Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes • Hacker News Board

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#151

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

nhebb wrote: post #80

arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

> (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. Apparently I'm the lone dissenter on this, but I think for many people this is a side benefit that they may hope for, but the primary objective is simply to own a home that they can live in and raise a family.

There are dozens of us!

I think most of this comes down to the fact that Americans generally had little savings outside of their home equity. This only became relevant in the 90-00s when home equity loans/LoCs took off and were widely available to almost anyone. Suddenly, it mattered how much equity you had in your home because you could spend it.

There's another group of people that look at their parents' home and realize that it has doubled in value since the early 90s. But these people usually don't account for interest, tax, and maintenance payments over those 20 years.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#152

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

> Americans consider housing to be an investment.

Not just an investment, but for many, it's the investment. For most of the 99% property ownership is seen as the only reliable motive for social mobility. It's the only way to sustained and reliable long-term financial wealth.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying asking people to give up their only solid method of upward social and financial mobility for the sake of fairness is a little callous, especially since all the other methods were discounted and are heavily tilted in favor of the 1% so they can cling to their mountains of gold just a little harder.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#153

Post by jayd16 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #123

> the city passed a series of neighborhood plans in and around downtown that relaxed zoning and removed parking requirements, making it easier and cheaper to build. Wait, you mean deregulation isn’t just a republican talking point? And restrictive city (and state) governments were the problem this whole time???

Except its just as regulated, just differently. Its certainly not "the private sector policing itself." Efficient regulation that conforms to need is not the same as deregulation.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#154

Post by DubiousPusher » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

goosehonk wrote: post #87

huntertwo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…

Micro apartments are a straw man. The zoning codes all over California prohibit duplexes and triplexes, including over 85% of the area of the supposedly dense city of San Francisco. We don’t need weird innovative forms. We need the old forms.

I agree. This is a false dichotomy between the status quo and Judge Dreddesque super towers. I think changing zoning at the edge of the current sense areas could help a lot too. You'd likely need an increased investment in public transit to make that work.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#155

Post by wnevets » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

Has anyone actually stopped to think maybe city councils (and the people who vote them in) don't want you to live there and that's why they constraint the supply?

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#156

Post by goosehonk » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #154

goosehonk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Micro apartments are a straw man. The zoning codes all over California prohibit duplexes and triplexes, including over 85% of the area of the supposedly dense city of San Francisco. We don’t need weird innovative forms. We need the old forms.

I agree. This is a false dichotomy between the status quo and Judge Dreddesque super towers. I think changing zoning at the edge of the current sense areas could help a lot too. You'd likely need an increased investment in public transit to make that work.

We've already spent the money on the transportation and forgot the upzoning that should have accompanied it. For example we poured billions into BART to serve dispersed areas full of detached single-family homes. All areas within half a mile of a BART station should permit 5-story multi-family dwellings without mandatory parking. This was the point of SB50.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#157

Post by sachdevap » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #114

pas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure costs increase as you increase density. They increase much slower than the efficiency gains from having a higher density and the rate of per capita costs decrease from having much more people pay for those costs.

When a city passes ~20,000 people per square mile the per person cost of infrastructure increases as roads stop being efficient. You start needing tunnels for roads and or subway systems. You also need deeper pipes for water etc, it’s not a deal breaker, but it is a real issue. Having existing residents subsidize new residents is a common approach, but understandably unpopular.

Where does this 20,000 number come from?

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#158

Post by mrep » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

fred_is_fred wrote: post #136

mrep wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you. Granted, I do consider it an investment in the sense that every month I pay off part of the principal and thus I can get some money back when I sell it whereas I'd get nothing if I was renting but I don't expect greater than inflation appreciation on the house. However, this could just be because I grew up in Chicago where there is endless farmland that can be developed and thus expecting greater than i…

I assume that people are willing to pay more to have a better commute or live in a better town? I know that I am.

> better commute

Wasn't a big issue for us at least as we have double decker commutator trains. The one that ran through my town has 3 tracks even so the train only has to stop at a few stations and then it hops onto the middle track and drives the rest of the way downtown. Only took 30 minutes to go 20 miles downtown and going out further doesn't add much time as your just adding distance traveled at top speed.

> better town

Not sure what metric you are interested in that regard but if it is school wise, I went to one of the highest rated public schools and you could still find smaller more affordable homes in the school district. While there were plenty of wealthy people, I had some friends whose parents were firefighters and USPS delivery men.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#159

Post by 0x0aff374668 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

nhebb wrote: post #80

arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

> (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. Apparently I'm the lone dissenter on this, but I think for many people this is a side benefit that they may hope for, but the primary objective is simply to own a home that they can live in and raise a family.

Right there with you. I'm guessing we're both over 40. Thinking your home is an investment is some "flip that house" 1990's reality TV show bullshit.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#160

Post by DubiousPusher » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

keithnoizu wrote: post #118

arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

Housing is actually a depreciating asset in Tokyo, with a regular cycle of tearing down and rebuilding units every few decades. But the poor youth don't need to vote, they can just simmer on things long enough until they break out in riots. I mean hey massive social upheaval and unrest nearly got the FAP passed under Nixon. Let the kids burn down a few small suburbs and the government will figure out something.

I often say people underestimate the value they get from paying taxes into welfare programs. The class conflict they prevent is invaluable especially if you're a person who owns property in or near a major city.