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

California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 175 posts

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#21

Post by notJim »

mnm1 wrote: post #14

> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development. Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no de…

Based on what I see on Nextdoor and from anti-housing groups in Seattle, I suspect quality of life is coded language for "undesirable" types moving in. If you make your city affordable, you don't get to live in an enclave where everyone has a 7-figure net worth and went to Stanford.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#22

Post by cgy1 »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#23

Post by esoterica »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #18
esoterica wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The McMansions are uglier anyway. Is your right to not look at ugly boxes more important than other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?

This bill doesn't propose upzoning the kinds of neighborhoods where the "McMansions" are. Those houses are generally speaking way out in the suburbs and exurbs. SB 50 targets regions close to major cities, and most of that are "old growth" neighborhoods. And, to your second statement: if people do indeed have a "right" to a home less than $2 million, they can exercise that right. It just might not be in Palo Alto.

Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#24

Post by cgy1 »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #10

This bill would have created enormous resentment on behalf of homeowners, the ones who would have watched ugly four-story boxes go up in their neighborhoods. They would have wondered why the problems of the big cities were being dumped onto them, and the answer is found no farther then Weiner's list of campaign contributors. https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...

Oh no not the poor homeowners that are being heavily subsidized via Prop 13. I'll be sure to shed a tear for them.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#25

Post by WillPostForFood »

mnm1 wrote: post #14

> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development. Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no de…

It’s totally fine you don’t like it, but many people do. They are choosing to live that way because they like the lifestyle, not for the money. If they wanted money, they’d do better by the passing of SB50, and developing multi unit dwelling on their lot. I don’t think you are helping push the discussion forward by mischaracterizing the opposition.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#26

Post by anon1m0us »

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive.

It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds.

People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#27

Post by WillPostForFood »

notJim wrote: post #21
mnm1 wrote: post #14

> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development. Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no de…

Based on what I see on Nextdoor and from anti-housing groups in Seattle, I suspect quality of life is coded language for "undesirable" types moving in. If you make your city affordable, you don't get to live in an enclave where everyone has a 7-figure net worth and went to Stanford.

Yes, and the effects of that on local schools as well.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#28

Post by xvedejas »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Upzoning helps the homeowners who are upzoned, though I don't know how many of them realize it. Land can be sold at much higher values to developers if it's upzoned, and so its market rate is generally higher. It's those homeowners whose property isn't upzoned which are left out of the economic benefits.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#29

Post by nomnomnom01 »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

You do realize its not a smart move, right? Costs have gone up insanely because we have too many people. Don't pretend it will make things affordable because new developments aren't.

And if you forget we have a power shortage, water shortage, and our streets are already overburdened?

Common sense and critical thinking are something most people in California lack. Cause and effect are a wonderful thing to learn, too bad most people don't understand it

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#30

Post by gph »

cgy1 wrote: post #22
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.

Probably find them living in tiny capsules and/or shipping containers down by the docks or maybe on top of that superfund site that rich people are starting to get weary about living on/near.
Post reply on HN