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

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

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 326 posts

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

#271

Post by wglb »

dominotw wrote: post #32
marcinzm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Density means a larger selection of jobs, increased variety in entertainment (ie: more likely to find something you personally love), increased selection of medical professionals, increased variety in food, ability to avoid driving commutes, kids who can self-manage without being driven everywhere, etc. To some people that's worth more cramped li…

> You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Sure but curious why that comment is downvoted and yours is not? Disagreeement != downvote.

In addition to what umanwizard posted, there is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

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

#272

Post by jelliclesfarm »

throwaway34241 wrote: post #256
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #249

I think there has been a very successful diversion of derision towards ‘Americans who own homes’ and ignoring the vast majority of foreigners who own properties(both rent seeking and farmland) in the Bay Area as speculative/investment properties that they have purchased sight unseen. Deriding pensioners on fixed income whose taxes actually built the infrastructure and schools and roads of the Bay Area is shameful..Wh…

What is the cause/effect here? You seem to be laying the blame at foreigners, wall street, etc for causing the housing shortage, but the cause/effect of voters/local governments prohibiting building housing -> housing shortage is pretty straightforward, I don't see why pointing it out should be "shameful". I don't think homeowners are a unified block on this issue, but specifically the local organizations that put a…

Is it a housing shortage or an excess of population in urban centers?

What are you going to do living like sardines in a can where high density housing has been approved if there is a high cost to scarce water/power/infrastructure and support services.

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

#273

Post by jelliclesfarm »

joe_the_user wrote: post #255
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #242

How can we think of housing without considering resource constraints. It’s not just space to build vertically that determines how many homes can be built..it’s traffic, infrastructure, roads, water, power, schools, essential services, public services, public spaces, community amenities..the list goes on. Urban density cannot keep on increasing. You cannot ‘keep on adding homes’. We are already having very high costs…

How can we think of housing without considering resource constraints. It’s not just space to build vertically that determines how many homes can be built..it’s traffic, infrastructure, roads, water, power, schools, essential services, public services, public spaces, community amenities..the list goes on. High density living is potentially more efficient than low density living (look European or some Asian cities, etc…

You can also think China and eastern bloc. What people want is not high density housing but high density luxury living. Every home is no less than 1200 sq ft and two cars and 2 kids if it’s a family..and a million dollar. This is not sustainable high density. It’s a scam.

You can’t compare Asian and European (i have lived in both places)high density building to what is touted in the Bay Area.

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

#274

Post by ThrustVectoring »

giggles_giggles wrote: post #270
nybble41 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. A land value tax is not actually a tax on the land but rather a tax on improvements people have made in the area around the land. Literally unimproved land has no value to tax.

Then I feel like I really must be dense. Doesn't this mean that there's still an incentive to hoard land while nearby land is improved, so that you can sell at a profit? And if that's the case, for the purpose of dissuading land hoarding and encouraging building housing how is a land value tax functionally different from a property tax? In both cases if you have an empty lot in an area that gets built up, you make a…

It depends on the tax rates of the land-value tax. If it's equal to 100% of the excess rents, then that removes the drive to speculate on land. Any appreciation in natural rents has a one-to-one increase in your tax bill.

Granted, any LVT won't approach the 100%-of-rents rate, so it's a proportional thing.

>for the purpose of encouraging building housing how is a land value tax functionally different from a property tax?

A land-value tax is indifferent towards a single-family home and a thirty-story apartment building on identical plots of land. Property taxes aren't, they add an additional penalty on the highly-developed land.

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

#275

Post by ThrustVectoring »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #71
arcticbull wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they spent that $4.5B on lobbying for upzoining and densification the problem would likely sort itself out. Probably for a fraction of the cost.

If we divided that 4.5B by the number of tech workers, where would we be at? If there are 100,000 tech workers in the Bay Area, that'd be around $45,000 per person of lobbying for affordable housing. If those tech workers saved $500 per month, they would earn back what their companies spent on them in 90 months, or 7.5 years. Assumption, I don't know how many tech workers there truly are.

The number I heard was that tech was somewhat less than 10% of the employment of the Bay Area. This includes non-programmers and non-engineers working in tech companies, too, and is a broadly constructed number.

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

#276

Post by pitaj »

jayd16 wrote: post #153
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.

Removing parking requirements = fewer requirements = less regulation = deregulation.

Deregulation does not equal zero regulation.

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

#277

Post by theluketaylor »

goosehonk wrote: post #156
DubiousPusher wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My city (Waterloo region Ontario) pretty much did exactly what you described. Approval to build light rail was tightly tied to automatic upzoning within a given radius of stations. The light rail itself took years to build and has been open less than 6 months, but the zoning fixes are already apparent. Density around many of the stations has shot up and the skyline would be almost unrecognizable to someone who lived here even 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, like the bay area we are very popular for tech and the all the new dense buildings going up hasn't been able to outpace demand from newcomers. Prices have been skyrocketing and it's really starting to squeeze the most vulnerable. Even more zoning restrictions need to be slashed and timelines for building permits approvals need to tumble.

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

#278

Post by BurningFrog »

maxsilver wrote: post #260
BurningFrog wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building new luxury housing raises the price for all preexisting nearby housing If this was true, you could create infinite wealth by just building more and more "luxury" housing. You will not find any economist agreeing with this "folk wisdom".

> If this was true, you could create infinite wealth by just building more and more "luxury" housing. I mean, it works until the bubble bursts. But the last time that happened, the federal government bailed out everyone participating in it -- they carefully re-assembled the bubble, like nothing had ever happened. So, uh, until federal policy changes, this sort of does just create infinite wealth (on paper, at least).

Then the government should just do that and replace a lot of taxes with this income source!

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

#279

Post by satyrnein »

giggles_giggles wrote: post #270
nybble41 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. A land value tax is not actually a tax on the land but rather a tax on improvements people have made in the area around the land. Literally unimproved land has no value to tax.

Then I feel like I really must be dense. Doesn't this mean that there's still an incentive to hoard land while nearby land is improved, so that you can sell at a profit? And if that's the case, for the purpose of dissuading land hoarding and encouraging building housing how is a land value tax functionally different from a property tax? In both cases if you have an empty lot in an area that gets built up, you make a…

Let's say your neighbors build great restaurants, bowling alleys, and office parks, making your location more desirable and increasing the market value. As a result of a (high) Land Value Tax, your tax bill just went up significantly, but your earnings have not. So you are incentivized to put your property to productive use.

Of course, you could alternately just sell your now-valuable land. However, the higher the ongoing tax bill (due to the LVT) the less people will want to pay for your land. The LVT captures some or much of the value currently accruing to landlords (depending on how high it is).

High property taxes can serve a similar function. Taxing the unimproved value of the land removes a disincentive to improve the land, though. If you knock down your house and build a much better one on the same land, your property taxes would go up while LVT would not.

LVT vs property tax is not the main point, though, in my opinion. The real issue is moving from heavy reliance on income tax to heavy reliance on property tax or LVT.

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

#280

Post by satyrnein »

nybble41 wrote: post #265
giggles_giggles wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of a land value tax more than a property tax, but I feel like I'm missing something. If I sit on an empty lot while the city builds up around me, doesn't the unimproved value of my land still go up?

Yes, exactly. A land value tax is not actually a tax on the land but rather a tax on improvements people have made in the area around the land. Literally unimproved land has no value to tax.

It's a tax on the (arguably undeserved) gains in the market value of your land that come from other people's efforts as opposed to your own.
Post reply on HN