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

251–260 of 645 posts

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

#251

Post by not_literally »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #225
notJim wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to be misinterpreting what they meant by "old white people" to show this forum (and yourself?) how virtuous you are.

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

#252

Post by sjg007 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #175
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.

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…

The house sits on land and that is in a good school district or otherwise desirable location. That is worth something to someone and why properties become more valuable. When land and development is constrained you have to go up to support the density or out. All new communities are basically townhome communities across the US except in some places where land is not constrained... even then the homes are very similar and sit next to each other. It increases the affordability.. This makes existing homes on larger lots worth more b/c you get space despite needing to remodel the 1960s decor. But you get a nice view.

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

#253

Post by hannasanarion »

exterrestrial wrote: post #204
davidw wrote: post #107

Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…

>It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might like to move to a more productive place for a better job. Please cite at lease one example in which this has ever been the case. I do understand the theory behind your argument here, and I assume you are familiar with (leftist) counter-arguments, so this is not an attempt to open a debate. Ra…

You are absolutely correct that the root cause of the housing crisis is capitalism and the commodification of housing. However, a socialist restructuring of the entire housing market is not likely to happen any time soon.

While we wait for the revolution, we might as well encourage the for-profit developers to build in the least destructive ways, so that less people suffer in the short term from the choked supply and anti-human urban planning that capitalists will exercise if left unchecked.

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

#254

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

not_literally wrote: post #251
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You seem to be misinterpreting what they meant by "old white people" to show this forum (and yourself?) how virtuous you are.

No, I just think an educated forum of people that should know better should not engage in willful casual racism just because it's OK to hate on white people. But I know this is an extreme position I have! I personally have the hope that someday old people will be judged not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character. Perhaps if you didn't post your defense from a throwaway I'd think you weren't just trying to justify virtue - that someone of a specific color and age caused all of California's housing problems.

Do you want to play the "is it racist if we change the color" game?

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

#255

Post by jakemal »

rossdavidh wrote: post #34
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.

Speaking as someone who lived in Bay Area California for a few years, and Texas for several decades now, the first thing to know if that not all California has the same attitude on this, for much the same reason that Waco and Austin have different attitudes on a lot of things. In the Bay Area, there are geographical (water and hills) limits to expansion, whereas in Texas when you build more, it usually is out into th…

When developers build high income housing, high income households move to those new developments and reduce demand for the places they vacated, making them more affordable for lower income households.

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

#256

Post by bluGill »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #138
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.

There’s already plenty of places to build affordable housing. Nearly all of it is outside the Bay Area. But evidently, living in Modesto, or Bakersfield, or God forbid Kansas is some kind of horrible punishment, and it’s wrong to deny people the “right” to live near San Francisco.

People live where the jobs are. I know someone who bought a house in North Dakota for the value of the propane in the tank outside. There are no jobs in the area so the former owner was just glad to be rid of it. The guy I knew was glad to have a place to sleep near his secret hunting place, he had no intent of spending more than a few days a year there.

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

#257

Post by ianmcgowan »

logfromblammo wrote: post #175
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.

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…

Wait, what? My regular family house in the Bay Area has almost tripled in 20 years. I'm not banking on that for retirement, but homes can definitely appreciate in value.

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

#258

Post by sadproton »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #225
notJim wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Age is the most mutable characteristic I can possibly imagine.

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

#259

Post by sjg007 »

nradov wrote: post #247
marcell wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty simple. If I own property, I should be allowed to build a home for myself on it, subject to relevant zoning. You, and adjacent property owner, should not be able to deny my private property use. Yet this is not the case in California.

That is the case in California. If you own property zoned residential and apply for a fully compliant building permit then it will almost always be approved (although fees may be high). Developers and property owners generally only run into long delays and battles with neighbors when they request variances or zoning changes.

It'll be approved although sometimes you get neighbors who would get upset that your house shades their lawn. Typically you want to design your house to be compatible with the neighbors and the neighborhood. Los Angeles is an exception generally which is amazing b/c you get these great wonders of architecture that appear out of nowhere. These tend to be on bigger lots though.

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

#260

Post by hannasanarion »

darksaints wrote: post #208
i_am_nomad wrote: post #115

YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

Fact: No YIMBY, no matter how powerful, can force you to put something in your back yard. They can allow your neighbor to put something in their back yard. You don't own your neighbor's back yard.

Fact: NIMBY doesn't refer to literal backyards.
Post reply on HN