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

291–300 of 326 posts

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

#291

Post by gbronner »

fortran77 wrote: post #132
hanniabu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom? If it had those it'd be called a studio apartment. A pod is essentially anything from a dorm room styled apartment to a half-height room big enough to have a bed to sleep in and a shelf for a few items (like the Japanese have). In any of those cases you'd have communal kitchens and bathrooms. This would actually also be good s…

Years ago, they had what were called "SRO" (Single-Room Occupancy) apartments. These often had shared baths or showers on each floor. These all went away by the late 60s in New York. They wouldn't be legal now. For one thing, buildings, or floors, were restricted to either men or women. And they didn't allow children, or more than one person/room. But they allowed people just getting started--working clearing tables,…

I lived in two of these in Madison, WI. I'm not sure if was legal, but my landlord rented each bedroom in half a house individually. Four men, one bathroom, beer cans in the shower (Why?), but the bedrooms all locked individually and we weren't mutually responsible for each others' rent.

Second one was a former HoJo parked while awaiting condo conversion. Imagine a hotel room stripped of all furniture, with a single kitchen per floor. Had to wash my dishes in the bathtub, but otherwise it worked for me.

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

#292

Post by joe_the_user »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #273
joe_the_user wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's little evidence that "people" all want 1200 sq ft houses in the US. They are a zoning standard but a lot of zoning is a scam to push low density, extensive development.

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

#293

Post by rch »

sagarm wrote: post #216
rch wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that some of the groups you mention are motivated by a general opposition to rent seeking developers, and would be perfectly amenable to a 6 unit resident-owned coop in the same location.

Are those residents going to build that 6-unit themselves?

Yes actually.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

helen___keller wrote: post #233
ummonk wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(because on the contrary, if you could buy bonds yielding 5% why would you hold rental properties that yield less before maintenance?) Because you're able to get a mortgage for lower interest than that?

Not if federal bonds are yielding 5% you're not

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by ummonk »

helen___keller wrote: post #233
ummonk wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(because on the contrary, if you could buy bonds yielding 5% why would you hold rental properties that yield less before maintenance?) Because you're able to get a mortgage for lower interest than that?

Not if federal bonds are yielding 5% you're not

Sorry, I see what you mean. Yes, price to rent ratios tend to be inversely proportional to bond yields.

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

#296

Post by nybble41 »

satyrnein wrote: post #280
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.

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.

LVT makes no distinction between value resulting from your own efforts outside the property itself and value resulting from others' efforts. In any case, recognizing the potential in a piece of land and investing resources to secure it and hold it in reserve until that potential can best be realized (i.e. "speculation") is also effort worthy of reward.

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

#297

Post by exabrial »

ajkjk wrote: post #196
arcticbull wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, let's get the government out, of deciding how tall houses can be. Removing the requirement for a high-amperage outlet (a tiny incremental cost during building) is like an umbrella in a hurricane. Nice to have, but totally doesn't solve the real problem.

I think that was an example, not the entire point.

Lost on both of them. You should look up other useless stuff, like how many outlets are required in kitchens.

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

#298

Post by asdff »

lukifer wrote: post #225
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…

> It's time to re-think the idea of housing as an "investment." Shameless policy plug: part of the reason that property tends to be a good investment is that a significant portion of its value derives not from improvements, but from "location, location, location": proximity to businesses and community services. Some economists (Henry George, Milton Friedman) have advocated shifting property tax to be based on the uni…

Isn't that how it goes? If I buy a house today for 1m dollars in CA, I pay taxes on 1m of property, regardless of the fact that the house sitting on that dirt is a bungalow probably only worth 50k itself. I thought most of a properties taxed value was from the land already.

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

#299

Post by asdff »

helen___keller wrote: post #83
nhebb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

I don't know your age, but from my experience this is a generational thing. During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. In the modern era, if you don't own a home already you probably couldn't care less about the investment quality of a home. You just want a home to live in and call yours without an 80 minute commute.

In many places of the U.S. house prices don't really jump up that much to call it anything more than a temporary holding vessel for money, much less an investment. The suburbs of Cleveland are an example, where you can still buy houses for 50k within 20mins of downtown. Demand has been low so prices have been constant.

In California, demand is high, and prices have been inflated by constraining supply due to a lack of upzoning. It also doesn't help that CA has proposition 13, which locks you into your purchase price tax rate in perpetuity. You should see wilshire country club's property tax bill, it's like a couple buttons and pocket lint.

But it also decreases turnover. Say its 1970, you buy a house in LA for 50k, have your kids, they move out, you are old and want a smaller place, it's 2019, and your house is worth 1m but your taxed as if it was worth 50k. You can cash out, but if you want to continue to live in LA in another 1m property, you pay taxes on that 1m.

It's like rent control for homeowners only you can also give your house and that sweet sweet 1970 tax burden to your kids, perpetuating the landed aristocracy at the cost of the working class.

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

#300

Post by asdff »

0x0aff374668 wrote: post #159
nhebb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

There is no home in LA county that didn't see price rise in an arbitrary 10 year period. Flip that house is a real thing in the rat race real estate markets in the U.S.
Post reply on HN