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

381–390 of 461 posts

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

#381

Post by mdavidn »

njarboe wrote: post #352
BurningFrog wrote: post #300

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

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…

This is the problem. Prop 13 creates perverse incentives that are not obvious to owners in other states.

One doesn't need to live in California long before they see a community leaflet opposing a local housing development. These developments, on the surface, all look like great ideas. The stated reasons to oppose the permit all seem thin: Accusing the developer of greed, or claiming that traffic will get worse. Homes closer to work and a local discount store do increase traffic on surrounding streets but decrease cross-town traffic in the wider area. They might even encourage people to walk!

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

#382

Post by scarface74 »

tptacek wrote: post #375
scarface74 wrote: post #372

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....

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.

What’s “predictable” about having to pay taxes on a property that you don’t know how much will appreciate? Someone who bought a house 30 years ago while they were working, paid it off and had enough in savings to pay their bills but not pay taxes on a house that went up 10x the rate of inflation couldn’t predict their tax bill.

What happens when they can’t pay their taxes? The government takes it.

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

#383

Post by arrosenberg »

kortilla wrote: post #321
arrosenberg wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the common factor enforcing the monopoly is high capital cost as a barrier to entry. That moat allows monopolizing companies to focus their resources on capturing the state to maintain their monopoly status. The remedy would seem to be for more decisive government action - to regulate or nationalize the infrastructure, break up the incumbents as necessary, and create a robust market for services that ut…

Or strip the government of its power to enable monopolies in the first place.

We've already seen that show. SPOILER: The government didn't create these monopolies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Securities_Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

My condolences for your narrative.

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

#384

Post by hundt »

harryh wrote: post #380
scarface74 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.

You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think.

Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.

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

#385

Post by hashouseincali »

njarboe wrote: post #352
BurningFrog wrote: post #300

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

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…

This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bill you mentioned.

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

#386

Post by mdavidn »

hashouseincali wrote: post #385
njarboe wrote: post #352

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…

This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bi…

When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break.

If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.

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

#387

Post by harryh »

scarface74 wrote: post #379
harryh wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can’t sell part of a house.

Sure you can: https://point.com/how_it_works

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

#388

Post by api »

Aperocky wrote: post #272
ogre_codes wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Property owner cabals blocking development like this is cartel capitalism at the local level. What you have here is a cartel restricting supply to profit from scarcity.

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

#389

Post by scarface74 »

harryh wrote: post #380
scarface74 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.

The land isn’t more valuable because of some inherent virtue of the land.

It’s only more valuable because tech bro’s want it.

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

#390

Post by harryh »

hundt wrote: post #384
harryh wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.

You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think. Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property…

Imputed rent is (roughly) proportional the the value of the property, So a tax on one is the same as a tax on the other.
Post reply on HN