The answer to California's housing crisis is more housing • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by MagicPropmaker » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #61

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'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).

Prop 13 allows a 2% increase a year. That's more than enough to keep up with inflation.

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

#152

Post by MagicPropmaker » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #48

Let's overturn Prop 13 first.

This is an evil idea. Why make people lose their home because some specu-vestor pays too much for the house next door, "revaluing" their property?

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

#153

Post by cf » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

guardiangod wrote: post #111

cf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old units in many places are frequently renovated and re-sold to upper-middle class and wealthy tenants. The end result is an erosion of housing stock for average and low-income residents.

But the said "upper-middle class and wealthy tenants" already bought the "new apartment / condo building" that were built in the first place. It seems to me that opponents seem to think there is a phantom limitless pool of "upper-middle class" that buys up all the new high-end condo _and_ all the refurbished older units. Logically speaking, this is not possible

There doesn't need to be a limitless supply. In many cities if buyers aren't found, property owners are content to leave them vacant. You can see this in the relatively higher rates of vacanies in condos compared to other kinds of housing.

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

#154

Post by ip26 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #147

ip26 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

new construction in the Bay Area is luxury inherently The very state of newness is in itself luxury? That's a pretty damning assessment.

Well it is. Leasing a new car is more expensive than buying a used one. But that's not an argument against manufacturing more cars.

Of the same model, yes. But a new Corolla can be cheaper than a used Lexus, or what have you

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

#155

Post by overdrivetg » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 5:55 AM UTC

snidane wrote: post #107

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. The city council is elected by residents of the city, and land owners have a strong financial incentive to elect representatives who will limit housing. (The shortage drives-up their property values) You might think that renters living in the city would eventually outweigh the landowners and elect council members in favor of new housing, but instead SF passed a rent control measure which prevents the current…

It's funny to see the incentives at play. The rent control mechanisms are a hidden redistribution channel from money collected by income taxes straight to pockets of landlords. Ie. gov gives rent subsidies of $100 to poor. Landlords react by rising rent prices by $100 because od this new 'disposable income'. The poor don't feel any difference, only the working population which gets squeezed. The money flows from work…

Assuming you aren't trying to intentionally throw shade on CA rent control:

Rent SUBSIDIES are a hidden redistribution as you discuss.

Rent CONTROL forces recent transplants to subsidize longtime residents

Ie. gov prevents raising rents to market levels for longtime tenants. They are less likely to move, driving up demand for the remaining housing, which is the only stock available for newer residents.

This then costs newcomers more, while longtime residents avoid paying the market rate on their housing - effectively subsidizing the in-place tenants.

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

#156

Post by summerlight » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 6:20 AM UTC

AbdulMohammad wrote: post #19

If more housing was the answer then NYC would not have a housing problem. The answer is not more housing.

NYC is the largest metro ever, its size is not even comparable to bay area and still keeping its rent generally lower than bay area, even living in Manhattan is cheaper than south bay. I don't see how this can be a counterexample?

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

#157

Post by inferiorhuman » Wed, May 01, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #151

inferiorhuman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Prop 13 allows a 2% increase a year. That's more than enough to keep up with inflation.

Housing price growth well exceeds inflation.

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

#158

Post by gersh » Sun, May 05, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #68

gersh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The land tax along with the house. Perhaps, you believe the land should be taxed more highly and the house should be taxed less. When permitting is tough, the fact that you got the permits to build the house should increase the value of the land. While the structure may be taxed, it also can generate revenue. If land value is a high percentage of the value, property tax should have similar incentives.