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

California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 461 posts

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#11

Post by davidw »

kodablah wrote: post #8

Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

They have been failing to do anything at the local level for years, because it's easier for a small group of angry wealthy homeowners to get their way in local processes.

So they were looking to do something statewide, to put everyone on a level playing field.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#12

Post by kfarr »

kodablah wrote: post #8

Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

> Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level?

County-level decisions on zoning has essentially outlawed most new housing except for single family housing which led to this crisis.

In the US the State has legal authority over land use and can supersede local jurisdictions at any time.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#13

Post by mindslight »

jdc wrote: post #9
mindslight wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, a continual rent treadmill that forces everyone to work full time is the explicit overt policy of the Federal Reserve. But any candidate that brings this up gets memory-holed by the mainstream propagandas.

Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

> The objectives as mandated by the Congress in the Federal Reserve Act are promoting (1) maximum employment, which means all Americans that want to work are gainfully employed, and (2) stable prices for the goods and services we all purchase

The qualifier "want" is a distraction, as everyone "wants" to work if that's what it takes to have a reliable bed to sleep in.

Furthermore, "stable" prices are untenable in the face of technological progress that makes everything less expensive. In order for the CPI average to keep going up, the price of housing has to shoot through the roof.

edit: Try drawing out the basic feedback loop. The Fed acts by creating new money. It doesn't simply give this money away to everyone (which would cause across the board price inflation), but it can only be accessed by taking on loans. Anything that can be financialized becomes awash in this new money - housing, cars, education. Consumers then have to settle for paying interest payments (rent) on sky-high asset valuations, rather than having smaller loans that can be paid off early to achieve economic bargaining power.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#15

Post by oneplane »

jdc wrote: post #9
mindslight wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, a continual rent treadmill that forces everyone to work full time is the explicit overt policy of the Federal Reserve. But any candidate that brings this up gets memory-holed by the mainstream propagandas.

Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?

I suspect American English, but I suppose we could look it up.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#16

Post by marcell »

baron816 wrote: post #2

Jerry Hill is the Senator for most of the SF Peninsula. He voted against the bill. https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/

He is termed out. The author of SB50 has endorsed Shelly Masur for the open seat. She is, I believe, the only candidate for the seat in support of SB50.

Endorsement: https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endors...

Her campaign page: https://www.shellymasur.com/

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#17

Post by pochamago »

The gentrification boogeyman comes off to me as privilege masquerading as the voice of the oppressed. It's regularly used to bludgeon the poor into homelessness, while the areas that are rife with actual gentrification seem to have far more diverse and affordable neighborhoods.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#19

Post by KoftaBob »

mindslight wrote: post #13
jdc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm > The objectives as mandated by the Congress in the Federal Reserve Act are promoting (1) maximum employment, which means all Americans that want to work are gainfully employed, and (2) stable prices for the goods and services we all purchase The qualifier "want" is a distraction, as everyone "wants" to work if that's what it takes to have a reliable bed to sleep in…

This conclusion you're coming to is quite the massive reach based on the logic you used to analyze that sentence.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#20

Post by thedance »

kodablah wrote: post #8

Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

Every smaller entity in the state has abjectly failed to create conditions under which housing can be built. That's why the state needs to set some minimal rules.

I personally think mandatory over-the-counter zoning approval for fourplexes statewide is clearly desirable. People who want to sell their rat-infested shacks[1] for $4 million dollars, in the same year that the shack had an assessed value of $65k, obviously prefer if local zoning regimes continue to protect them from competition.

1: https://socketsite.com/archives/2020/01/dilapidated-postcard...

Post reply on HN