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

141–150 of 461 posts

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

#141

Post by api »

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.

Most environmentalists are in favor of increased density. The opposition is more NIMBYs who either don't want their neighborhood to ever change, don't want poor people anywhere near them, or want their house value to go up.

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

#142

Post by roca »

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…

Financial instruments can turn their equity into an annuity which will pay the taxes, or the taxes can be deferred until they die or sell.

The rest of the world manages without Prop 13.

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

#143

Post by 0xB31B1B »

40acres wrote: post #21

It's getting very difficult to see how California works its way out of this mess. SB 50 like measures can be passed at the local level in theory but if I've learned anything from these fights it's that older, wealthy homeowners will cripple any attempt to do so.

They can’t be passed at a local level without CEQA review and a torrent of unending lawsuits. That’s why it needs to happen at a state level.

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

#144

Post by wahern »

deepakhj wrote: post #137
wahern wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Zoning meetings happen in the middle of the day. The only people that can go are old people!

Also rich people and neighborhood associations, who send their lawyers. And some poor and ethnic neighborhoods, who send their community activists.

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

#145

Post by kunai »

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #51
paulgb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments This is smart. I'm stealing this :)

On the counterfactual, it's actually not very smart, and a toxic and myopic view of society. There's an entire spectrum of coordinating collective human behavior that ranges from systems like feudalism to anarcho-syndicalism to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Government's role is infinitely flexible as a result; it can choose to be as expansive or as minimal as possible. In the case of housing, which is an issue where there needs to be mass action to ensure additional housing supply, relying on either the free market or government exclusively is not going to fix the problem. One of the things that a lot of pseudo-intellectual YIMBYs in the Bay and elsewhere don't realize about the housing crisis is that it will require massive mobilization action by both public and private actors to solve. For instance, I rarely hear the YIMBY crowd sing the praises of public housing, a model that has been successful[1] in Singapore, Vienna, and many other cities across the globe.

I find the anti-government sentiments and libertarian beats on this website frequently tiring at best, gravely ill-conceived at worst.

[1]https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-...

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

#146

Post by rednerrus »

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.

> environmentalism is classism in disguise.

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

#147

Post by roca »

triceratops wrote: post #126
roca wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're right. I confused it with something else.

No problem.

To an outsider like me, this seems like one of the worst features of Prop 13. Over time it separates people into two classes: those whose family has owned property for a long time, and everyone else who can't afford to buy a house because the taxes are prohibitive. (Even if you're very rich, it will make more sense to rent than to trigger tax reevaluation.) Call it neo-feudalism.

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

#148

Post by pdonis »

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

In cases where there is a natural monopoly (because economies of scale outweigh the deadweight costs of a larger firm), yes. Historically such cases are rare. Most historical cases of monopoly are due to government interference, not free markets. Indeed, the word "monopoly" originally meant a government-granted exclusive right to sell some particular good or service.

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

#149

Post by pdonis »

gzer0 wrote: post #108
veeralpatel979 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Yes, Standard Oil, whose major "crime" was selling oil more cheaply than all of its competitors.

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

#150

Post by usaar333 »

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.

Well, sure you might get a home from your parents when you are in your late 50s or 60s. Doesn't do much good when you needed that larger home to raise your own family.
Post reply on HN