Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 645 posts

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#21

Post by compiler-guy »

aty268 wrote: post #12
fortran77 wrote: post #8

The answer _is_ building more. (I'll say this before the people on Hacker News who are opposed to all private property suggest that "prop 13" is the problem. It's not.) The problem is they don't build enough. Build build build! They need the California State Government to overrule local zoning limits. We need to allow dense housing near rail lines and major roads. And I think that anywhere a single-family detached ho…

I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this? Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

If you own a house, you don't want the prices to be driven down.

If you had an idyllic childhood in a sleepy town not unlike Mayberry, it is entirely reasonable to want the same things for your kids.

None of that is realistic anymore--the world is a changed place. But these are not irrational preferences to have.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#22

Post by pascalxus »

I completely agree with the sentiment to build more, much more housing. But, in order to make that happen, we also need to:

- get rid of or modify zoning laws (at least in places where growth will happen)

- reduce regulations on builders

- ensure that there are plenty of builders for health competition (so that consumers don't get ripped off)

- provide protections for builders from Sue happy NIMBYs (some kind of legal protection that prevents builders from being sued and penalizes NIMBYs that try to stand in their way).

The benefits of building more are so numerous:

- every house that gets built reduces costs for everyone else as well, as the stress of under supply lessens

- it's easier for people to get to work and find work

- easier for companies to higher people

- more jobs getting created, not just from people able to get to work but new jobs getting created from all that construction

- It'll help the environment immensly! Everyday, I see the 580 - 5 lane highway clogged up with cars crawling by at 10mpg, probably getting very low MPG over a very long distance (this is where most of the CO2 pollution is coming from, at least in the US!)

- over the long term even people with houses already will pay lower property taxes (decreasing values reduce prop taxes)

- as the number of average miles driven per commute comes down, there will be less and less traffic.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#23

Post by aty268 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #20
revscat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn’t drive down prices.

I don't think housing is one of the few (if any) goods where increased supply drives up cost, nor do I think there is any evidence this is the case.

Out of curiosity, what would be a good where increased supply drives up cost? I can't reason any off the top of my head.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#25

Post by spankalee »

snarf21 wrote: post #18
fortran77 wrote: post #8

The answer _is_ building more. (I'll say this before the people on Hacker News who are opposed to all private property suggest that "prop 13" is the problem. It's not.) The problem is they don't build enough. Build build build! They need the California State Government to overrule local zoning limits. We need to allow dense housing near rail lines and major roads. And I think that anywhere a single-family detached ho…

I'm not saying building isn't the problem but how do you solve for someone who is in a loan at $1.2M and in one year it is worth $500K on the open market due to all the building. This is something that has to happen incrementally and why people dig in so hard. That property is the main store of wealth for a lot of people. The wrong scheme could bankrupt them and destroy their retirement. Additionally, super dense hou…

Show me where any house would be worth 40% of its current nominal value because of nearby building. That's completely unrealistic conjecture.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#26

Post by rjkennedy98 »

uniformlyrandom wrote: post #11

How about we talk about building infrastructure? The whole Bay Area is building like crazy, and yet the roads are getting worse (more building? more traffic lights!). Public transportation is a big joke around here. Caltrain from South San Jose to Mountain View? We have the tracks, we have the train... the train just does not go this route on weekends. We have the same situation as a startup focused on developing a p…

Show the stats that Bay Area is building like crazy. I am so sick of people saying things like New York and Bay Area and California are building like crazy. No they are not. There is not one stat that shows that. Period.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#27

Post by xvedejas »

uniformlyrandom wrote: post #11

How about we talk about building infrastructure? The whole Bay Area is building like crazy, and yet the roads are getting worse (more building? more traffic lights!). Public transportation is a big joke around here. Caltrain from South San Jose to Mountain View? We have the tracks, we have the train... the train just does not go this route on weekends. We have the same situation as a startup focused on developing a p…

I'm not sure that the roads really support more peak traffic at this point. Rather, we can reduce the traffic and train crowding by building more housing near jobs so that workers need not embark on 50+ mile super-commutes each day.

Housing _is_ infrastructure, and it's the piece of infrastructure we're most sorely missing.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#28

Post by aty268 »

wedn3sday wrote: post #19
aty268 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this? Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

It drives down prices. When you bought a house back in 2008 for $300k and now its worth $2M you really dont want anything to touch your nest egg. Its NIMBYism at its finest. Everyone says, "just build affordable housing!" Just as long as its not in _my_ neighborhood.

That makes sense, I didn't differentiate between renters and and home owners. I guess that's what this debate comes down to.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#29

Post by DonHopkins »

This is what I chant when I'm waiting for my code to compile. I was hoping this was an article about how to make it compile faster.

(Edit: the original title was "Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build"! ;)

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#30

Post by goatinaboat »

wedn3sday wrote: post #19
aty268 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this? Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

It drives down prices. When you bought a house back in 2008 for $300k and now its worth $2M you really dont want anything to touch your nest egg. Its NIMBYism at its finest. Everyone says, "just build affordable housing!" Just as long as its not in _my_ neighborhood.

Its NIMBYism at its finest

People whose wealth is in company stock say that people whose wealth is in other asset classes should give it up, for their benefit.

How about we pay for all this new housing by a 90% tax on RSUs? No?

Post reply on HN