where the cheap homes are. People constantly talk about the former, but I almost never see people talk about the latter.

The former problem is much easier than the latter. In order to accomplish it we just need to governments to stop actively blocking it from happening. We have no idea where to even begin with the latter. The best we can do is throw a whole bunch of untested ideas at the wall and hope one works.

> The best we can do is throw a whole bunch of untested ideas at the wall and hope one works.

You're such an optimist. Governments around the world have been trying to relocate employment and labor for centuries and the best they have come up with is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#109

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #14

matchbok wrote: post #9

Seems like it could work. Nonsense local policies to encourage "affordable" housing like inclusionary zoning have been huge failures. In big cities, we just need way more housing. Yet NIMBYs fight it at every step, esp in SF.

You can’t just add in “moar housing” in a vacuum and declare mission accomplished. Let’s say SF doubled its housing. Where are all these new residents going to park? So, now it’s housing and parking that needs to be fixed. Assume none of these new residents have cars? Ok now it’s housing and public transit that needs to be fixed. Where are their kids going to go to school? So we need more school capacity, too. How mu…

Where are all these new residents going to park?

Nowhere? They would use public transit. If public transit didn't exist, they'd become an actual constituency forcing it to happen.

And yeah, sure, developers would have add electrical lines, substation, electrical capacity depending. Jeesh theses objections just seems substituting trees for forest.

Edit: And certainly, the calls for "just do it!" are response to a corrupt collection of interests who use "do it responsibly" to soak up vast amounts of money for doing anything and then throw-up their hands and say "see we tried", which is the way public transit has gone in the last fifty years in this country.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#110

Post by ramblerouser » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

ahoy wrote: post #26

kazinator wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for Japanese zoning, and Japanese anything else, provided we make everyone "Japanese" first: bred with the same common code of decency. Also, Japan is NIMBY at the national level, as in "not on my island". For instance, accepting few refugees. Smart in other ways, not just the zoning, you see. They protect their culture.

Ah, the classic "only monocultures can work toward the social good, if we'd stop accepting 'outsiders' we could do the same" trope. It's tired and xenophobic. The presence of foreigners isn't why laws that benefit already-wealthy real estate developers persist.

Calling something a "tired and xenophobic trope" doesn't make it not true. On your second point, there's actually a strong argument to be made that it does. The more racially divided a region is, the more likely politics will split down racial instead of evonomic lines. Was California more economically egalitarian before or after mass hispanic immigration?