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

271–280 of 461 posts

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

#271

Post by scarface74 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #263
arrosenberg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This isn’t true. The only industry I’m aware of that might actually be a natural monopoly, as in the efficient number of companies is one, is aircraft manufacturing. Local utilities aren’t natural monopolies, cable isn’t a natural monopoly, water, gas, electricity, these definitely aren’t natural monopolies. If manufacturing semiconductors, with fabs that cost tens of billions of dollars isn’t a natural monopoly, why…

Local utilities aren’t natural monopolies, cable isn’t a natural monopoly, water, gas, electricity, these definitely aren’t natural monopolies.

How are utilities not a natural monopoly? The cost and disruption of building infrastructure to serve everyone is definitely a monopoly. Do you really want four or five companies digging up streets and building pipes, wires, etc?

Also, if you had multiple companies competing, they would only serve the most profitable customers who live in the most dense areas. You see that now with internet providers - especially fiber.

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

#272

Post by Aperocky »

ogre_codes wrote: post #248
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.

This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental…

Ah, so exactly what happened with Hong Kong and their public housing. Blocked by homeowners who don't want their real estate to go down in value. Now it's one of the most expensive place in the world with New Territory largely empty.

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

#273

Post by girvo »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #190
zpallin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEQA requirements are exempt from affordable housing developments. And developing Coyote Valley has never been about affordable housing. Essentially all of the proposals to develop Coyote Valley have catered to high-income home owners and renters. Even the mayor said in that article that preserving Coyote Valley contributes to the city's affordable housing goals.

It all helps. Relieve the shortage in high-income housing, and maybe they'll stop bidding up the prices for (formerly) lower-income housing because they had to live somewhere .

While I don't doubt that is the case, I do think it's offset by the high-income housing people then buying a second or third property as investment (gotta be a landlord, or you just haven't made it, I guess). I wonder if there is real data on this?

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

#274

Post by scarface74 »

paulgb wrote: post #66
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.

It took governments less time to fix the Ozone hole (remember the Montreal Protocol?) than it took for the free market to converge on one type of phone charger that works on multiple devices. Unfettered faith in free markets and unfettered faith in governments are equally bad things.

And by the time the government mandated a standard charger, the tech world was moving on to a better standard -- USB C.

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

#275

Post by selimthegrim »

darksaints wrote: post #92
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).

Jurisdiction matters far more than most people realize. If we had state level environmental protection laws, Missouri might be more than happy to let St Louis save money by dumping their trash into the Mississippi River where it becomes Louisiana's problem instead. Thankfully the EPA has their jurisdiction set appropriately. Housing and Land Use definitely need wider jurisdictions. State level would be nice, but at t…

This reminds me of the overly pedantic Wikipedia synopsis of “Louisiana Woman, Mississippi Man”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Woman,_Mississippi...

>The song details the travails of a couple geographically separated by the Mississippi river. They emphatically pledge that their love is too great to let the wide distance of the river keep them separated. Overcoming alligators and bouts of distraction (the man is often sidetracked by spending time fishing) the man pledges to somehow cross the river while the woman claims she'll go so far as to swim the distance (1 mile the song claims). This is an especially bold proclamation on her part as in 1973, arsenic, E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria levels in the Mississippi river far exceeded modern WHO recommendations by over 2000% (similar to current levels in the Ganges river).

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

#276

Post by Twixes »

jimmaswell wrote: post #232
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.

Preserving nice low density areas is not selfish. Why does everyone need to be entitled to live anywhere they want?

Maybe because that's where the best jobs are. Maybe because that's where they're from and it's not their fault they're getting priced out (gentrification). Maybe because they just really like the place. In any case, you don't get to be a gatekeeper. Cities are public.

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

#277

Post by scarface74 »

harryh wrote: post #196
fortran77 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't have the feelings of "envy" that you do. The fact is, there's little he can do with his "millions of dollars of equity" unless he moves far away from family, friends, and social network. It's cruel to force people to move. I'm not envious or cruel, so I support Prop 13.

Anyone in this situation can easily take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes and come out way ahead. Your assertion that the higher taxes would force them to move is wrong.

Say you have equity in a non public company, would you be okay if the government taxed your equity forcing you to take out a loan against it?

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

#278

Post by zapita »

ogre_codes wrote: post #266
jibe wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc. So-called e…

Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.

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

#279

Post by pdonis »

arrosenberg wrote: post #225
pdonis wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> in the US, most monopolies were not government granted

Railroads: government granted.

Public utilities: government granted.

Telephone: government granted.

Air travel: government granted.

Cable TV: goverment granted.

ISP: government granted.

Seems like a lot.

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

#280

Post by neilparikh »

technofiend wrote: post #61
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it eliminates it. When you buy a property, you still pay taxes on whatever your purchase price is. Prop 13 just mediates the rate of increase, which is beneficial, but not immediately.

>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…

> a house like mine was torn down and 5-7 condos or townhomes took their place

I fail to see the downside here. Isn't that a good thing, and exactly what you want in California (SFH being replaced with more units)?

Post reply on HN