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

101–110 of 461 posts

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

#101

Post by khuey »

thedance wrote: post #20
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, obviousl…

This is not entirely true. There are a handful of decent actors (Emeryville and Redwood City come to mind in the Bay Area) but they're absolutely swamped by bad actors like San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc which have massive undersupply of housing relative to the number of jobs they have.

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

#102

Post by p1necone »

jibe wrote: post #98
alasdair_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I don't think that's unique to environmentalists, turns out a big subset of everyone is selfish like that.

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

#104

Post by mnemonicsloth »

djannzjkzxn wrote: post #68
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…

Relocating HQ means laying off all your employees. This is not a figure of speech or analogy, it’s literally true. You are laying off all of your employees in the current location when you move the jobs away. The question is whether those employees are going to choose to uproot themselves to go work for you at the new HQ, or stay behind and find another job. Most will stay put instead of moving away. People generally…

Because of my father's job, my family moved 9 times before I was 12. It wasn't as big a deal as you're describing.

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

#105

Post by bonestamp2 »

paulgb wrote: post #36
veeralpatel979 wrote: post #28

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artific…

> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is p…

Zoning isn't always the cause of this problem either. Zoning may very well be logical in that it properly restricts housing development when the town/city resources can't accommodate more residents -- sometimes there is a finite amount of freshwater, power and other resources available to an area... especially in California where mountainous terrain separates significant concentrations of people within and near some major cities.

That's not to say those resources can't be scaled up, but those changes require time and money where forcing new zoning may create new problems quickly while trying to solve an old one.

Zoning laws might be the right method in some cases, but I'd also like to see laws, tax incentives, etc for solutions that solve multiple problems.

For example, some of my coworkers work remotely 100% of the time. Many more would do the same if they were allowed. One of my coworkers moved to a farm far from his city apartment when he was able to work remotely. Not only does that help with the housing situation, it reduces emissions, reduces traffic, etc. An incentive for moving employees to remote work could dramatically reduce, maybe even reverse urban inflow.

It could also be very helpful to the economy as it would distribute more high earning individuals over a larger area, instead of most living in and around major cities. For example, I know a couple people who moved back to the midwest when they were allowed to work remotely. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution either, but it is one of many options that should be considered.

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

#106

Post by andymcsherry »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #3

Here's the voting breakdown: https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526

Yea: 18, Nay: 15: Not Voting: 6

The measure fails despite more Yea than Nay votes. The California State Senate has 40 seats and always require 21 votes to pass. Vacancies (currently 1), absences and abstentions don't appear to affect the denominator of the 51% threshold. As a result, Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote.

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

#107

Post by triceratops »

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.

It's also pure evil that a retired person can't sell his 3 bedroom house to a quad- or 5-plex developer, not move (except temporarily while it's being rebuilt), and get a nice chunk of cash, because his other neighbors don't want the "neighborhood character" to change.

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

#108

Post by gzer0 »

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #87
arrosenberg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

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

#109

Post by avocado4 »

codemac wrote: post #99
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.

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)?

Atherton looks so funny from a satellite: https://imgur.com/a/kKpymj9

You can see the NIMBY lines so clearly.

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

#110

Post by triceratops »

fortran77 wrote: post #96
triceratops wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you convince the opponents of SB50 to come around?
Post reply on HN