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

Post by Retric » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #246

bobthepanda wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) They already have sufficient density and property prices to actually invest in infrastructure. The problem has always been Prop 13 and the artificial limits placed on taxes that would otherwise fund infrastructure locally.

It’s not artificial limits. Including special taxes, it averages out to 1.25. It’s on par with other places. What happened was that housing and economy skyrocketed within a very short period of time. Foreigners are allowed to invest in the housing market for speculative purposes. The extra tax income is used to fund public schools. More immigration and younger people having kids. And overall death rate slowing down.…

Post by mc3 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

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.

Post by VRay » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

atatatko wrote: post #185

Would never accept job offer from the Valley exactly for that reason, unless it's a CEO position. Living in Asia, I can rent a perfect house for about $1000, including utilities and cleaning services. Remote job gives equal opportunities

Post by greenburger » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:42 AM UTC

thedance wrote: post #112

khuey wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by dodobirdlord » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #243

amunicio wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't have to move far and away, he can go live to the other side of the San Mateo bridge and pocket at least a million dollars on the house price difference. And as others have mentioned, there are other mechanisms to defer the tax payment based on the house equity. The real cruel thing is to lower the bar for the "have" (as in have a house in SV) and higher it for the "have not".

I guess at the end of the day those who own property will do what feels good for them. It’s funny to see non owners seem up of ways property owners could do with their ‘wealth’. Guess what, they own property in the hot Bay Area market by virtue of..wait for it..being here and working before most of us were born! So we can sit here on hacker news and think of all that they need to do to make us feel better, but it mea…