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

221–230 of 461 posts

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

#221

Post by generalpass »

ummonk wrote: post #67
technofiend wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When you buy a property, you still pay taxes on whatever your purchase price is. And again every year after that, including whatever increase your taxing authority may legally apply, usually the maximum allowed by law unless you actively fight it. Texas has no state income tax and property taxes are (so they tell me) quite high as a result. My property tax is $7k+ each year. Not onerous because I have a full time jo…

It isn’t any coincidence that Texas is one of the few places in the US that has experienced large population growth without a corresponding affordability crisis.

Make it as hard to build a new residential unit in Texas as it is in California and that trend falls through the floor.

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

#222

Post by Pfhreak »

manfredo wrote: post #179
monadic2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.

Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.

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

#223

Post by refurb »

kunai wrote: post #145
veeralpatel979 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 possibl…

to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe.

Right. A system that includes both government and free markets, just like the OP said.

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

#224

Post by Areading314 »

cf wrote: post #213

Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is building more housing. I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing seriously. The…

The reasonable path forward is to write off SF as a good place to live or do business. Tech badly needs a new economic zone, one where it is actually welcome.

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

#225

Post by arrosenberg »

pdonis wrote: post #148
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 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.

I'm not completely sure about the etymology of the word, but I do know that in the US, most monopolies were not government granted. They were achieved through aggressive M&A, market manipulation, and other abusive practices (much of which should be seen as a negative externality on the affected human communities). That is exactly why the government was granted significant power to restrain concentrated entities from committing these abuses.

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

#226

Post by novok »

sidlls wrote: post #189
wbl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians who want to control what you build.

They want the government to keep out of housing as much as possible so they and their developer patrons can control what is built, yes.

Local government is still governemnt.

California is one big vetocracy.

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

#227

Post by darwinreally »

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…

>The other thing that confuses me is why companies aren’t moving either

Company isn't a person. It can't think for itself.

Here are the reasons company choose to not move:

1. The powerful executives are often the people who existed since beginning. They've had invested their compensation in the city where the company's headquarter is and now they are permanently part of the city's influencial people with ties in government, law and more.

So you want them to leave and become no one in some new city?

Their old connections and knowledge of the city will become worthless - they made all those connections and acquired that knowledge when they were young and now those executives might be in 40s or 50s and might not have same drive to earn all of that back

They profit from rents, they profit from sale of property in the their city. They profit in lots of ways.

When you acquire new talent, you recognize majority of the compensation goes towards "rent" and that rent end ups in the pocket of successful city dwellers (aka executives at the said company)

When decision makers in the company benefit from this. You can't build a rival company with lower costs unless you can somehow make it run without these executives.

2. Employees will not move that easily because in big cities employment market is efficient, switching to another company is easy and most new players will he dying to snatch those freshly laid off employees.

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

#228

Post by arrosenberg »

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.

That discounts history far too much. We have more competitive markets today because of antitrust regulation passed over 100 years ago and vigorously enforced up through the 90s. Tech would be more competitive today if the DOJ had completed the Microsoft prosecution instead of settling.

Our markets are becoming less competitive today because of government action due to regulatory capture - the intentional weakening of the regulatory state from within. We need more powerful, dedicated regulators in order to maintain competitive, free markets.

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

#229

Post by danans »

jibe wrote: post #195
p1necone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.

You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!

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

#230

Post by manigandham »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #181
sidlls wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why it amuses me whenever people point to this area as some bastion of leftist politics. This place has a decidedly libertarian tilt: socially permissive and very much laissez fair in many if not most ways.

There's a reason that "Fuck you, got mine"/"socially liberal, fiscally conservative" was named "the California Ideology", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology .

That's outdated. California hasn't been fiscally conservative for over a decade.
Post reply on HN