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

171–180 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#171

Post by gok »

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

Apartments absolutely generate property tax revenue.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#172

Post by Gibbon1 »

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.

California's property tax rate is too low to cover the services that residents use. That's the rotten pistachio right there.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#173

Post by kaikai »

opportune wrote: post #144
Redoubts wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities There are 9 Bay Area counties, so we agree?

Note I said core area, I didn't mean to include most of the east bay. The areas I was thinking were only in 5 (SF, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda) of the 9 counties

You counted Marin but not Fremont as part of the “core” Bay Area?

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#174

Post by kradroy »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #116
nostrademons wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a substitution effect. If zoning restrictions are relaxed and developer turns an acre into a 50 unit condo complex, that developer reaps a huge windfall. But everyone else who owns an Eichler on a 1/4 acre has fewer buyers competing for their property. It's sorta like when labor unions go away. The company that hires non-unionized labor at half the price and double the productivity reaps an enormous windfall.…

Is this correct? Or is this correct: As housing prices rise, it becomes cost effective to replace simplexes with duplexes, threeplexes, etc., causing the value of all simplexes to rise.

The latter is correct. The price per sq ft will be at parity during development. Then buyers will compete for the smaller units that replaced the SFH properties. $/sq-ft will rise and pass over to existing, neighboring SFHs.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#175

Post by BurningFrog »

opportune wrote: post #13

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

> it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential.

San Bruno is working exactly as intended:

It is maximizing the value increase of the home owners of the city. None of that potential is squandered.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#176

Post by BurningFrog »

gok wrote: post #171
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 Apartments absolutely generate property tax revenue.

Under Prop 13, less than they cost.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#177

Post by refurb »

cwp wrote: post #141
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…

I'd rather see the repeal of Prop 13: • more municipal revenue means better schools and infrastructure • better schools and infrastructure would support more development • higher property taxes would remove the incentive to hang on to property forever making it easier to buy and develop property • removing the disincentive to sell property also reduces the NIMBY imperative, since home owner can move to another area i…

Most cities develop a budget, then set property tax rates to generate revenue. This is why cities with $200k homes have similar per capita budgets as cities with $800k homes.

So if you repealed prop 13, the result would likely be a more equitable approach to property taxes, with those protected by prop 13 paying more and everyone else paying less.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#178

Post by wahern »

entee wrote: post #147
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…

Speaking of the painted ladies, a clear example of how completely dysfunctional the market is, there's been a vacant lot ON Alamo Square, less than a block for the painted ladies for years. https://goo.gl/maps/7iW3oiqN3FcPhVXq6 Who owns it? Why is this still not housing or at least something? Who knows! There's a vacant boarded up mansion/victorian multiunit building on Grove as well that has been that way forever as…

Maybe stuck in regulatory limbo, not unlike most projects in the city? https://socketsite.com/archives/2011/03/802_804_808_steiner_...

Seems there was once a school there: https://sf.curbed.com/2012/5/31/10366476/painted-ladies-have...

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#179

Post by opportune »

kaikai wrote: post #173
opportune wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note I said core area, I didn't mean to include most of the east bay. The areas I was thinking were only in 5 (SF, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda) of the 9 counties

You counted Marin but not Fremont as part of the “core” Bay Area?

That is in alameda county which I listed

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#180

Post by lotsofpulp »

ff317 wrote: post #100
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…

South Dakota (and other such places) have most of those things up to reasonable standards, except perhaps the (well-connected) telecoms and airports in some cases. All of those things can come together as the population scales up and demands them. I agree that gathering people into larger population centers is way more efficient for us and the planet, but I don't think anyone's arguing for us all to spread out on 10…

>"Location, location, location" has got to stop being the reason people choose a city.

Why? I want to live where I get to do the things I enjoy. I would say most people I know prefer temperate, low humidity weather, access to fresh fruits and vegetables, beaches, mountains, lakes, good water quality and security, etc. The places that have these features will cost the most, since more people will be bidding up the price.

Post reply on HN