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

311–320 of 326 posts

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

#311

Post by mrep »

danans wrote: post #268
earlINmeyerkeg wrote: post #145

The reason midwestern cities hardly have housing bubbles like the coastal areas do is because old housing is cheap and competes with renting. Landlords can't afford to not be lenient. Although the only change I wish to see is that tenants could more easily enforce their rights and Landlords had to follow the law. Most midwestern state governments are very laissez faire about the whole thing which is incredibly annoyi…

> The reason midwestern cities hardly have housing bubbles like the coastal areas do is because old housing is cheap and competes with renting. Sure, but isn't the reason that housing is cheaper because those cities don't have anywhere near the level of demand that coastal cities have.

Chicago has the 3rd largest metro population in the entire US [0]. Granted, I wouldn't argue that old housing is what keeps housing relatively cheap there but instead that there is endless farmland to build new housing and thus the price will pretty much always equal the marginal cost of building a new house as anyone trying to charge more can just buy some cheap farmland and build a house themselves.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...

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

#312

Post by lukifer »

asdff wrote: post #298
lukifer wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the case you describe, that's mostly correct; however, you would end up paying on a $2mil valuation if you built a $1mil home on the property. Under a Land Value Tax, you'd only pay taxes on the property ("ground rent"), regardless of what's built on top of it. This incentivizes productive use, rather than idle speculation. (In urban settings, where the location value of property is at a premium, the most profitable use is often a parking lot rather than residences or businesses: not because it's the greatest return, but because the improvement cost and therefore the tax increase are near-zero.)

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

#313

Post by pcwalton »

rayiner wrote: post #286
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…

> 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 The “race to the bottom” is called the market price and quality. One of the big progressive mistakes was instituting all sorts of bans on cheap, low quality housing. Bans on week-by-week r…

This wasn't a progressive mistake. In California it's been consistently shown in opinion polls that Republicans (wealthy suburban Republican homeowners) are more strongly in favor of exclusionary zoning than Democrats are. It's just that the problem is most acute in big cities, which trend Democratic.

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

#314

Post by xyzzyz »

pcwalton wrote: post #313
rayiner wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The “race to the bottom” is called the market price and quality. One of the big progressive mistakes was instituting all sorts of bans on cheap, low quality housing. Bans on week-by-week r…

This wasn't a progressive mistake. In California it's been consistently shown in opinion polls that Republicans (wealthy suburban Republican homeowners) are more strongly in favor of exclusionary zoning than Democrats are. It's just that the problem is most acute in big cities, which trend Democratic.

Right. The Republicans, who are in control of both California's state legislature and city governments, are blocking Democrats from passing any policies. The Democrats push hard to pass laws for more inclusive zoning, but since California is such a red stronghold, there's absolutely nothing they can do.

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

#315

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

raven105x wrote: post #228
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving isn't free. Most people you would assume to be not poor couldn't afford a move. Neither could they finance a move because of how leveraged they already are.

If you are an adult, and you have a car, you can move. If you have so many items that you can't "afford" to move, you sell some of those items and suddenly you not only have money for relocation, but less things to move as well. There will never be a country, society or civilization where the entire population can afford to live in the most expensive areas - and that's okay.

You're making it sound like it's easy to hock a bunch of stuff. Ever try to sell a bed? If you can't take it with you and can't sell it then you're paying disposal and transportation fees only to buy the same junk again. It kind of seems like you're arguing from a place of privilege not experienced with the consequences of moving a family without help, without savings, without adequate work.

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

#316

Post by keithnoizu »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #254
keithnoizu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What was the FAP? I've never heard of that legislation, and it's obviously ungoogleable.

basic income with extra steps and an unfortunate name (Family Assistance Plan)

https://www.amazon.com/Failed-Welfare-Revolution-Americas-Gu...

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

#317

Post by keithnoizu »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #160
keithnoizu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed

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

#318

Post by rayiner »

pcwalton wrote: post #313
rayiner wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The “race to the bottom” is called the market price and quality. One of the big progressive mistakes was instituting all sorts of bans on cheap, low quality housing. Bans on week-by-week r…

This wasn't a progressive mistake. In California it's been consistently shown in opinion polls that Republicans (wealthy suburban Republican homeowners) are more strongly in favor of exclusionary zoning than Democrats are. It's just that the problem is most acute in big cities, which trend Democratic.

I’m not talking about zoning. I’m talking about regulations on housing quality. Tenement style housing wasn’t pleasant, but it was better than having no housing or only having housing far away from jobs.

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

#319

Post by therealx »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #315
raven105x wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are an adult, and you have a car, you can move. If you have so many items that you can't "afford" to move, you sell some of those items and suddenly you not only have money for relocation, but less things to move as well. There will never be a country, society or civilization where the entire population can afford to live in the most expensive areas - and that's okay.

You're making it sound like it's easy to hock a bunch of stuff. Ever try to sell a bed? If you can't take it with you and can't sell it then you're paying disposal and transportation fees only to buy the same junk again. It kind of seems like you're arguing from a place of privilege not experienced with the consequences of moving a family without help, without savings, without adequate work.

In Oakland? You just pull the bed to the side of the road and it's gone within a day, tops. Same with most metro areas.

Also a lot of non-trash-strict places will take a mattress in the trash pickup if you just put it near the trash can and make it known it's trash. Also, for the same reason it's hard to sell a mattress, it's easy to buy one used in a new city. If you can afford to heat treat it, you can be sure theres no bed bugs, or if you have a job, buy a $200-$300 mattress from amazon - theyre surprisingly good these days.

I moved 10 times in the first 3 years I was on my own, and have done huge moves up/down since (up to a three bedroom, then decided I hated owning so much and downsized to a studio.) - no family, no savings, just a lot of manual labor/smart packing.

I think ops comment stands, unless you are used to some crazy nice cost of living (which is a different privilege).

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

#320

Post by jpindar »

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,…

They still exist in many parts of the US, and many of them don't have the kinds of restrictions you mention.
Post reply on HN