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

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#231

Post by skunkpocalypse »

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…

Democracy is not designed to avoid radical changes. Plenty of examples (recent ones too) of elections leading to those.

Democracy is designed to avoid violent change.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#232

Post by skunkpocalypse »

CPLX wrote: post #27
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.

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…

> from the perspective of an east coaster

> And two story buildings,

Here on the West Coast we have these things called earthquakes. Tall, easily built, or safe: pick two, you can't have all three out here.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#233

Post by cgriswald »

casefields wrote: post #155
cgriswald wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's because every time you give an inch they'll take a little bit more. So you out up a huge front and the only thing that can be approved are small nimble changes. Plus it's wildly beneficial economically to keep the status quo when it comes to owning a home in the California.

> Plus it's wildly beneficial economically to keep the status quo when it comes to owning a home in the California.

Commercial development of the downtown space will only increase the value of homes in my neighborhood.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#234

Post by dredmorbius »

cbhl wrote: post #129
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.

> auto repair shops Apparently the city governments want lots of these. They call it PDR zoning; apparently auto repair shops pay more for non-college-educated workers than other jobs.

"Production, distribution, and repair", for the curious.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#235

Post by dredmorbius »

wahern wrote: post #158
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.

From what I've read municipalities dislike residential because of the increased costs, not because of the poor tax revenue. Both commercial and residential can bring it windfall revenues at today's market prices, and Prop 13 applies to commercial property, anyhow. Residential simply has higher infrastructure costs--schools, heavier water & sewage usage, etc. Plus office complexes don't enrage NIMBYs the way residenti…

Retail generates sales tax. Residential doesn't.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#236

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

Atheros wrote: post #230
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about in the opposite direction? What if I build something that makes the neighborhood nicer (like buying a burned out building and replacing it with one that is beautiful and matches its neighbors). It seems like the neighbors should pay me their increased home value, right? If Nancy plants flowers, you have to pay her. It's only fair. It's also ludicrous. Your idea is unimplementable. It would be simpler if ev…

My perspective is that it's not about the investment. It's about wanting to keep the quality of life you bought into. The investment side only comes in when the large building next to you decreases your quality of life, so you want to sell, which you otherwise wouldn't have wanted to do.

I'd totally buy into a system that incentivizes the positives too. If I'm paying for the amount it affects me by, sure. That's why I pay my taxes. On the other hand, ratchet-like systems by which things can't get worse than they started seem fair too. It's okay to be asymmetric.

Specifically, the example that comes to mind as a fair reason to be pissed (or vote against development/rezoning) is changing something like this:

https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2....

to something like this:

https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0....

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#237

Post by MiroF »

foobarian wrote: post #185
MiroF wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single homeowner I've talked to here has complained about the housing crisis, yet has been opposing development near their house. Incredible that people can be so willfully blind that they don't see how their own actions are contributing to the crisis. It's a real tragedy of the commons

If there was a law aggressively limiting the property tax rate, skyrocketing demand, and I happened to be in a house I got in the 70s... you better bet I'd be opposing development too.

Sure, but you wouldn't be bemoaning the housing crisis.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#238

Post by MiroF »

foobarian wrote: post #182
MiroF wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also coming from Boston and this take is silly. Housing prices in Boston aren't Bay bad or even close to it.

I'm coming from the Boston _area_ because I can't afford to live in Boston or Cambridge. But guess what? There are comfortably sized houses available already under $400k 20 minutes out.

Exactly. Inner Boston and SF are not dissimilar, but the real difference is when you go outside the city. You can get a good house in Waltham (for instance) for relatively cheap. The same isn't true today in East Bay at least (and I don't know what other direction it would be true in).

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#239

Post by MiroF »

wahern wrote: post #151
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…

Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. The evidence seems quite overwhelming. Which isn't to say funding doesn't matter. Just that it's clear that "investing in our children" through school funding was a dead-end, sort of like expecting increased traffic light expenditures to improve school performance. The primary determinants are economic and sociologic factors in the home. We need decent schoo…

> Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance.

Well yeah, because there's a huge amount of noise combined with active efforts to spend more on worse schools in the past few decades. I'd like to see an example study with "overwhelming" evidence that expenditures doesn't help.

I don't understand this pessimism re: the role of schools. The science isn't anywhere nearly as settled on "schools do not create change" as this comment seems to imply.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#240

Post by MiroF »

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…

Or just pass SB 50...
Post reply on HN