91–100 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"We'll do anything to solve the housing crisis!" "How about building more housing?" "Anything but that!"
People currently living there don't see it as a "housing crisis". They see it as "too many people coming here, trying to change our single family house peaceful residential neighborhood into bigger buildings". So "how about limiting influx of new people / new development?" "Sure, let's do that" I understand newcomers may disagree with that approach, out of understandable self interest. But implying people currently l…
People aren't clueless for defending their interests, but they absolutely are being highly deceptive in the way they are going about it. Many even go so far as to try and claim that increasing housing supply will actually increase prices. There was even a ballot initiative to ban market rate housing construction in central San Francisco.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.
That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you. I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.
When you buy a house, you don't buy the neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 willi…
I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this.
I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all.
This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree with you: the angle of "helping lower income people" is weak and moralistic. That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state. CA does have a high homelessness and house poverty problem. San Francisco is already a dump: literal human poop on every street in front of million dollar condos built in the 70's. Once tech diversifies aw…
So? Let them crash and burn and serve as an example to the other 49. There will always be some states poorer than others. What's the harm in CA going from the top to the bottom?
The only thing that worries me about CA crashing and burning is that the upper and upper middle class who advocated for the public policy that caused the crash and burn may move to other states and enact the same policy before it becomes obvious that their policy is what caused CA's demise.
"We'll do anything to solve the housing crisis!" "How about building more housing?" "Anything but that!"
This can go for just about any social problem. "We have to do something about X !" "Here's what sacrifices you can make to help..." "Oh, I meant we need to help, not me ."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners. With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.
Homeowners vote often and also are more engaged. They show up to hearings more than renters. This is the problem with renters. When they don't like how things are going, maybe they feel helpless, they just move to a different city.
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…
The unfortunate reality is that many people have little to no real choice in where they work or what they make. They live paycheck-to-paycheck and do jobs that do not come with any bargaining power. If they quit there will be 100 applicants to replace them the next day. And as the money continues to localize into major metro areas, the only available jobs are more and more often in those metro areas.
If you work-to-live then you have to have a job, if the only jobs are in the city you have to commute in, and if all the jobs pay $X you have to try to live on $X.
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.
[0]https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/... [1]http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm