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

The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#51

Post by dyeje »

maehwasu wrote: post #3
epmatsw wrote: post #2

> because developers mostly would build high-end units This is such a frustrating perspective.

It's frustrating because, as propaganda, it's been extremely effective. If you're an opponent of increased housing supply in California, you can roll out that talking point whenever threatened. It's tested, emotionally resonant, and most people don't have the time to be explained why it's wrong. Supporters of increased housing in CA need to come up with their own powerful rhetoric, rather than whining about the fact…

It is, in my experience, true. I live in an up and coming suburb of Detroit and every new apartment / condo building is incredibly skewed towards the high end.

In fact, a huge development project is going on in the downtown area currently. One of the requirements of the project was to set aside a certain percentage of the new units as affordable housing. When the developer was asked about the affordable housing at a city council meeting, they revealed they were targeting a price point of ~$1600/mo for a 1 bedroom. For context, the going rate in the city for a bedroom is $300-800/mo. There was no language specifying what exactly affordable housing so they can get away with it (something the city is working on for next time).

My point is, this is a real problem. You need to think about it and you need to actively prevent it in from happening in whatever legislation you put forward.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#52

Post by gersh »

mabbo wrote: post #4

You can't just demand more housing. You have to make people want it. This is why I'm strongly in favor of taxing land by area. A ten story condo with 100 units takes up as much land as 8 houses with yards. By reducing everyone's taxes then making up the difference via a land tax, you effectively lower the taxes on people using high density land use homes. You make it a more desirable lifestyle. Demand from voters lea…

There is already land tax, but with proposition 13 people lock in low tax rates. So, if you've owned a home for a long time, you are gonna pay a lot lower taxes than someone, who recently bought a condo on land with the same value.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#53

Post by epistasis »

aetherson wrote: post #21
rmah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't much agricultural land, if any, in cities and suburbs. In the US, land is taxed at the local level (municipality and county), not at the state or federal level.

There's a coordination problem with this, though -- how do you get all the different cities to all adopt this tax scheme, and if some don't, don't we just shift around density?

Right now, California's property taxes are highly restricted by Prop 13, an anti-tax measure that, among other things that restrict the ability of the legislature to levy taxes, caps property tax basis at purchase price plus 2% increase per year, far far less than real estate appreciation, and often less than general inflation.

So property tax is already controlled at the state level, and any change will require voters to enact it by proposition at the ballot box, statewide.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#54

Post by sidlls »

maehwasu wrote: post #3
epmatsw wrote: post #2

> because developers mostly would build high-end units This is such a frustrating perspective.

It's frustrating because, as propaganda, it's been extremely effective. If you're an opponent of increased housing supply in California, you can roll out that talking point whenever threatened. It's tested, emotionally resonant, and most people don't have the time to be explained why it's wrong. Supporters of increased housing in CA need to come up with their own powerful rhetoric, rather than whining about the fact…

Rhetoric matters much less than economic clout. Much of the "influence" you describe is from sustained marketing rather than through rhetoric. The rhetoric itself is almost irrelevant, in fact.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#55

Post by dahfizz »

walshemj wrote: post #44
dahfizz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this mean no apartment buildings? Many people prefer to rent, and banning that seems a little selfish and short sighted.

Many people have to rent, from a purely economic aspect owning is better than renting - there are social aspects to it as well.

Owning is better economically if you're going to stay in that house for a while. If you're living there less than a few years, all the costs associated with purchasing and selling g a house can hurt pretty bad.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#56

Post by epistasis »

epmatsw wrote: post #2

> because developers mostly would build high-end units This is such a frustrating perspective.

And it's self fulfilling too by those who limit housing construction. If only 10 units are built but there are 1000 units needed, those 10 units are going to be sold to the 1% wealthiest. If, seeing this, voters to restrict construction even more because the "wrong type" of person is buying, and only 1 unit is built, only the wealthiest buyer gets housing and it becomes even more "luxury."

The only way to start serving the needs of "normal" people with new construction is to issue permits for that full 1000, or maybe even better, try to get developers to build 1200 or 1500 and then compete for buyers, rather than having buyers compete for limited production.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#57

Post by robertAngst »

andrewmutz wrote: post #24
mabbo wrote: post #4

You can't just demand more housing. You have to make people want it. This is why I'm strongly in favor of taxing land by area. A ten story condo with 100 units takes up as much land as 8 houses with yards. By reducing everyone's taxes then making up the difference via a land tax, you effectively lower the taxes on people using high density land use homes. You make it a more desirable lifestyle. Demand from voters lea…

People already want it and developers would build it. But, at least in California, the problem is that local zoning laws make building it illegal.

Can someone explain how/why California has failed government policy?

And why more government involvement in sectors would be a good thing?

I understand the benefits of central planning, but when I see it fail locally, I wonder if the flaws outweigh benefits.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#58

Post by maxxxxx »

I think there should be a national effort to "spread out" the economy and fight the trend towards centralization in a few areas. If you build more housing in CA, even more people will move there and the overcrowding will become even worse. There should be incentives for companies to move away from places like SV and NY.

More acceptance of remote work would help too but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#59

Post by ahelwer »

dahfizz wrote: post #31
ahelwer wrote: post #29

Have there been any studies examining the impact on the market of banning career landlords and REITs? What happens if you restrict residential housing to being owned by a single person who cannot own anything else in that area, rather than letting capital have the run of the place and treating homes as an investment plaything?

Would this mean no apartment buildings? Many people prefer to rent, and banning that seems a little selfish and short sighted.

Renting is not banned, people can rent out the single unit they own.

Re: The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing

#60

Post by robertAngst »

dyeje wrote: post #51
maehwasu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating because, as propaganda, it's been extremely effective. If you're an opponent of increased housing supply in California, you can roll out that talking point whenever threatened. It's tested, emotionally resonant, and most people don't have the time to be explained why it's wrong. Supporters of increased housing in CA need to come up with their own powerful rhetoric, rather than whining about the fact…

It is, in my experience, true. I live in an up and coming suburb of Detroit and every new apartment / condo building is incredibly skewed towards the high end. In fact, a huge development project is going on in the downtown area currently. One of the requirements of the project was to set aside a certain percentage of the new units as affordable housing. When the developer was asked about the affordable housing at a…

> I live in an up and coming suburb of Detroit and every new apartment / condo building is incredibly skewed towards the high end.

>new

And what happens to the old units? They are sold and rented to the non-super wealthy.

I also live in south east michigan and my neighborhood is undergoing gentrification, they are tearing down 1000 sq ft homes and replacing them with 3500 sq ft homes.

What is the problem? I couldn't fit my large family(and renters) in a 1000 sq foot home.

Post reply on HN