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

61–70 of 175 posts

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

#61

Post by anon1m0us »

dgzl wrote: post #53
brianpgordon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize. When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing…

It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.

Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people.

It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all.

No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.

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

#63

Post by anon1m0us »

ars wrote: post #56
anon1m0us wrote: post #26

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.

> limiting the number of houses a person can own So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting?? Why?

No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.

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

#64

Post by tomatotomato37 »

B-Con wrote: post #8
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote. A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.

Also because they exist. People who would move to CA but don't because of the housing problem can't vote to fix the issue.

To be fair democracy needs some type of locality limit to keep it in the specific sovereignty's influence; US citizens don't get to vote in Canadian politics just because some people in Maine are thinking of moving over to Montreal

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

#65

Post by mochomocha »

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.

Don't worry! San Francisco has thought about the problem of course. They're building housing dedicated to teachers. Mountain View is thinking about doing the same. One step closer to feudalism (or when people working in mines used to live in housing owned by the mining company). The ineptitude of local politicians catering to NIMBY is boundless.

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

#66

Post by u10 »

magduf wrote: post #54
cgy1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I honestly don't see the problem here. It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll h…

Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that a given job is filled.

That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.

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

#67

Post by sbov »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #27
notJim wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Our local school in California busses in out of district students. By their claim, they can offer higher quality education with more students because the state funding scales faster than the burden.

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

#68

Post by mochomocha »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7
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.

> California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote. A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.

In immigration-heavy places like the Bay Area, a lot of renters don't have the right to vote.

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

#69

Post by yonran »

chrischen wrote: post #35

Who blocked this? I am a California voter and I do not recall having any say over this blockage.

From the latimes article, it was a state senator from the Los Angeles area: “Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced at the beginning of the committee hearing Thursday that Senate Bill 50 would not advance this year, meaning the bill would not be debated again until 2020.”

Edit: Here is a video of him saying that despite the crisis, he doesn’t think the bill is right, and maybe something better will come along https://twitter.com/BryanRAnderson/status/112911212601702809...

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

#70

Post by brianpgordon »

dgzl wrote: post #53
brianpgordon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize. When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing…

It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.

I don't really want to get drawn into this because – again – I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I have to point out that just because you're able to do something today doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" that needs to be "stripped" from you. We adopt reasonable legislation all of the time which restricts legal activity in various ways. When the SEC issues guidance on some little-known regulation that affects the way that hedge funds are allowed to account for certain trading costs, nobody worries that important rights are being eroded. Their investment activities will be a little bit more restricted, but they have tons of money anyway and they have plenty of other options. Maybe you can see by analogy why I wouldn't be terribly impressed by owners of multiple California properties crying about their rights if some reasonable light-touch restrictions were added that slightly threatened their future revenues.
Post reply on HN