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

171–180 of 645 posts

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

#171

Post by bluGill »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #64
notJim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They need the California State Government to overrule local zoning limits Yes, California and other places with housing problems need as-of-right policies as the article suggests. It's not simply zoning, it's removing all ability of local governments to hold things up, because people will use absolutely anything they can grab onto. From a philosophical standpoint, people are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of…

I don't understand though how the state government will be expected to implement this different than the local government; they both draw from essentially the same voterbase that is hostile toward the upzoning as the majority of the state population resides in those large cities anyway. The only real difference is that you'll also have a population of rural voters observing from the sidelines as they have no investme…

The edges. There are people who want to live in the city who are forced to live outside (a suburb) who cannot vote in the local election but can vote in the state election. Also rural farmers do not like seeing their neighbor's land turned into a subdivision (this is a form of NIMBY of course - more than a few of them lost bids to buy the subdivision and keep farming it), so those on the edges are also likely to vote this way

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

#172

Post by starpilot »

riazrizvi wrote: post #140
Lendal wrote: post #93

This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty of room there, but the kids who got on the bus first would ban together to prevent new kids from sitting. Today these kids have grown up and own homes in the suburbs. New kids need to move in, but the kids who got there first refuse to let them build. That's w…

I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.

Since when is homeownership a requirement for retirement savings? What about IRA's, 401ks? That they chose to stake so much on a more volatile asset is not the fault of the people around them. Should cities sacrifice their urban well-being, pushing people out on the streets and guaranteeing lower-income people can never live there, for the sake of some elderly residents who put their eggs in one basket?

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

#173

Post by Swizec »

notJim wrote: post #151
fra wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.

Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put. Not that I have anything against them, but I'd love to have a more diverse, younger neighborhood. More neighbors also means more customers for local businesses, which means more shops and restaurants in walking distance. More neighbors would…

> More neighbors also means more customers for local businesses, which means more shops and restaurants in walking distance

Big reason I moved from Ljubljana, Slovenia to San Francisco. There’s just more stuff here and it’s amazing.

The economies of scale are insane. I have more good restaurants within walking distance now than I used to have in the whole city.

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

#174

Post by tibiahurried »

Do yourself a favor, don't buy real estate in California unless you are rich. It's not financially worth it for the majority of people out there. If you must live in California I'd suggest to rent and invest your money instead.

Then come up with a plan and move to a more affordable/sustainable state or country.

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

#175

Post by logfromblammo »

riazrizvi wrote: post #140
Lendal wrote: post #93

This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty of room there, but the kids who got on the bus first would ban together to prevent new kids from sitting. Today these kids have grown up and own homes in the suburbs. New kids need to move in, but the kids who got there first refuse to let them build. That's w…

I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.

The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good.

Wanting your home to appreciate in value forever is like expecting your 20-year-old car to sell for more than its sticker price. It really only works for art installations, created by a collaboration of architect, engineer, and builder, with some living space inside.

Framed in these terms, most families do not have any significant assets, and a hefty chunk of their resources dedicated to maintaining their gigantic shelter-providing consumer appliance.

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

#176

Post by greedo »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #104

Having been born and raised in a major city, I'm certainly biased, but I truly believe that suburbs should go away. Every part of a suburb seems so insular, so wasteful, so outmoded. A one family house requires maintenance, heating and wiring that would be so much more efficient with even the smallest apartment complex. Lawns are ridiculous, especially in the parts of the country where grass is not indigenous. Why th…

I have a coworker who mentioned that he doesn't think my town needs libraries. "I never use them, so why should my taxes go to supporting them?" Trying to have a productive dialogue with someone who doesn't understand the idea of community can be a challenge.

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

#177

Post by bluGill »

xamuel wrote: post #108
compiler-guy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or you could have PTSD or just vanilla noise-sensitivity and just living in a quiet neighborhood could be extremely important to you. You might have made very significant personal sacrifices to afford to move to a suburb for exactly this reason. Should you just be forced to go live in the woods as a hermit, cast out by society?

If the city up zones your suburb can empty out making things better for you. It is only those who like their level of busy not far from downtown that will get pushed out.

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

#178

Post by XMPPwocky »

irq11 wrote: post #158
notJim wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

"not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area".

in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actually impacts them, well! That particular project is just flawed for various reasons. The general idea is good! But it won't work here.

It's the equivalent of the boss who totally supports unions but, you know, a union just wouldn't be right for our particular company culture.

So, yeah, "yes in your backyard" is just the original definition of a NIMBY.

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

#179

Post by jbattle »

nostrademons wrote: post #113
i_am_nomad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the school bus is a public good. Are you saying that we should reframe housing as a public good as well and provide it as such?

There's no need to assume this. Even if you treat land & housing as a private good, you're entitled to decide what you do with your own land . You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. This makes housing…

You are oversimplifying. Are you OK with someone opening hog farms all around your house? Setting up fracking rigs? Building a factory and running heavy industry?

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

#180

Post by davidw »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #178
irq11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

"not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actual…

This is an issue that actually doesn't align very well on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Most of the YIMBY folks I've met tend towards the liberal end of things, but there are also "market urbanism" groups out there that are fairly libertarian. I've had great conversations with local politicians of all stripes. There are both liberals and conservatives who are very NIMBY.

In other words, it's not a very useful way to look at the issue in my opinion.

Post reply on HN