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

221–230 of 645 posts

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

#221

Post by XMPPwocky »

davidw wrote: post #180
XMPPwocky wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 wa…

Just to clarify- I very much do not mean "liberal" as "the opposite of conservative", here.

Trying to map the high-dimensional "vector space" of political views onto a 1D line is very, very lossy, and definitely not useful outside of the very narrow context of general elections in a two-party system.

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

#222

Post by wbl »

pruneridge wrote: post #192

What happens when more people move into the area from the rest of the country and start driving to work from their newly built housing units? Silicon Valley has, at best, poor coverage of Caltrain and no coverage for BART in South Bay. If let’s say 10,000 more families move to San Jose into new housing units and they all need to commute to Palo Alto for work, how exactly would they do that without choking up the alre…

You can actually hire Germans to run your trains.

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

#223

Post by darawk »

dv_dt wrote: post #167
bluGill wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is only in your backyard it is better for your property value in the long run: eventually someone will offer you a ton of money to replace your house with a large apartment complex. If it is everywhere that can build, than the builders can take whatever property comes up - and because they have to compete with other developers for renters they are likely to build smaller so on both counts property values don't…

That's what I don't understand, increasing density usually means price / sqft for all real estate in the area goes up. I often wonder if the analysis on why people shoot down zoning changes is incorrectly attributed to price or property tax, and is mostly people resisting any change.

That's not universally true though. Many times new development will block a view, or it might run the risk of bringing in "undesirable" groups which would lower property values. There is definitely a long-run argument that values will go up if you increase the power of network effects...but it's always better if the locality next door does it, and not you.

Unfortunately the incentive problem here is real, and there isn't a super obvious solution to it. At least, not to me. Trying to shift the culture and convince people to vote against their own economic incentives is great and all, but I don't think it is destined for success at any significant scale.

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

#224

Post by aSplash0fDerp »

As mentioned in the comments, housing/shelter has a different meaning depending on your perspective (renter/owner, single/married, young/old or import/local resident).

Unless we define housing types/building codes for specific subsets, it'll most likely be just more of the same development/investments.

With many major metro areas bursting at the seams, I think they need to break ground on new 21st century cities and identify a way to lower the populations as a solution/initial step, rather than adding more deck chairs to the ship.

This gives the economy a new canvas to work with and the opportunity to move forward 100% with sustainable priciples without being encumbered by the pre-existing conditions plaguing NIMBY strongholds.

With desalination and autonomous vehicles becoming a bigger part of the modern economy, California could build horseshoe/teardrop shaped autonomous highways from the coastline cities hundreds of miles inland that allow modern logistics to fillin the gaps with public transportation and servicing basic needs (water, sanitation, public services) and accomodate new suburban models to house an ever-growing population. Outside of the earthquake zones, the can build the high-density housing they need to solve a good portion of the social crisis.

Extending cities with autonomous loops may not be the best answer, but the existing city planning models need more pioneering strategies if they want to seed future growth.

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

#225

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

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…

>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.

Hmm, here I am thinking I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. It's none of my business. But, I try and not judge people on immutable characteristics like color and age.

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

#226

Post by stale2002 »

bluGill wrote: post #129
thedance wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason Bay Area cities can't afford their water and sewer and roads is because they are not dense enough. Apartment dwellers demand far less water, and drive on roads much less than people who live in detached homes. Density is the _solution_ to infrastructure funding.

Long term you are correct, but in the near term the current water system needs to be upgraded to pipes large enough to get water to the new apartment before the apartment can go in.

How do you even think this stuff gets upgraded in the first place?

What happens, in every city, is that more housing gets built, then the infrastructure system starts to get closer to capacity, and then the infrastructure gets upgaded.

Saying that they should upgrade all the infrastructure first, before there is any demand, is the same exact thing as saying that it should never be upgraded.

Because the infrastructure isn't going to be upgraded if there is no demand for it yet.

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

#227

Post by davidw »

Spooky23 wrote: post #219
davidw wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if you're going to argue that supply and demand are not real for housing, you'd need to supply some good evidence of your own. There are a lot of ways to build more supply: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-... I find the 'Montreal' example the most compelling in that it's fairly "human scale", but tastes vary.

Rental housing has price floor that distorts the market. Once a property diverges from the requirements of housing subsidy programs, it usually gets abandoned. In most places new supply is high end and is making more housing available for people who don’t lack access.

> In most places new supply is high end and is making more housing available for people who don’t lack access.

In most places, new cars are more expensive than used ones, but if you stopped providing new cars, the price of the used ones would shoot up as everyone started competing for a dwindling supply of cars.

Same goes for housing.

Also, it's a longer term process with housing, but 'filtering' is a real thing: https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2016/05/25/housing-does-f...

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

#228

Post by riazrizvi »

lthornberry wrote: post #210
riazrizvi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See my comment above, but the economics of increasing supply are actually much more nuanced, and the majority of current owners would probably not see the value of their assets eroded.

I think this is the best point to shout out, in the Bay Area. Show how building projects can alleviate supply concerns for demographics who can't afford your suburban home, and how the increase in population will still help your home price because it will make your fat suburban land parcel look even more exclusive. Everybody wins something.

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

#229

Post by lthornberry »

neurocline wrote: post #62
spankalee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My current house is apparently worth $2 million. Even with California construction costs, replacing it with a new house would cost less than $350,000. If someone could build a lot of houses nearby, it would drive the price of my house down to something realistic. I’m in favor of lots of construction, because it’s the right thing overall. But it would hit me hard. I’m willing to accept that, so I lobby for new constru…

Much of your value is in the underlying cost of land. More permissive development rules would increase the value of your land, because it would be possible for a developer to buy it and build more units of housing on it.

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

#230

Post by trianglesphere »

riazrizvi wrote: post #211
logfromblammo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you're saying that a house is not a good investment? That despite a trend in increasing property values over the long term, as we have seen in the data since .. the beginning of cities, that a price correction is coming where homes will return to ... prehistoric levels? I don't see it. Instead look at a sample of home prices in the last twenty years in the Bay Area for example, and graph it against the value of a…

It's the distinction between the building and the land. Buildings usually depreciate over time, but the land appreciates. In the bay area, the value of the land is significantly more than the building which is why so many people tear down houses and rebuild. Where land is cheaper people don't tear down and rebuild houses that have more life in them when they buy a house.

Residences are mainly exempted from depreciation, but commercial real estate is allowed to be depreciated because buildings do have a useful life.

Post reply on HN