Live data from Hacker News

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

usatoday.com

371–380 of 461 posts

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

#371
post #88
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it will. One of the problems with housing is that local governments get less revenue from housing than business. That gives them every incentive to approve commercial construction and deny residential. Take away the financial perverse incentive., and there is a lot of money to be made by approving badly needed dense residential housing near existing commercial buildings.

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…

Figures that I saw estimate that local tax revenue from commercial property averages double that from residential. That's a pretty big incentive for a city to attract business and not attract residential.

To take the example that you just latched on to, if rezoning the land makes it worth more, and therefore increases local taxes, this becomes an incentive for the city to balance its budget by rezoning. And some of that rezoned land will get dense residential living. Which will reduce traffic congestion. And make everyone's lives better.

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

#372
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?

No.

What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

GP: Curse those environmentalists Parent: This obviously isn't environmentally friendly or motivated and the opposite of what an environmentalist would want. You: Well, they believe they're being environmental, even if it's self serving BS (here, let define self-serving BS).

One realization that's helped me a lot:

Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!!!

Essential book: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...

TED talk version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU

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

#374
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?

Yes.

How so?

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

#375
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....

One obvious difference is that property taxes are applied uniformly and predictably --- a whole industry exists to plan around them --- and eminent domain is not, so widespread application of ED would create uncertainty that would discourage positive activity.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you h…

> California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation. They did just change the situation. They made it worse!

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

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

#377
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Why? That has nothing to do with criticizing the home owning hypocrites on the peninsula.

Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.

The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.

I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.

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

#378
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....

In addition to what tptacek said, taxes are paid with money which is an infinitely fungible commodity. Eminent domain confiscates a specific piece of property that cannot be precisely replaced.

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

#379
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....

In addition to what tptacek said, taxes are paid with money which is an infinitely fungible commodity. Eminent domain confiscates a specific piece of property that cannot be precisely replaced.

Money is a fungible commodity but a house isn’t. You can’t sell part of a house. If that’s where all of your wealth is.

You

Post reply on HN