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

41–50 of 645 posts

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

#41

Post by christiansakai »

pascalxus wrote: post #22

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 lega…

Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.

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

#42

Post by likpok »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #26
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.

The bay area is building, but very unevenly. SOMA has a bunch of visible construction, as do certain places along El Camino. That can give the impression of building like crazy even when the reality is different. The other problem is the bay area only does megaprojects, so the little building it does is the extremely disruptive and visible kind.

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

#45

Post by shuckles »

wpasc wrote: post #37
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think new york should be lumped in with california in that measure. This site shows active construction in new york: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/nyc-active-major-...

New York built fewer new homes per capita than the Bay Area for half the years in the last decade.

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

#46

Post by samatman »

pascalxus wrote: post #22

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 lega…

Not that this detracts from your points, but transportation is responsible for 29% of CO2 emissions[0]. It's the single largest sector, but not a majority contributor.

[0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

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

#47

Post by RangerScience »

quotemstr wrote: post #32
pascalxus wrote: post #22

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 lega…

Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shif…

There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one".

Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.

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

#49

Post by notJim »

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…

Isn't SF building two new subway lines right now? I agree it should be faster and better, but I don't think it's true that nothing is being done.

Also, in this case, they have the infrastructure, the NIMBYs are just hoarding it to themselves, as they do in Berkeley as well.

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

#50

Post by darkwizard42 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #30
wedn3sday wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This doesn’t make any sense because owning stock in one company doesn’t prevent another from also rising or prevent ones own company stock from rising.
Post reply on HN