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

#111

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

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…

>It’s unfortunate that the state senate doesn’t seem to want to treat the housing shortage with the urgency that it deserves.

The state senators are probably making quite a bit of money off this housing shortage that they wouldn't make with an adequate housing supply on the market.

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

#112

Post by thedance » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

khuey wrote: post #101

thedance wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know that we should let cities like Redwood City off the hook. Between 2000 and 2013 their housing stock expanded by only 2%, whereas the historical pace is 1% per year, or 15% over 14 years. Their history of inaction should not be ignored.

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

#113

Post by avocado4 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

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.

Election turnout in SF is abysmally low. Those who do turn out are mostly homeowners who really want to keep the prices growing.

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

#114

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:23 AM 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…

>Or are most people so rooted to where they grew up that they don’t want to leave?

I mean, historically speaking, yeah.

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

#115

Post by yonran » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:23 AM UTC

justinzollars wrote: post #86

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.

Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.

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

#116

Post by jxramos » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:23 AM UTC

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.

I think he may be getting at urban sprawl being fought against in the bay area. Something along these lines perhaps, but I'm not sure.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/06/in-fight-against-urba...

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

#117

Post by harikb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:23 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #97

harikb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I still don't get the point though.. unless of course you are arguing that a non-Prop-13 world would have reduced tax for everyone under 1%. That isn't going to happen. we have never reduced taxes in Californa :)

Now let us look at it from the other side

1. The family, probably unfairly, benefited from not having to pay the full tax for so long.

2. In scenario that you mentioned the kid just inherited a $1m+ house. What part of it makes him poor that he can't pay the new property taxes? Sure, they might choose to cash out and go live somewhere else because it makes financial sense for him, but that is not `an unfortunate` situation at any stretch.

3. I know there are significant cost-basis advantage here, in additional to all the wealth just inherited, but I don't know enough about it yet.

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

#118

Post by majormajor » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #97

harikb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CA property taxes are cheap enough that your taxes on that new big value you just inherited are still gonna be way lower than you'd pay rent for something else nearby... and often be pretty good even compared to some other big cities not in CA.

Or you have multiple kids and you sell the place and split the cash... nice windfall, taxes or no.

Meanwhile, the people whose parents DIDN'T leave them one of those houses are still way worse off...

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

#119

Post by roca » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #97

harikb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source for that no longer being the case? My SF housing activist friend says that this has not changed.

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

#120

Post by potatoz2 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #102

jibe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.