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

151–160 of 175 posts

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

#151

Post by village-idiot »

magduf wrote: post #55
mullingitover wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction. There's already heavy government intervention in the housing markets, that's the problem: developers can't simply buy land and develop it to it's maximum potential. There are regulations that prevent the market from meeting demand, hence the skyrocketing prices that can't be addressed by increasing supply.

>By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction. I don't see how that's a problem, in fact it sounds like a solution. I'm certainly not going to cry over a bunch of rich people losing their shirts on overpriced real estate.

I wouldn’t, but given the political power of the home owning class I really fear what corrective measures the government would take to stop a correction.

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

#152

Post by qwsxyh »

dgzl wrote: post #135
qwsxyh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I guess I'm flattered, but you understand the point, right? If you have 'rights' to a product or service (i.e. something that requires another person to work for you in order to satisfy) then you effectively have 'rights' to their labor and goods, also known as slavery.

Not sure why you would be flattered. Hacker News comments are just YouTube comments with right-libertarianism and a thesaurus in the mix.

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

#153

Post by gph »

clairity wrote: post #78
yholio wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, the value of upzoning accrues to land value, not the real property that sits on it, but the rest of your conclusion doesn't follow. when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments. also, you don't need to tear down the home to realize gains, since, as you yourself…

>when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.

That's not how the real world works. In the real world, people who want to live in a single family home also want to live in a low density area. No one wants a single family home if there's a bunch of apartment buildings across the street.

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

#154

Post by rcpt »

hedora wrote: post #145
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.

I know of no one that is against putting up more housing near transit. People that live near the new construction will see their property values and quality of life rise due to more walkable businesses nearby. People selling existing houses on up zoned lots should also be able to charge a premium, knowing the developers are putting in >>$10M of housing units on the lot. I wish I knew which legislators blocked this so…

Anthony J. Portantino

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

#155

Post by rcpt »

chrischen wrote: post #35

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

Tell Sen. Anthony Portantino that you are unhappy that he abused his power to stop SB 50.

Tell Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins you want her to do everything in her power to get a floor vote this year.

https://cayimby.org/call/

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

#156

Post by magduf »

anon1m0us wrote: post #110
magduf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you? If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.

That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees. Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.

What are you getting at? Are you saying that restaurants won't pay their staff very high wages to entice them to commute for several hours, and that the restaurant will go out of business?

How exactly is this a problem?

Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily.

Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?

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

#157

Post by magduf »

anon1m0us wrote: post #118
magduf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's the government's job (at state/federal levels) to fix a local problem like this. If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.

It's a chicken/egg problem. The jobs are in the cities. The population density in other areas makes it even harder. People move to the cities for jobs because there aren't any where they are from.f

Incorrect. Yes, the jobs are in the cities, but there are many other cities besides the Bay Area. In most other cities, lower-paid people (e.g. service workers) are able to find places to live. What we're talking about here is a problem mostly unique to the Bay Area.

I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.

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

#158

Post by magduf »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #148
magduf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction. I don't see how that's a problem, in fact it sounds like a solution. I'm certainly not going to cry over a bunch of rich people losing their shirts on overpriced real estate.

The problem is that many people can't afford to live there in the period of bubble.

Right, nor should they. They should go where they can afford to live. If that means the Bay Area has no more restaurants, gas stations, garbage pickup, schools, etc., that's fine.

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

#159

Post by magduf »

mreome wrote: post #99
magduf wrote: post #54

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…

By that logic we should abandon all minimum wage and employee rights laws. People wouldn't do the jobs unless the pay and conditions were acceptable, so it would resolve itself one way or the other right? 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 the…

>By that logic we should abandon all minimum wage and employee rights laws.

No, that's not the logic at all.

Remember, this problem is entirely local, and can't really be solved because the local politics are locked up by the local wealthy homeowners.

Minimum wage and employee rights laws are usually either state or federal (or both). But the state and federal governments here have little power to fix the Bay Area's problems, because of the way the governmental systems are structured.

Personally, I think minimum wage should be raised, and employee rights laws should be strengthened. That's government's job, to fix problems like this which hurt the lower classes. But for the Bay Area, I think they should just provide grants to help lower-income people move out of the area and relocate to cheaper places, leaving the Bay Area without any lower-class people. Then let's see how they function without any janitors or teachers.

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

#160

Post by magduf »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #96
conanbatt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state 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 advoca…

It won't be CA that goes to the bottom, just the Bay Area. LA and SD and Fresno and even Sacramento don't have the same problems.
Post reply on HN