Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#201

Post by skybrian » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #196

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #195

Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide open sky and a park, then Bob buys the places around her, bulldozes the park, and builds 20 story buildings, Alice is now in the dark looking at concrete 10 feet away. It objectively makes Alice's situation worse. Are there any frameworks that compensate Alice for the…

You don't own the view. It's unrealistic to expect that owning a single parcel of land would grant you broad latitude to stop projects anywhere within sight. If you want a guaranteed good view, go buy a big plot of land way out in the middle of nowhere. You have no right to it in a city; other people's right to have housing is way more important.

Seems like that's ignoring zoning which is how views get protected in practice? Owning a view isn't necessary.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#202

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #196

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #195

Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide open sky and a park, then Bob buys the places around her, bulldozes the park, and builds 20 story buildings, Alice is now in the dark looking at concrete 10 feet away. It objectively makes Alice's situation worse. Are there any frameworks that compensate Alice for the…

You don't own the view. It's unrealistic to expect that owning a single parcel of land would grant you broad latitude to stop projects anywhere within sight. If you want a guaranteed good view, go buy a big plot of land way out in the middle of nowhere. You have no right to it in a city; other people's right to have housing is way more important.

Yes, of course in this situation Alice doesn't own the view. But she is made worse off by Bob's developments. I really hope we can agree that Alice's situation is being made worse in a real way here. Further, pre-Bob, the city is mostly full of Alices, so if you want them to not vote against Bob's development, like in OP's article, you might want to align Alice's and Bob's incentives. It's pragmatic.

It also happens to have the nice property of not making Alice worse off when we improve things for everyone else, which morally feels nice.

Either way, the question isn't about the ethics or pragmatics. It's whether this has been tried anywhere.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#203

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:00 AM 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.

Network effects are real. You can't wish them out of existence; it simply doesn't work that way. Inevitably some cities will be better at some things than other cities, and that advantage snowballs.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#204

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:02 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #91

hnaccy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're already over the carrying capacity if the world wants first world lifestyle.

Only if they want a first-world lifestyle, though. Cut out meat, suburban lawns, and the cars that go with them, and the earth could support 10B people right now, at the living standards of a typical Millenial in a cosmopolitan metropolis. Unfortunately, there's pretty good indications that most people on earth want those meats, suburban lawns, and cars, so I think it's more likely we'll get war instead. But it's tot…

Viable meat replacements are right around the corner. I don't think this is a blocker.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#205

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:04 AM UTC

tarr11 wrote: post #149

Would a “technology” answer be to make telepresence technology better and invest in higher bandwidth infrastructure? If we could have high resolution video, audio and even VR for business, would people be required to be colocated as often? That way people could live wherever they want.

There's dozens of other reasons people want to live somewhere besides work, though. Unless you're planning on living your entire life in VR.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#206

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

niftich wrote: post #18

Animats wrote: post #3

It's being overdone. A solid wall of railroad flats (cheezy "luxury" condos) is going up for miles along the Caltrain tracks. Those wooden multistory buildings are the slums of tomorrow. It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001?

It's fair to suppose that in the far-off future, midrise high-density housing (the five-over-ones and texas donuts) built cheaply years ago would become some of the least desirable housing around. Unlike with detached housing, rehabilitating the structure is a package deal, so its quality will likely decline until the entire structure is demolished, likely in conjunction with a redevelopment of its lot. The likely os…

We should be building housing for people now though, and heavily discount whatever the heck we think might happen with that housing in 100 years. And what alternative do you think is really guaranteed to age much better anyway?

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#207

Post by jonny_eh » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 3:55 AM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #188

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.…

> 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. That's not completely accurate. Yes, demand might fall, but even so price and value will still rise regardless. If you build a 50 unit complex next door, as long as some of those 50 units…

Plus the single family home will be just as desirable. New condos are still less desirable in comparison.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#208

Post by nradov » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #177

cwp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem we had in California before Proposition 13 is that city budgets were increasing without bound due to demands by public employee unions. The only way I would support a repeal of Proposition 13 is if some other mechanism is put in place to give voters more direct control over city budget growth.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#209

Post by sershe » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:30 AM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #195

Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide open sky and a park, then Bob buys the places around her, bulldozes the park, and builds 20 story buildings, Alice is now in the dark looking at concrete 10 feet away. It objectively makes Alice's situation worse. Are there any frameworks that compensate Alice for the…

Via the property value increasing to account for being able to build a 20-story tower on her lot.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#210

Post by nradov » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:35 AM UTC

asr wrote: post #9

matthewowen wrote: post #6

"Two others (out of five) had recused themselves because they own property within 1000 feet of the proposed project, and those recusals apparently counted as "no" votes." I wonder: did they just not know the rules? Or was this a cowardly way to vote no without _actually_ voting no: it seems like if you really wanted to recuse in this situation, you just agree to do paired voting, one no and one yes.

Yes, this seems like a critical part of the story. I take it the actual vote was 2-1 in favor of the permit, but you need at least 3 votes to pass something in San Bruno, no matter what? If so, the city council's rules don't deal appropriately with recusal and those should be changed ASAP. At the same time, whether or not this project succeeded or failed, the larger story about how hard it is to build housing remains…

Every city council has quorum rules for votes. What exactly are you proposing to change?