California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by aSplash0fDerp » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

c0nfused wrote: post #235

aSplash0fDerp wrote: post #224

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…

The answer was and always will be to increase density not increase transit to the suburbs. This is how you get 2 hour commutes. The idea that you are not doing the driving doesn't make a 150 mile commute seem better to me. You can cap density by height like most European cities do or go up forever like Shanghai. But simply arguing suburbs + highways were the 1950s answer and will be the 2050s answer is missing the po…

Your "always" statement reeks of a legacy mindset that doesn't have room to explore implementing new technologies/logistics outside of the box as potential solutions and you also appear to be oblivious to the overhanging threat that earthquakes have in long-term planning for high-density housing in California.

Why do you think Cali has not overbuilt skyscrapers to solve the housing crisis? The moneys has always been there to build them. Its probably something obvious huh?

Edit: I'm also in Southern California and am impressed with the sheer number of bungalows that cover the landscape. They would have chosen other alternatives had they been available during the growth boom. I also felt the tremors in July of last year from the quakes 150 miles away and think that is still top-of-mind looking forward.

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

#292

Post by svachalek » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #73

fortran77 wrote: post #8

The answer _is_ building more. (I'll say this before the people on Hacker News who are opposed to all private property suggest that "prop 13" is the problem. It's not.) The problem is they don't build enough. Build build build! They need the California State Government to overrule local zoning limits. We need to allow dense housing near rail lines and major roads. And I think that anywhere a single-family detached ho…

Build more housing! It's that simple. Prices will fall fast. How fast, and how much?

How much are you building?

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

#293

Post by mlyle » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

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.

vs. the article:

> ... how expensive new housing today would become affordable old housing tomorrow ...

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

#294

Post by kelnos » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

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?

If people are actually investing in housing, then I see nothing weird or hypocritical with wanting the value of those investments to go up.

But a primary home is not an investment. Many many many people mistake it for one, or try to treat it like one, but it's not. Often it works out in the end as if it was one, but it's not. There's a reason why we call non-primary homes "investment properties"... because your primary home is not that.

It's a liability. It ages. It requires costly maintenance. It requires upgrades and renovations. In most jurisdictions you have to pay ongoing taxes simply to own it.

The main reason housing prices often rise faster than inflation is because of scarcity, much of which is often artificial and due to zoning and other legal tricks.

Opposing housing in high-demand areas is one of the most selfish things a person can do.

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

#295

Post by matchbok » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #278

matchbok wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What happens when the market is prevented from increasing supply by property owners collectively setting rules that prevent sufficient further growth? I’m not saying this happened in California, but it’s what I think happened in the UK, where I am a landlord.

I agree, that's a problem. I would hope that most landlords are good actors, though. (heh)

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

#296

Post by prewett » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

I bet your hypothetical developer would price the new houses at $1.9 million (or maybe $2.1 million, because where else are you going to buy a new house?), and they'd sell out as fast as they could build them, netting them a huge profit and hardly affecting your property values. Now if they could build 10,000 houses nearby it might have more of an effect.

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

#297

Post by tmh79 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

matchbok wrote: post #265

exterrestrial wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In california, landlords largely did get us into this mess though. Like not on an individual scale, but as an organized political constituency they lobbied for the policies that have caused the problems we're experiencing and they're generally lobbying against the solutions.

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

#298

Post by mlyle » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

> Clearly, this policy benefits landlords more than anybody

Plenty of people buy duplexes and fourplexes and live in them. They are also housing that is cheaper and can be rented at a lower price.

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

#299

Post by mlyle » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

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.

People are outraged when you put apartments and condos in their multi-single-family cities because "lower class" people will move in. Don't those "lower class" people currently lack access to live these places?

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

#300

Post by hodgesrm » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #278

matchbok wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What happens when the market is prevented from increasing supply by property owners collectively setting rules that prevent sufficient further growth? I’m not saying this happened in California, but it’s what I think happened in the UK, where I am a landlord.

In the California case it did happen but the "landlords" are owners of single family homes. Here's a typical example: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sb50-f...