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

91–100 of 461 posts

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

#91

Post by yonran »

exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76
yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

By “principled,” I mean that the RHNA sends the signal from the state government to the local governments of the state interest (regional quantity of housing to promote housing affordability and availability), while preserving local control over legitimate local concerns, which is what the opposition to SB 50 wanted. It makes sense theoretically; it just doesn’t work in practice due to the lowballed numbers and long time frames.

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

#92

Post by darksaints »

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).

Jurisdiction matters far more than most people realize. If we had state level environmental protection laws, Missouri might be more than happy to let St Louis save money by dumping their trash into the Mississippi River where it becomes Louisiana's problem instead. Thankfully the EPA has their jurisdiction set appropriately.

Housing and Land Use definitely need wider jurisdictions. State level would be nice, but at the very least they need metro regional jurisdiction. When a city like San Jose or San Francisco doesn't build enough housing, the affordability and traffic effects ripple far throughout the region. Right now, land use planners don't have to care about the effects they have on neighboring cities, but with wider jurisdictions they absolutely would have to take those concerns into account.

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

#93

Post by fortran77 »

refurb wrote: post #89
fortran77 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I don't have the feelings of "envy" that you do. The fact is, there's little he can do with his "millions of dollars of equity" unless he moves far away from family, friends, and social network. It's cruel to force people to move. I'm not envious or cruel, so I support Prop 13.

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

#94

Post by harikb »

triceratops wrote: post #77
jotux wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A surprisingly large number of adults live very close to their parents [1]. [1] https://source.wustl.edu/2015/12/most-americans-live-surpris...

Ironically Prop 13 makes it more difficult for kids to afford homes near their parents.

You have it backwards. Prop 13 overall increases house prices, yes. But kids, whose parents own a home, benefit the most from Prop 13.

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

#95

Post by alasdair_ »

exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76
yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.

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

#96

Post by fortran77 »

triceratops wrote: post #84
fortran77 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we should build a lot more housing and make housing affordable by increasing supply.

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

#97

Post by triceratops »

harikb wrote: post #94
triceratops wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically Prop 13 makes it more difficult for kids to afford homes near their parents.

You have it backwards. Prop 13 overall increases house prices, yes. But kids, whose parents own a home, benefit the most from Prop 13.

Until 2018 you could inherit homes from parents or grandparents and keep the original assessed value, but that's no longer the case. So unless the kid is earning enough to pay taxes on a massively appreciated house, they're going to have to sell and/or move away.

EDIT: I was wrong about this.

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

#98

Post by jibe »

alasdair_ wrote: post #95
exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts. Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.

Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density as long as it isn't in their neighborhood.

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

#99

Post by codemac »

exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76
yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

Are Napa, Atherton, and Malibu filled with environmentalists?

I'm so confused by your reaction, are there specific housing policies that are focused on the environment that have had bigger effects than things like prop 13? or cities with 30k jobs in a year but 300 units of housing (looking at you, mountain view)?

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

#100

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

You could allow for partial tax deferral until home ownership is transferred(sale, death, etc). So, retired person keeps paying $100/month while their neighbors are paying $10000/month for the same exact services, but if they accrued $150k in taxes by the time they died, that chunk is taken out of the sale price of the home.
Post reply on HN