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

121–130 of 175 posts

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

#121

Post by xvedejas »

anon1m0us wrote: post #112
xvedejas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, my observation is true about the broader housing market in the Bay Area. Most homes are not homes owned by individuals with multiple homes. And at worst, they're homes on the rental market, and so still help to meet housing demand. Vacant houses are such a small fraction of the housing stock, that even if all of them were full of resident owners, the price problem would still exist.

The data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...

To expand further why I think you haven't made a good argument: if high vacancy rates are the problem, and the Bay Area has especially low vacancy rates, why is the Bay Area the least affordable region in the US? High vacancy rates are obviously not the cause of the housing crisis. Maybe you can make the argument that high vacancy rates _coupled with something else_ is the problem, but you don't seem to be making that argument -- and the "something else" is probably the more important factor anyway, since SF doesn't have high vacancy rates.

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

#122

Post by chrischen »

yonran wrote: post #69
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…

As Chairman he blocked it from even being voted on... looks like I know who to axe on the next elections.

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

#123

Post by qwsxyh »

dgzl wrote: post #74
anon1m0us wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right. If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again? No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All y…

> I think access to shelter is a human right. Products and services can't be human rights.

This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.

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

#124

Post by qwsxyh »

Zombiethrowaway wrote: post #73
manfredo wrote: post #4

"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…

> But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?

Somebody defending their interests doesn't make them not selfish.

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

#125

Post by kelnos »

anon1m0us wrote: post #63
ars wrote: post #56

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.

In order to rent, you need to rent from someone. If everyone can own at most two pieces of real property, that means that at most only half the population can rent, because the property owners will live in one home, and will rent out the other (well, sure, some will rent out rooms in their primary residence).

In reality, half of the population will not want to (or be able to) own two properties (and many will not even be able to own one), so you end up with a nominal amount of home ownership, a very tiny rental market, and a bunch of people who both can't afford homes and have nowhere to rent because of the aforementioned very tiny rental market.

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

#126

Post by kelnos »

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…

Given that the majority of residential areas outside cities (and even some inside cities) are not sufficiently walkable to do without a car, you're basically suggesting that the vast majority of the US has poor quality of life. That may be true (I'd doubt it), but an extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidence.

I personally prefer to live in a place where I can live my life through walking and transit, but I know quite a few people who prefer open, spread-out, commercial/industrial-free neighborhoods, and either don't mind or actively enjoy having a car and driving places.

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

#127

Post by kelnos »

Zombiethrowaway wrote: post #73
manfredo wrote: post #4

"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…

The thing that I will never understand is that the incumbents with this attitude are still hurting themselves with these policies. Even if they own a home and are protected by Prop 13 from large property tax increases, they still have to contend with all the rest of the problems that the housing crisis brings. Perhaps the fear of change overrides common sense, but I find it hard to believe that, rationally, the neighborhood "changing in character", or home values dipping the slightest bit, would be worse than the other negative realities that NIMBYs still experience here.

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

#128

Post by anon1m0us »

xvedejas wrote: post #121
anon1m0us wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...

To expand further why I think you haven't made a good argument: if high vacancy rates are the problem, and the Bay Area has especially low vacancy rates, why is the Bay Area the least affordable region in the US? High vacancy rates are obviously not the cause of the housing crisis. Maybe you can make the argument that high vacancy rates _coupled with something else_ is the problem, but you don't seem to be making tha…

The bay area has a high concentration of wealth where average salaries are almost twice the rest of the country. Programmers there make $300,000 or more. That's a doctor or lawyer in other areas of the nation.

I don't think high vacancy rates are the problem, I think they are a symptom.

Most of the people in this thread are only looking at the bay area from the past dozen years or so. In 2002, the picture was much different. In 1999, it was the opposite of 2002.

When you've lived in an area for decades, you can pick and choose where and when you buy. If you just moved there for a job, you're stuck without that time diversification and leverage ladder used by the folks who have lived there for a long time and accumulated many properties.

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

#129

Post by manfredo »

Zombiethrowaway wrote: post #114
manfredo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So their plan to solve the housing crises essentially involves trying to keep new people out of the SF Bay area? Keep in mind that this is an area that heavily prides itself on being diverse and inclusive. 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 a…

Again, from the people living there, what's the housing crisis?? Yes, they are trying to limit how many people are coming in, that's obvious. This is different from inclusive and diversity issues. This is about 100 new diverse people rather than 1,000. Again you can disagree with them, it is fair, but I think their approach is perfectly understandable, and if you want to argue and debate, no one should assume they ar…

It's not an assumption of hypocrisy. It genuinely is hypocrisy. A group of people are praising themselves for their inclusivity, while pushing for exclusionary policies. If they want to pursue these policies without being hypocritical then they need to change their messaging to be transparent about their desire for exclusion rather than inclusion.

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

#130

Post by simonebrunozzi »

yholio wrote: post #44
xvedejas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Upzoning increases the value of the land, but decreases the value of pre-existing built square footage, since it's no longer an exclusivist area. If you have a brand new mansion built to the highest standards on the premise that it will be located in a tranquil neighborhood you might be on the net losing side if an apartment building is approved next door. In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in orde…

Yes, and to add to this: most landowners don't benefit from upzoning; only a few do. That's why, in general, most of them oppose upzoning.
Post reply on HN