Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 278 posts

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#11

Post by dougmwne »

baggy_trough wrote: post #4
TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…

Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.

Sure, nothing wrong at all except for:

-sedentary car-dependent lifestyle

-inefficent use of arable land

-carbon intense lifestyle contributing to the collapse of ecosystems

-materialistic lifestyle enforced

-impossible to serve economically with public transit making car ownership mandatory

-energy inefficient buildings

-encourages racial and economic segregation

-anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others

If I could vote to make these neighborhoods illegal, I would.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#12

Post by kryogen1c »

s_Hogg wrote: post #6
baggy_trough wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?

The definition of a market is haves and have-nots.

Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#13

Post by scribu »

Misdicorl wrote: post #5
TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent hi…

> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations.

Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?

Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues?

Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unattended to play in the streets, yet they are not abducted, get hit by cars etc. (Source: I grew up in Romania.)

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#14

Post by s_Hogg »

kryogen1c wrote: post #12
s_Hogg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?

The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works

I accept that, but policy seems to enforce single family home neighbourhoods in many places. This exacerbates the problem of haves and have-nots in the housing market.

I'm not in the "ban SFH neighbourhoods" camp, but I think we shouldn't have as much of a problem with them becoming denser. Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want.

This doesn't mean developers should be allowed to let rip either - as one of the other posts says, increased density leads to increased demand for other infrastructure as well.

Basically neither Manhattan nor Houston are really ideal states in my mind. There should be a way to live in the burbs if you want to do that, but I don't think public policy should be vigorously defending the people who do that regardless of obvious social and economic costs.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#15

Post by huffmsa »

Regulations to fix regulations.... Perhaps the root issue is that the government tries "helping" too much.

Neither California nor Oregon have the the spatial constraints somewhere like NYC does.

Both states and their cities have implement policies which only make sense when you've run out of land and the ability to develop relatively unregulated.

Government intervention except for at the last possible moment almost always has negative long term second order effects.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#17

Post by Merrill »

A lawsuit has been filed challenging New York's rent control laws on constitutional grounds as an illegal taking of private property and as a violation of due process.

Landlords File Federal Lawsuit Challenging New York's Rent Control Laws - https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/07/16/landlords-f...

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#18

Post by yardie »

wiremaus wrote: post #9
throw0101a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system. Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like: * buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases * buildings 5-10 ye…

A tiered system much like you describe is exactly what Oregon passed. New developments are largely unrestricted.

I can imagine this can have a domino effect. Older buildings require more maintenance. A landlord who plans poorly may find themselves squeezed at the bottom from deferred maintenance and from the top due to rent restrictions.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#19

Post by TulliusCicero »

baggy_trough wrote: post #4
TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…

Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.

There's nothing wrong with single family homes.

There's a lot wrong with the government mandating them in a particular area, especially when that 'particular area' is actually 'most residential land'.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#20

Post by isoskeles »

huffmsa wrote: post #15

Regulations to fix regulations.... Perhaps the root issue is that the government tries "helping" too much. Neither California nor Oregon have the the spatial constraints somewhere like NYC does. Both states and their cities have implement policies which only make sense when you've run out of land and the ability to develop relatively unregulated. Government intervention except for at the last possible moment almost a…

I agree with the first sentence. And the last one too.

However, San Francisco in particular has worse spatial constraints than NYC. That city has “run out of land.”

Post reply on HN