Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#101

Post by mwsfc » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #51

I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again. The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where they work rather than where they live. Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of NIMBYism. But when everyon…

Assuming this would be mainly applicable to non property owners? Can't see why any property owner would take that offer.

missing word

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#102

Post by esotericn » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

tmh79 wrote: post #20

esotericn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For humanity to continue growing as a species I'm pretty young. Since my birth, the population has expanded by over 40%, and we've increased global temperature by approximately 1 degree Celsius. The inevitable conclusion of forever-growth is, indeed, that everyone piles in to microscopic communal living spaces, that everything becomes factory farmed, that everything has to be as efficient as possible because we'll…

"We can't go on like this." There is a huge HUGE difference between "you must own 1/3 of an acre of land to live within an hour commute of your job" and "microscopic communal living spaces", if you haven't looked at a map recently we are much much closer to the prior than the latter.

Mmm. I live in the UK.

London is somewhere in-between; so are most of our towns and cities, really.

Tons of semi-detached or terraced homes, well served by public transport, which provide a decent balance.

We still can't just increase the population in those commutable areas without bound though.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#103

Post by pcwalton » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #68

pcwalton wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone is going to have to care for an aging population. You can look at Japan for what happens when you have zero or negative population growth.

Again, why does it need to grow ? There seem to be people in this thread expecting that unchecked human population growth is a sure sign of progress. It isn't. And our current population levels are also unsustainable.

Because otherwise the social safety net--Medicare and Social Security included--will collapse.

Maybe we shouldn't have those programs structured as they are now. But we do, and a shock to the system will result in unprecedented economic misery and social instability. If we want to talk about how to deal with demographic change, there's an important long-term conversation to be had about preserving the social safety net. But any solution that wants to avoid a potentially-catastrophic economic crisis must have a serious, realistic answer for this. Not building housing is a fundamentally unserious policy, driven by a preference for the suburban lifestyle and the fear of change more than any realistic concerns about sustainability.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#104

Post by esotericn » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #66

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that's exactly what I mean, you read "terraforming" and took it too far. The parent was saying that, the general conclusion is making housing smaller and smaller. Today's apartment buildings will be too big as the population grows and we'll have to fit more people in more limited amounts of space. This is assuming several things, that we won't be able to build tall buildings, that we won't be able to go on another…

You're not solving the problem. There is no shortage of space for the future 11 billion humans. The big problem is the centralization of companies within few top tier cities without a corresponding increase in housing for the (locally) growing population.

I agree.

It's fundamentally ridiculous to just have everyone that "matters" live in the same city or small group of cities.

That's what people seem to be talking about here. In the UK it's London, in the US it's SF, NYC and a few others.

If "pack everyone into skyscrapers and have them rent their Logan's Run existence" is the model for the entire economy I'm honestly quite sad about that.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#105

Post by canuelaborate » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

i_am_proteus wrote: post #70

markbnj wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue The property owners still pay tax on it don't they? I'm sure it is less lucrative per square foot than commercial development, but I assume it is still better than the revenue from the closed furniture store and parking lot, and after all you need people to patronize businesses.

Perhaps it's something to do with how California has lower property taxes (partially due to Prop. 13) and higher income taxes-- but those income taxes go to Sacramento, not to municipalities. In other parts of the country, municipal treasuries grow as volume and prices of residential units grow.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "those income taxes go to Scaramento"? I mean the state has to coordinate the money it collects, but doesn't it use that money for state-wide projects like roads, dams, and other infrastructure? I live in Los Angeles and pay CA income tax. I'm perfectly fine with the state using some of that money outside of Los Angeles. I often travel outside of Los Angeles, so I'm getting use out of whatever they make with it (assuming it's not just put into politicians' pockets). What is Sacramento doing with the income tax revenue that you don't like?

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#106

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #88

It's not peak housing dysfunction, but rather peak entitlement. Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to live in or move to an area despite local incumbents' wishes to not have their neighborhood change? Does everyone have the right to live anywhere they want to live without having to pay the necessary price to be there? For example, does everyone have a right to expect a residence on a Hawaii beac…

Your comment doesn’t address people raised in but prices out of a city.

I guess these days such people will have to either get top jobs, live with parents forever or move town away from their family. Or suffer long commutes from faraway suburbs or near but crime afflicted places.

Now arguably there is a sense of entitlement if anyone expects to live in their home town, and there are people with bigger problems. But it’s not necessarily old timers vs new people thing.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#107

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #82

jacobolus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are going to live anything resembling a modern American lifestyle, then gathering people together in cities has much lower environmental impact and lower infrastructure costs than spreading them around South Dakota. People don’t expect just electricity and plumbing, they also expect modern construction techniques, roads, police, fire suppression, emergency response, schools, full-service hospitals, telecomm…

Consider the environmental transparency: instead of utterly devastating an environmental region as does cities, encourage each family to own a mostly-untouched >5 acres, the high-efficiency home sporting solar roof & rainwater collection, wireless/satellite high-bandwidth internet, home & prolific electric car chargers, optimized Amazon/etc delivery, home/neighborhood schooling, work-from-home norm, etc. Environmenta…

You still need to give those people roads, maybe even sewer rather than having them use a horrible septic tank. They will probably want internet as well...and not the crappy satellite variety. And schools...ya, that’s a lot of bussing.

Western Washington state subsidizes Eastern Washington state greatly, and that isn’t even as sparse as South Dakota (or as I like to call it, Tropical Dakota).

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#108

Post by inferiorhuman » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #96

markbnj wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue The property owners still pay tax on it don't they? I'm sure it is less lucrative per square foot than commercial development, but I assume it is still better than the revenue from the closed furniture store and parking lot, and after all you need people to patronize businesses.

Not in CA - Prop13 + corporate shell board of director transfers means the tax rate never increases, and after 40+ years, that means a lot of properties essentially pay a fraction of the taxes they should. Prop13 has had a LOT of unintended consequences.

Prop13 has had a LOT of unintended consequences.

No, those were intended consequences.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#109

Post by i_am_proteus » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

canuelaborate wrote: post #105

i_am_proteus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's something to do with how California has lower property taxes (partially due to Prop. 13) and higher income taxes-- but those income taxes go to Sacramento, not to municipalities. In other parts of the country, municipal treasuries grow as volume and prices of residential units grow.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "those income taxes go to Scaramento"? I mean the state has to coordinate the money it collects, but doesn't it use that money for state-wide projects like roads, dams, and other infrastructure? I live in Los Angeles and pay CA income tax. I'm perfectly fine with the state using some of that money outside of Los Angeles. I often travel outside of Los Angeles, so I'm getting use o…

The difference between paying $9000 to Sacramento and $1000 to LA or paying $5000 to Sacramento and $5000 to LA.

In the latter system, the local government gets direct control over the spending, as opposed to needing to lobby the state government for funds for road improvements, schools, etc.

For instance, in California, the majority of K-12 funding comes from Sacramento. In most of the rest of the country, the majority of K-12 funding comes from local, largely property, taxes-- exceptions being low-performing schools targeted for improvement with state funds.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#110

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #53

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that's exactly what I mean, you read "terraforming" and took it too far. The parent was saying that, the general conclusion is making housing smaller and smaller. Today's apartment buildings will be too big as the population grows and we'll have to fit more people in more limited amounts of space. This is assuming several things, that we won't be able to build tall buildings, that we won't be able to go on another…

Whatever "solution" you come up with would obviously be better if shared amongst a reasonable number of humans. That's my main point, not what the solution looks like. Tall buildings are inherently communal. Terraforming is an idea so absurd I'm not sure where to start - the dream of a 16 year old science fiction reader. We have a solution for housing. It's called houses. This breaks down when you get millions of peo…

> Tall buildings are inherently communal.

Cool so stop building them.

You can't make the workplaces incredibly dense and the housing incredibly sparse in a geographically constrained area though and expect things to be OK.

For every Salesforce tower build a giant apartment skyscraper. For every Google campus build a major apartment complex campus.