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

441–450 of 461 posts

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

#441

Post by illumin8 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #184
0xB31B1B wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.

> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.

I read that 66% of California voters approve of SB50. It is pretty easy to understand that allowing sensible, 4 story apartment buildings to be built next to transit/BART stations will help increase the housing supply, which should make housing slightly more affordable.

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-trans...

Still, California has a 2.5 million housing unit deficit to repay by 2025 or it risks a further escalation of the homelessness epidemic.

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

#442

Post by kortilla »

gzer0 wrote: post #332
kortilla wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if price discrimination isn’t a practice used commonly today.

I'm unsure what point you are trying to make here? That the practices conducted by Standard Oil were considered acceptable? Or are you stating that because it is done today (wrongfully so, imo), it was okay back then? Please elaborate.

Price discrimination isn’t really a problem. Companies do it all the time with coupons, origin of purchaser, etc. What your comment doesn’t show is why it was bad when standard oil did it.

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

#443

Post by kortilla »

arrosenberg wrote: post #383
kortilla wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recommend you read the section from the Standard Oil article on the criticism of the breakup.

Also, your rebuke is pretty weak if you have one example compared to the thousands of government granted monopolies all over the US.

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

#444

Post by generalpass »

justinzollars wrote: post #435
Twixes wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But what's really being done about either of these things?

No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.

I suspect you are being down-voted because a lot of landlords are renting out their first home while they have moved out and into a newer, nicer home and are now just exploiting the underclass.

Presumably the mortgage on the first home is quite far below current market prices, but this is not enough to drive the landlord to offer a price that is necessarily in line with rents at the time the home was purchased.

The mortgage interest is no longer tax deductible, so effective cost of ownership is higher than when compared to someone paying a mortgage on a home they live in.

The profit from renting is compared against profit from selling. If the rental price is driven too low, the owner will prefer to sell and collect the profits (and the home will likely be taken off of the available rental inventory, which will further drive up rents).

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

#445

Post by monadic2 »

manfredo wrote: post #334
monadic2 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will the people it displaces be able to afford one of the units? If not, it’s just gentrification.

Why would adding more units to the housing supply displace anyone? Who is displaced when 60 new apartment units open open up on a new building? Your question is a vacuously true: everyone who is displaced will be able to afford a new unit, because increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. In fact, it reduces displacement. Without new housing, more and more people are going to outbidding each other for a cons…

Well, most people can’t afford market rate units in a high demand metropolis. Increasing supply will just allow paying off people to move via a buyout. The market rate will only go down when capital views vacant units as cutting into their investments, which won’t happen in a world where real estate is considered an asset.

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

#446

Post by monadic2 »

manfredo wrote: post #333
Pfhreak wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back. Increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. What do you mean "no guarantee that tenants can move back"? A new apartment building creates units that new residents can move into instead of out-bidding residents on the existing supply of housing. An apartment that doesn't get built is an existing…

I would read a book about the development of midtown and the fillmore before stating these opinions again. I can’t follow any of what you’re saying.

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

#447

Post by justinzollars »

generalpass wrote: post #444
justinzollars wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.

I suspect you are being down-voted because a lot of landlords are renting out their first home while they have moved out and into a newer, nicer home and are now just exploiting the underclass. Presumably the mortgage on the first home is quite far below current market prices, but this is not enough to drive the landlord to offer a price that is necessarily in line with rents at the time the home was purchased. The m…

> and are now just exploiting the underclass.

The only people exploiting the underclass are politicians that make building housing impossible. This dynamic is only possible through their help. A price is set by what the market - not by landlords.

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

#448

Post by generalpass »

triceratops wrote: post #424
generalpass wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A well-funded campaign is useless against pissed off voters. The re-election rate of incumbents in California state senate districts approaches 100%. Getting into office in a district of a million people is about money, nothing else.

> nothing else. So the politician is getting re-elected even if they vote entirely contrary to their constituents' wishes? That's a bold claim.

Nothing bold about it. Nothing correlates as strongly as campaign contribution, especially in enormous districts.

The voters matter less than you think, largely because in these huge districts there will be an incredibly diverse range of opinions. Short of ordering troops to come in and murder people in broad daylight, getting such a huge number of people to coalesce around any single anything almost never happens.

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

#449

Post by jelliclesfarm »

potatoz2 wrote: post #425
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paris is shaped like a snail and concentric circles of density and affluence with the inner most circle being most affluent. Paris also has a stellar and reliable public transport system and is very walkable. Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) but don’t want to invest in infrastructure and public transport.

That's largely true, but many parts of Paris itself are relatively working class (the 13th district, the 19th district) and still very dense. Similarly while the outskirts of Paris don't have a subway system (they have the RER, akin to BART) they are still very dense. Walkability comes from density almost inevitably because it's financially doable to have more stores/activities/restaurants in a smaller space while st…

There is also some politically correct diversity quotas. In the bay areas, they think the local school teacher as well as Starbucks barista should be able to live in the same neighborhood as a FAANG millionaire. Naturally, this creates NIMBYs. It’s human nature.

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

#450

Post by ummonk »

generalpass wrote: post #221
ummonk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They won't because they don't want to keep their property taxes affordable.
Post reply on HN