California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:54 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #11

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.

You’d be surprised at the diverse makeup of “do nothing” advocacy groups. Some don’t want the makeup of the neighborhood to change. Some don’t want a building style to be different. Some want their particular disenfranchised group to be represented before any permits are granted. There are many people up and down the spectrum who make up different shades of the NIMBY groups.

For example, look at the reaction to Uber building a new HQ in Oakland, which they ultimately abandoned[1]

> Residents were not as thrilled. After watching the rapid gentrification and rising real estate costs in neighboring San Francisco, many feared Uber would accelerate similar trends in Oakland. The area was already struggling to hold onto its own history as a diverse, working-class area known for activism while absorbing a wave of wealthy new residents.

[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/25/technology/business/uber-oa...

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

#42

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:54 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #30

generalpass wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things. This seems to always be stated as if stating it makes it true. Prop 13 has little to do with high housing prices and a lot to do with getting more revenue for governments. Prices are influenced by supply and demand. The artificial limiting of supply by all of the governments in California is the biggest factor in why the price…

Prop 13 has a TON to do with high housing prices, because it eliminates the downside of high housing prices: higher property taxes. Once higher property taxes are out of the picture, higher property values are purely beneficial for homeowners, which means there's every incentive to vote for anti-housing policies to enrich themselves at the expense of transplants and immigrants.

I wouldn't say it eliminates it. When you buy a property, you still pay taxes on whatever your purchase price is. Prop 13 just mediates the rate of increase, which is beneficial, but not immediately.

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

#43

Post by generalpass » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #30

generalpass wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things. This seems to always be stated as if stating it makes it true. Prop 13 has little to do with high housing prices and a lot to do with getting more revenue for governments. Prices are influenced by supply and demand. The artificial limiting of supply by all of the governments in California is the biggest factor in why the price…

Prop 13 has a TON to do with high housing prices, because it eliminates the downside of high housing prices: higher property taxes. Once higher property taxes are out of the picture, higher property values are purely beneficial for homeowners, which means there's every incentive to vote for anti-housing policies to enrich themselves at the expense of transplants and immigrants.

> Prop 13 has a TON to do with high housing prices, because it eliminates the downside of high housing prices: higher property taxes.

> Once higher property taxes are out of the picture, higher property values are purely beneficial for homeowners, which means there's every incentive to vote for anti-housing policies to enrich themselves at the expense of transplants and immigrants.

I will agree that it will impact the absolute price of the housing.

When we talk about "housing prices", what we are really talking about is "monthly payments". Increasing the tax rate will just result in an exchange of dollars previously going to mortgages to dollars going to taxes. The monthly payment will remain the same, largely unaffordable, rate.

So, I disagree that it makes housing more affordable, because it has done nothing to change the supply or demand.

If you have some sort of refutation for the claim that supply and demand affect price, you should publish and collect your Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

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

#44

Post by 40acres » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

Network effects I suppose. When this economy was based on land and natural resources it made sense to move (and subdue the native population) to open land and gain an advantage, with a service based economy it makes greater sense to cluster at population centers and leverage that. The rise of remote work will probably alleviate this a bit but education, health care, entertainment, hospitality (aka. the fastest growing sub sectors of our service economy) are more valuable when delivered in person. Not to mention fighting climate change (not to say that we're doing a particularly good job) encourages density.

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

#45

Post by diego » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

What makes you think that people aren’t moving? Population isn’t decreasing if that’s what you mean, but the Bay Area is a revolving door. I own a condo in San Francisco, and I’ve had five different tenants in eight years.

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

#46

Post by Kalium » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

pochamago wrote: post #17

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.

It's a little of both. There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that exist now. In practice that can mean anything from blocking everything to using approvals to extract design and donations to charities.

There are also, as you say, those who are quite privileged and wish to preserve that. To them, gentrification is a great way to scare other people into averting change.

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

#47

Post by seasoup » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

People don't move to a place because that place has cheap housing, otherwise people would be piling into the countryside. People move places with better economic opportunities for them and their families, generally that means jobs but it also means low crime, good schools, entertainment options and more.

As for companies moving, there is good and bad about your hq being located close to other hqs and good and bad locating away, but there is generally far more good in locating together. Shared talent, shared training...

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

#48

Post by slavapestov » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

Expensive housing is a feature and not a bug for the tech industry. They prefer to hire young, single workers because they will work longer hours in worse conditions, and if they can keep them rent- and commute-burdened they are less likely to switch jobs, start a family, take up a hobby, etc.

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

#49

Post by trashaccount975 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

Long term there is no fix unless immigration is halted which is not going to happen. There is a virtually unlimited supply of people who want to come to this country. I live here in LA, the homeless problem has been accelerating dramatically over the last few years in spite of a "booming" economy. It bothers be that my opinion gets labeled all sorts of inaccurate names and it bothers me even more when people on the left talk about care and concern for the environment when allowing a developed population to find a balance with nature, happened naturally in the West and far East, would be one of the best things possible for the planet but a global lust for infinite economic growth clearly has won. There is an insane about of propaganda and race baiting which goes into making sure this idea is never openly talked about. Is there someone who can explain to me how I'm wrong about my long term view of Southern California?

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

#50

Post by generalpass » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:07 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #37

lern_too_spel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason California has the highest sales and income taxes is that it has the lowest property tax. People who have held property for a very long time are taxed very little relative to how they would be taxed in other states, and people who are new are taxed a lot.

California does NOT have the lowest property tax. It is very distasteful for you to try to win an argument by lying. http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state And if you rank the states by percentage revenue from property tax, you'll see they are right in the middle https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

> California does NOT have the lowest property tax. It is very distasteful for you to try to win an argument by lying. (moderators @dang)

> http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

> And if you rank the states by percentage revenue from property tax, you'll see they are right in the middle

> https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative....

Since the California median home price is more than double the national average for median home prices, your two claims seem clearly to not tell the whole story.

What prop 13 does is keep tax rates from increasing beyond a very small percentage of the original purchase price. Thus, property values increase by a lot while taxes collected do not.

So the first sentence is sort of true. Anecdotal, but a guy on my street purchased his property with no house on it in the 70s and pays like $100 per year even though it is easily worth over a million, which will heavily skew the stats. The second sentence is completely true:

> People who have held property for a very long time are taxed very little relative to how they would be taxed in other states, and people who are new are taxed a lot.