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

261–270 of 645 posts

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

#261

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

sadproton wrote: post #258
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.

Age is the most mutable characteristic I can possibly imagine.

immuutable: unchanging over time or unable to be changed

Well, crap, that's a fair point... But... You can't go backwards and you can't go forwards any faster than anyone else. You can't change it yourself no matter how hard you try (general relativity spaceships aside of course).

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

#262

Post by francisofascii »

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…

Add bus lanes and HOV lanes which don't require additional lanes and improve efficiency. Charge more per vehicle.

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

#263

Post by harikb »

bluGill wrote: post #136
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.

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…

It doesn't work quite like that. Builders buying livable property and demolishing it make economical sense only in a very very few percentage of homes. My guess is Remember, we don't have a lack of land. There is plenty of prime, commute friendly, land available in SF-Bayarea and most other CA cities.

Old SFH will get demo-ed and gets rebuilt as SFH - just because bulldozing a $200k+ building + spending $600k to rebuild - can only be justified by a crazy SFH owner who can justify it all in terms of getting his/her dream home.

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

#264

Post by nomel »

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…

I think it's silly to try to separate the home from the land it sits on, unless you're suggesting that people buy homes with nothing beneath them.

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

#265

Post by matchbok »

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…

Demonizing landlords is not the answer. They did not get us into this mess. It's a distraction. Prices are set by the market.

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

#266

Post by driverdan »

danbmil99 wrote: post #170

Go ahead and build, but make damn sure you are being rational about people's behavior when it comes to driving and transit. My ex moved into a condominium complex that has exactly zero parking spots or loading docks for visitors, and no parking for half a mile in either direction. It's an absolute total fail. Neighbors rat on each other to get each other's cars towed because they get so upset. It's literally impossib…

Sounds like your ex didn't do proper research to understand what they were getting into. If they needed a place with parking and/or easy public transit access they shouldn't have bought that condo.

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

#267

Post by JackFr »

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 very relevant for schools which are typically paid for with local property taxes. If you somehow find yourself moved to a so-called NORC, naturally occurring retirement community, you'll find that older people people with adult children on limited incomes are more reluctant to fund schools than say young working parents.

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

#268

Post by YarickR2 »

Swizec wrote: post #173
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…

> 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.

FWIW I'm seriously considering doing the reverse. I don't care about restaurants, but cleanness and neatness and uniqueness in Slovenia is something I miss dearly in Cali

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

#269

Post by driverdan »

gdubs wrote: post #61

Honest question: how do we address the housing crisis in the Bay Area without turning it into Los Angeles?

The Bay Area is already like LA. SF has used its land, it needs to build up. The surrounding areas have already built out.

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

#270

Post by greedo »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #243
greedo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I don't think communities should go away. Cities can have communities if you build them in the right way. I just think these communities need to evolve from the particular format of a single family house with a lawn, car and garage. Plus I'm a little perplexed at the library analogy. I'm not saying we need to lower funding or anything. If anything we should be pumping more money into suburbs so that they can build…

It's the idea that if someone doesn't like something, it doesn't matter if others do.

In my town, a typical midwest college town, we have suburbs, we have more urban areas with smaller/older houses in row neighborhoods. We have apartments galore, and condos in downtown areas. A bit of something for everyone. Expecting a community to "evolve" means losing something of this. Other than young people who want to live in the downtown area, nobody wants to give up their homes. Apartment living is no fun with families.

And this is normal America. These cities can't be re-designed, can't really evolve. New cities, sure. Build them that way if you can (though I think the market won't support it), but expecting existing cities to evolve into urban worlds with no cars, great public transportation, and centrally located jobs and services won't happen in the majority of US cities.

Post reply on HN