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

161–170 of 175 posts

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

#161

Post by Redoubts »

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…

> Again, from the people living there, what's the housing crisis??

Well, their children can't afford to live here so that's going to be a problem.

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

#162

Post by scriptkiddy »

baggy_trough wrote: post #86
clairity wrote: post #81

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.

If you don't want to live in a high density area, then why did you choose to live in a city?

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

#163

Post by clairity »

gph wrote: post #153
clairity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 building…

in the real world, buying the houses across the street let's you decide what sits there.

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

#164

Post by masonic »

rflrob wrote: post #42
chrischen wrote: post #35

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

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ I believe the conventional wisdom is that legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters, and either of those are stronger signals to them than emails.

  legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters
The opposite is true. Written letters prioritize over phone calls and they over emails. But overall, constituent communications on current legislation are largely ignored.

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

#165

Post by dgzl »

qwsxyh wrote: post #152
dgzl wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's simply not true.

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

#166

Post by anon1m0us »

dgzl wrote: post #137
anon1m0us wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented. I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.

You definitely have rights to your property, it's one of the most important ideas established in the Constitution. It's also your right to give that property away if you like.

You need to consider the difference between something being right and something being a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]”

-- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.

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

#167

Post by mateo411 »

magduf wrote: post #160
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

LA and SD also have affordable housing problems. They aren't as pronounced as the Bay Area, but it's still an issue.

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

#169

Post by jjeaff »

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.

It's not just rich people. It's people who have spent every bit of disposable income they have on keeping their mortgage paid up.

That includes not investing into retirement funds. They are counting on their house being the retirement fund. When the housing market collapses, there are going to be a lot of people left holding the bag.

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

#170

Post by kelnos »

manfredo wrote: post #143
kelnos wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neigh…

I think a lot of it boils down to an ingrained belief that real estate should be an investment. Everyone buys a house with the expectation that its value will go up. This means that homeowners are extremely adverse to policies that might reduce home prices (like building more housing). Contrast this with houses in Japan, where it's expected that a home is a depreciating asset. Houses in the Special Wards of Tokyo can…

That's a very good point. I'm of the opinion that a primary residence is a liability, not an investment, but it's true that I'm in the minority when it comes to the US.
Post reply on HN