Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 189 posts

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

#111

Post by nine_k »

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…

I watched regulations lifted in Moscow since mid-1990s. It mostly resulted in building of large number of apartment high-rises, because a lot of people wanted to be closer to downtown where they work.

The downside was (and in many places still is) an overloaded road network, as mass transit and road capacity did not keep up, despite equally frantic build-up.

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

#112

Post by mixmastamyk »

pcwalton wrote: post #103
mixmastamyk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm in Los Angeles, where it is a factor.

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

#113

Post by nine_k »

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…

Make providing e.g. 10% of the apartment capacity of a block as affordable / municipal-controlled housing a part of the building contract. Or make redevelopment of a "luxury" block tied to redevelopment of a less luxury block providing affordable housing (still net-positive for the development company, just much less lucrative).

That is, make affordable development a part of the price of luxury development if you must. Just don't stall the development completely.

This works best with large development companies and projects, though.

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

#114

Post by lhopki01 »

darksaints wrote: post #39
ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nearly every city in the world has built infrastructure in lockstep with growth for their entire existence. Thats simply how its done. When you have existing demand for more infrastructure, you build it. Maybe you could claim that it is better to provide infrastructure before people, but it is actually the master planned cities that have yet to succeed, not the other way around. It's just too damn expensive to provid…

This isn't strictly true. A lot of the London underground was built first and then housing developed around it. Actually the tube getting to a place prompted massive development in the area. Similarly now if a new line gets created to an area in many cities you see development around it.

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

#115

Post by coryrc »

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.

It's much nicer to live densely when your 100s of neighbors within earshot don't play music loudly, let their dogs bark, sit on the street playing drums at midnight, etc. like in the USA.

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

#116

Post by lhopki01 »

0xffff2 wrote: post #52
dangrover wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of a city is people aren't dependent on cars/parking. Otherwise, it's not a city.

So Los Angeles isn't a city? What do you call it then?

A continous suburb?

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

#117

Post by chaostheory »

pcwalton wrote: post #103
mixmastamyk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It applies beyond just California. It's in NY as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more locations.

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

#118

Post by briffle »

burlesona wrote: post #33
xvedejas wrote: post #3

In Japan, zoning is handled federally; and the result is much more affordable cities. "Why Tokyo is the land of rising home construction but not prices" https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3... An overview of zoning practices there: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally, but state level zoning wouldn’t be as hard and would have most of the same benefits, ie. reducing the power the nimbys. However there’s no reason to think that would fix it all, transportation planning, design, and funding is almost entirely a state and federal affair, and the nimbys still torpedo all sorts of things that would be great for the re…

The threat to take away federal funding for places that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force approach in the end, who knows.

I believe this is similar to the approach the feds used to move the drinking age to 21 [1], and the old nationwide 55 mph speed limit [2]. They didn't force states to create laws, just said "Federal highway funding will be drastically reduced to states that do not meet X" and magically, this was done.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...

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

#119

Post by jwin742 »

maxerickson wrote: post #35
pwned1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities are legally an extension of the states, so states could take control over the process, but you're right, as far as I know municipalities (cities, counties, townships) have almost total control over zoning standards (at least here in Michigan).

Which means there are about 1500 separate zoning standards (they are largely the same, but a wind energy project might have to work with 2 or more townships to get permitting). I wonder about a state law creating a new type of township that is totally subordinate to the county (dissolving all functions of the township). Would it be a good thing? What are the pitfalls, etc.

Plenty of states have the concept of unincorporated land.

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

#120

Post by mrec »

mywittyname wrote: post #62
mendelsd wrote: post #4

If you want to make housing affordable you will need to reckon with this: http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UK-House... House prices move with mortgage credit growth. Credit growth is one of the key pillars of the politically sustained Ponzi-scheme that is the modern urban housing market.

Banks love mortgages because they are easy, safe ways to earn a bit more than the federal rate. Wealthy consumers love mortgages because it's a cheap way to leverage a huge asset for market-rate returns. Normal consumers love mortgages because it allows them to buy a house. Good luck taking that away. Additionally, while access to credit raises housing prices, there's no guarantee that removing access to that credit…

Mortgages per se aren't the problem; low rates and high LTV are the problem.

I agree that changing this is politically difficult, and it's downright depressing to see discussion threads on the topic filled wall-to-wall with turkeys demanding more Christmas, but there are limits to how far credit bubbles can take you, and there are signs we may finally be getting there.

Big mortgages would rapidly become a lot less popular if prices weren't a one-way bet guaranteed by the government.

Post reply on HN