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

81–90 of 461 posts

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

#81

Post by fortran77 »

triceratops wrote: post #72
generalpass wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planne…

Or they could sell to a condo developer, get a brand new unit, with lesser maintenance needed, in the same location. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between "sell and move away" and "stay and keep prop 13". With Prop 13 and zoning restrictions, "sell to an upzoner" is essentially off the table. Also an old couple who have been renting since the 70s could be evicted until state-wide rent control was passed this…

I'm all for SB50. Get rid of zoning restrictions. Don't conflate Prop 13 and SB50.

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

#82

Post by Gimpei »

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

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

#83

Post by monadic2 »

matchbok wrote: post #6

What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now.

SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.

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

#84

Post by triceratops »

fortran77 wrote: post #81
triceratops wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could sell to a condo developer, get a brand new unit, with lesser maintenance needed, in the same location. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between "sell and move away" and "stay and keep prop 13". With Prop 13 and zoning restrictions, "sell to an upzoner" is essentially off the table. Also an old couple who have been renting since the 70s could be evicted until state-wide rent control was passed this…

I'm all for SB50. Get rid of zoning restrictions. Don't conflate Prop 13 and SB50.

Just curious, are you in favor of statewide rent control too?

> Don't conflate Prop 13 and SB50.

The existence of Prop 13 has created a large class of voters opposed to rationalizing zoning laws - such as by SB50. It benefits these people to restrict housing supply, and Prop 13 ensures they don't pay the cost. Prop 13 is one of the root causes of all of California's housing supply issues.

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

#85

Post by amunicio »

generalpass wrote: post #57
amunicio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas…

Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planne…

I never say it is fair to evict them. What is unfair is to have a two tier tax system: one for nubs and one for the established.

The noob faces a double whammy, he needs to put a lot of money for the house and he has to pay a higher tax rate (and he has to live there because his livelihood depends on it). The established has an incredible investment in his home with a big market value giving him many options.

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

#86

Post by justinzollars »

Gimpei wrote: post #82

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.

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

#87

Post by veeralpatel979 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #65
pdonis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> governments are the least-worst solution No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments.

> No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments. How do you figure? A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. Government is the body responsible for balancing and managing those negative factors against the d…

> A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly.

I'd have to disagree. Not many markets have monopolies - where you only have one firm in the market. Tech is an exception.

In fact, I'd say that many government policies, while necessary, are a major contributor to monopolies, by imposing high costs to enter markets.

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

#88

Post by wahern »

btilly wrote: post #25
fortran77 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it won't. It would displace even more people. The only way to get lower-cost housing is to build more housing. It's that simple.

Yes, it will. One of the problems with housing is that local governments get less revenue from housing than business. That gives them every incentive to approve commercial construction and deny residential. Take away the financial perverse incentive., and there is a lot of money to be made by approving badly needed dense residential housing near existing commercial buildings.

Prop 13 also applies to commercial real estate. The difference is that commercial properties require fewer public services, so costs are less. But the real difference is that there's usually much less NIMBY opposition to changes in commercial zoning than residential. Talk is cheap. What matters is who shows up to zoning board meetings. People tend to only show up when it effects their neighborhood, not so much when it effects the business district a mile down the road. Likewise for voting preferences.

Rescinding Prop 13 is unlikely to change anything because assessed values will be even more if developers can build bigger, multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood. So, yes, taxes would go up, but the local pressure to restrict zoning won't change as the incentives still line up the same way relatively.

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

#89

Post by refurb »

fortran77 wrote: post #53
amunicio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas…

So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil. I fully supported SB50. Build. More. Housing.

Yeah, I feel really sorry for the retired person sitting on millions of dollars of equity. Real sob story.

Why not just give the option to defer increases in property taxes?

It makes zero sense to give tax breaks to people who won the housing lottery.

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

#90

Post by sigstoat »

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…

> It’s been a long time since a "new" city was created

huh?

the I-25 corridor north of Denver is sprinkled with towns and such that were nothing but an intersection and a gas station 20 (15?) years ago. right now they're bedroom community type things, but they've got some big box stores. they'll keep growing.

are they big cities right now? no. (was your claim very specific? nope.)

Post reply on HN