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

61–70 of 158 posts

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

#61

Post by inferiorhuman »

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's effective because there's a measure of truth in there, especially in California. Prop 13 will limit taxes on existing housing stock, so cities and counties will levy fees on new developments to make up for it. Additionally, the cost of labor in much of California is such that just building any structure is extremely expensive (to the extent that only luxury units will make any money for the developer).

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

#64

Post by njudah »

robertAngst wrote: post #57
andrewmutz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

TLDR: The government is deeply involved in housing and development, as the government controls what can be built and where. This is an effort to loosen government controls by limiting local governments ability to restrict housing development near transit hubs. Specifically, the state government is attempting to restrict local governments' ability to create limits on housing density in certain areas.

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

#65

Post by Bombthecat »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #27
Bombthecat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agree! In my opinion the only way is to make smaller cities attractive! No matter how high or wide you build. People want to move to cities. Except they see a chance in smaller viliages. So we need more / attractive jobs in villages and better infrastructure. Including theaters, cinemas, shops, kindergartens etc etc.

Much easier said than done. For this to happen you’d have to convince multiple companies, hopefully across several industries, to risk opening offices and shops in such towns on nothing but faith that they’ll fill up in a somewhat timely manner, and then you have to convince a bunch of folks to move to these towns. Neither is particularly simple or straightforward. And of course, there also a large portion of people…

I don't think it about people. In my old town a bunch of offices closed and moved to big city. They didn't hire new people. (probably also a way to get rid of old people which didn't want to commute 1 hour to the city)

Also : why must it be 4 million city? Shouldn't it a 500k also enough?

But right now, even those cities bled people. Moving to big cities.

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

#66

Post by kradroy »

temp99990 wrote: post #46

There is so much wasted/poorly optimized land in SF. I cringe whenever I see the massive surface level Safeway parking lot in Duboce/Church.

They should tear down the Fed Mint building behind that Safeway and turn it into housing. I don't even believe that branch does anything other than print proofs. A waste of space, but it's not happening during this presidency for sure.

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

#67

Post by robertAngst »

njudah wrote: post #64
robertAngst wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

TLDR: The government is deeply involved in housing and development, as the government controls what can be built and where. This is an effort to loosen government controls by limiting local governments ability to restrict housing development near transit hubs. Specifically, the state government is attempting to restrict local governments' ability to create limits on housing density in certain areas.

This is quite an interesting take, your state government is fighting local governments?

This is truly another dimension of the More/Less government dichotomy they teach you in school.

Btw, it seems the local governments are quite Anti growth? Am I understanding that correctly?

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

#68

Post by khuey »

gersh wrote: post #52
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.

A land tax is different from a property tax. A land tax taxes only the unimproved land. A property tax taxes the improvements as well.

With a land tax two adjacent properties of equal size would be taxed the same, even if one is an eight story apartment building and the other is a parking lot. This strongly incentivizes improving the land to its highest and best use. Under a traditional property tax system erecting that building results in a large increase in property tax (as the value of the structure is now taxed) which dampens the motivation to build. Under California's prop 13, the parking lot probably has a tax valuation from decades ago and thus is taxed even less, further reducing the benefits to redeveloping the property.

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

#69

Post by dragonwriter »

friedman23 wrote: post #17
epmatsw wrote: post #2

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

Any new modern apartment is considered luxury. Its actually impossible to build non luxury apartments in Sf. It seems what people want is for builders to actively destroy the apartment after they build it so that it will be rented at a lower price.

> It seems what people want is for builders to actively destroy the apartment after they build it so that it will be rented at a lower price.

What some people want is subsidized building of units in exchange for rent limits.

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

#70

Post by khuey »

jdietrich wrote: post #9
codingdave wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would significantly increase the taxes on agricultural use. Is that your intent? To incentivize high density residential, while making it hard to grow food?

America is one of the world's largest exporters of agricultural products. There is no shortage of agricultural land that could and should be used for housing development.

Developing additional agricultural land on a large scale is incompatible with the carbon intensity reductions necessary to avoid incinerating the planet.
Post reply on HN