Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#61

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #31

sampo wrote: post #2

> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

> One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power.

This is one of those theoretical arguments that sounds good but have no empirical foundation at all.

If it was true the gigantic Walmart could completely dick me around when buying socks and toilet paper. In reality prices are very competitive.

It also completely ignores that fact that most landlords are small operations, and often the tenants are richer than their landlords.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#62

Post by bastawhiz » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #59

bastawhiz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent high density housing to maintain that lifestyle This is a generalization that finds its roots in "white flight", which was itself driven by racism and fear mongering and the side effects of redlining and mortgage discrimination. Suburbs as we know them today didn't exist a hundred years ago. And in fact, perpetuating th…

Can this really be tied to "white flight"? I think you make a compelling point, but white flight also happens to suburbs- which I guess is also part of your point. I don't know the reasons and history of suburb development. It seems to me that it should have a lot to do with the commoditization of fast travel costs, and its simply that rich white people were first able to take advantage. If socioeconomic status weren…

There's a difference between "moving to a single family home" and "preventing my neighborhood from becoming high density". I don't care how many people live in SFUs so long as it's not illegal to build higher density buildings.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#63

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

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…

Germany has MUCH more kids walking around by themselves than the US, even with higher population densities and a complete lack of mandatory single family home zoning. The US actually sucks big time for child independence.

If anything, these sort of car dominant neighborhoods make it more dangerous for kids to go around by themselves. Cars go much faster there.

> There are lots of poor neighborhoods that are single family housing

This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighborhoods supports stratification. Such rules will block a poorer family from living in a richer area, whereas with more density-friendly zoning rules, they may choose to just live in a smaller home in a nicer neighborhood, thereby preventing severe segregation.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#64

Post by spoonie » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #18

wiremaus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those landlords should go out of business in a free market. Not properly accounting for maintenance costs is a business failure, not the tenant’s fault. If property prices are higher than rents that’s a market failure, not a cost to be passed onto tenants.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#65

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #52

wpietri wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

> It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. Not necessarily true. Sure , the landlord knows more about the apartment but you know more about yourself as a tenant. Landlord takes a huge risk in terms of allowing someone rent, especially given protections afforded to th…

"Its very expensive to fill a rental. A landlord usually needs at least a month to find another tenant. That's a month of foregone rent"

If a month of foregone rent was such a huge burden to landlords then it wouldn't be so common for them to keep their properties vacant.

Just recently, Los Angeles lawmakers have proposed a vacancy tax on the 111,000 vacant homes in the area.[1]

[1] - https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vacant-housing-...

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#66

Post by caymanjim » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

spoonie wrote: post #48

kryogen1c wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 should be able to build whatever I want on my private property. Whether it’s a house or an apartment building.

Are you also going to build the infrastructure to support your apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes? Are you going widen the streets, create parking, improve sewer and water lines, add traffic lights, build larger parks, route mass transit, hire more school bus drivers, hire more police? Urban planning and zoning exist for a reason.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#67

Post by dougmwne » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #46

dougmwne wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others This cannot be overstated enough. My pet theory is that the suburbification of America led to our current division and political strife. You cannot expect great results when those with the most combined political power and wealth in the nation sequester themselves individually away from others and even each other. This…

> I would simply make zoning them illegal.

Sorry, yes that's exactly what I meant and we're in total agreement. There's no way I'd advocate tearing these neighborhoods down, only make it illegal to continue to protect their zoning, just like this new law in Oregon. I think that's a super solution, and I'd happily vote for it in my own state.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#68

Post by tomaha » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #55

nickserv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the density that makes urban areas unsafe, it's all the cars. A downtown pedestrian street is perfectly safe for kids to hang out and play. Neighbors, older kids and shopkeepers keep an eye out without being in helicopter mode. In the few cities I've been to that have banned vehicular traffic in downtown areas, you do see bunches of kids running around, as done for millennia.

Yes, vehicle traffic would be by far my #1 worry in high density areas.

It's really about planning. Modern Swiss towns mostly consist of high density buildings with parking underground and most of the areas around the buildings are for walking & biking. The really good thing about high density is that it allows for much more efficient public transport which reduces the need for cars.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#69

Post by hellisothers » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #46

dougmwne wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others This cannot be overstated enough. My pet theory is that the suburbification of America led to our current division and political strife. You cannot expect great results when those with the most combined political power and wealth in the nation sequester themselves individually away from others and even each other. This…

I found the opposite to be true, we lived in the South Bay in denser townhomes and everyone was very anti-social. Now that we’ve moved to the east bay to a SFH area the neighbors are more invested in the neighborhood and we have far more social interactions. We’re also a 10 minute walk to great shops/bars/doughnuts. The options aren’t burbs or dense urban housing, you can have SFH in an urban area.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#70

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #57

Misdicorl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent high density housing to maintain that lifestyle This is a generalization that finds its roots in "white flight", which was itself driven by racism and fear mongering and the side effects of redlining and mortgage discrimination. Suburbs as we know them today didn't exist a hundred years ago. And in fact, perpetuating th…

Separate response for South Chicago.

> You invalidate your own point. The south side of Chicago is not a place many people would consider safe,

I'm not sure this invalidates my point, I just chose a poor example. Switch it to Jamaica Plain in Boston and I think my point holds.