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

Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#131

Post by markdown »

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…

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue

Solved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#132

Post by mktmkr »

markdown wrote: post #131
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…

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue Solved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

I think everyone agrees that if it were practical to amend the California tax system then we would just do that.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#133

Post by cgriswald »

ketzo wrote: post #40
nostrademons wrote: post #19

> No neighborhood should be exempt from change. > No neighborhood should be subjected to radical change. Is there any dynamic evolutionary system that actually follows these rules? The tech industry is famous for lumbering behemoths that are constitutionally incapable of innovation and then get replaced wholesale by nimble startups. National borders change all at once, in wars or revolutions, rather than incrementall…

I mean, if we're being cynical, you say the second so that people feel comfortable with the first. If you can convince suburbanites that you won't put up a skyscraper next door, you'll have an easier time putting up a 5-story apartment building. Or so my thinking goes, anyway.

People in my neighborhood object to every change even if it doesn’t seem to affect them. They’re mortified when a 5-story building (commercial OR residential) is built downtown when we are ten minutes away and not on a major traffic corridor.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#134

Post by refurb »

carapace wrote: post #92
CPLX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

It's because we're hella young out here. Relative to the East Coast anyway (I mean, London has Roman ruins...) Do an image search for old timey SF and you'll see: the Sunset was sand dunes until about last Tuesday, etc. Dudes used to pan for gold out by Lake Merced. Also, this was the weirdo town. Bohemia on the Bay. Serious folk didn't really come here to be serious and sane. The old line was, "All the crazy people…

Your comment about SF being young is really true. Take a look at a 1950's picture of the east side of Twin Peaks and you'll see huge tracks of open land. This is ~2 miles from downtown. A lot of SF was built in the last 60-70 years.

And also the trend of people wanting to live in SF is a pretty recent phenomenon. The population of SF in 2000 was the same as it was in the 1950's. People were leaving SF in droves 40 years ago.

Cities can't just turn on a dime.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#135

Post by Spellman »

jacobolus wrote: post #48
ctdonath wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just spent 3 weeks in the US Midwest. There is plenty of land to use, thousands of square miles of empty rolling grassy plains. (Ex.: South Dakota averages 11 people per square mile.) Apply a little modern technology (solar/wind, water storage/purification, insulation, Starlink satellite internet) and nobody need complain of population density. There's a startup waiting to happen: self-sufficient high-tech prefab h…

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…

Strong Towns notes that the real cost of spreading out is all the infrastructure you need to maintain.

Running water? Gotta run the pipes further. Road access? Gotta pave (and maintain) more road Power? Same thing

Plus having decent response times for emergency services, quick commute to things like groceries as you mentioned.

Not to mention having critical mass for a commercial district with any sort of variety within reasonable distances of each other to compete and cross-pollinate.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#136

Post by floren »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #127
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Part of the solution is to figure out how to disaggregate knowledge economies. Why so many mostly digital companies insist on in-office work is absolutely beyond me.

I'd kind of like to go to rural nowheresville, live cheap, and still make tech money. But my parents are here, my wife has health issues, and my kids need decent colleges. We're getting to the point where maybe the work part works. College may be able to be fully remote fairly soon (Western Governors University is there already, but only has select majors). Specialized doctors, though... that might be a bit harder. I…

I grew up in rural nowheresville and went to a good college across the country, but that's not necessary. Every single state has acceptable state colleges, if your children cannot bear doing their own laundry :)

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#137

Post by mktmkr »

Redoubts wrote: post #125
opportune wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To address 1, I think many of the municipalities between at least Palo Alto and Sunnyvale should be consolidated (and give Santa Clara to San Jose).

Honestly, the Bay Area shouldn't have municipalities smaller than counties.

You think everything from Berkeley to Patterson should be under unified government? Everything from Palo Alto to Los Banos? That's not obviously wrong but it's not obviously desirable either.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#138

Post by opportune »

Redoubts wrote: post #125
opportune wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To address 1, I think many of the municipalities between at least Palo Alto and Sunnyvale should be consolidated (and give Santa Clara to San Jose).

Honestly, the Bay Area shouldn't have municipalities smaller than counties.

I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities or even boroughs:

San Rafael-Sausalito

SF + Daly City + Colma + Brisbane + South SF

San Bruno - RWC

Palo Alto - SV

San Jose + Santa Clara and assorted surrounded munis like los gatos. Honestly you could probably include the Palo Alto-SV area with this one if you wanted.

No idea how to split up the east bay, guessing you will run into issues with nobody wanting to absorb the poor munis.

Anyway, the benefits of this is that it would be easier to align incentives at a regional level rather than creating adversarial, counter productive squabbling fiefs that keep acting optimally at a local level, but very sub-optimally at a regional level. The regions are also big enough that a much larger portion of people would actually live and work in the same area

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#139

Post by kuang_eleven »

markdown wrote: post #131
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…

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue Solved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

Land value tax does not solve this issue. The vast, vast majority of property value in the impacted areas of California is land value, nothing would change.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#140

Post by Redoubts »

mktmkr wrote: post #137
Redoubts wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the Bay Area shouldn't have municipalities smaller than counties.

You think everything from Berkeley to Patterson should be under unified government? Everything from Palo Alto to Los Banos? That's not obviously wrong but it's not obviously desirable either.

> You think everything from Berkeley to Patterson should be under unified government? Everything from Palo Alto to Los Banos?

Berkeley is in Alameda County, while Patterson is in Stanislaus County, so no.

Palo Alto is in Santa Clara County, while Los Banos is in Merced County, so no.

Post reply on HN