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

301–310 of 645 posts

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

#301

Post by kelnos »

pound wrote: post #84
majormajor wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really wouldn't. Not any time soon. A developer being able to build a 4-unit place on top of a single family home would increase the value of that land cause now they can sell it to four times as many people. So it's gonna be that much harder for a "regular" person to buy anything in the short term.

not sure what exactly is 'short term' here, but simple example re. supply and demand and prices: 1) there is a 100 single family homes somewhere. 2) there are 300 people looking who need to live in that somewhere 3) on top of 100 single family homes now we have 400 units built .. Can it be that price of the units for sale may get reduced for competitiveness?

Flip it on its head a bit.

Let's say you live in a neighborhood of mostly single family homes. A new law is passed changing the zoning to allow higher density, and other barriers to building up are reduced or eliminated.

A few people near you sell their homes; they're bulldozed and are replaced with multi-family units. Sure, over the short term, your home value might drop because of greater supply helping to meet demand.

However, over the long term, or even medium term, two things may happen:

1. Your home value goes up because single family homes are less available, and are more desirable.

2. Your home value goes up because developers want to buy your home in order to build a multi-family dwelling there.

Meanwhile, more people are able to live nearby, more affordably, likely cutting down their work commute and increasing their quality of life. I guess the incumbent owners really are that selfish that they fight tooth and nail to prevent others from increasing their quality of life.

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

#302

Post by djrogers »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #280
JackFr wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right. That's a good argument for funding schools with sources besides property taxes. That system intentionally subsidizes renters by getting home owners to pay for schools and tasks people who aren't concerned with the funding to make decisions on it. edit: YES, it's a nice plan to just raise rent to cover the school taxes. However, unless you are in a popular market, your rent prices may not bear the increa…

Renters absolutely pay property taxes - just not directly. Every rental unit I’ve ever owned has had the exact same property tax bill as the ones I’ve lived in, and the taxes were paid from the rent collected.

If property taxes increased substantially, I’d have had to raise rent...

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

#303

Post by Koremat6666 »

Either ways my recommendation is to make a informed choice of NIMBY vs YIMBY. It appeared so far that NIMBY is winning and large number of people support NIMBY. This need not be because all these are evil people who oppose three points but might have legitimate reasons for their stand.

Make an informed choice rather than blindly picking sides.

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

#304

Post by mlyle »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #280
JackFr wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right. That's a good argument for funding schools with sources besides property taxes. That system intentionally subsidizes renters by getting home owners to pay for schools and tasks people who aren't concerned with the funding to make decisions on it. edit: YES, it's a nice plan to just raise rent to cover the school taxes. However, unless you are in a popular market, your rent prices may not bear the increa…

??? Property taxes aren't passed on to renters? Only homeowners pay them, and landlords don't experience them as a cost they need to recover from their tenants?

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

#305

Post by hannasanarion »

moultano wrote: post #290
hannasanarion wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You are absolutely correct that the root cause of the housing crisis is capitalism and the commodification of housing. Every other commodity in my life, food for instance, is dirt cheap and getting cheaper all the time. Housing is expensive because it is not a commodity. You have to beg the government to allow it to exist.

If housing was not a commodity, then it could not be bought and traded with fluctuations of value and expectations of profit on the part of the owners. The cost of housing would not be a problem if it was priced for the benefit it provides, instead of its profit potential.

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

#306

Post by buss »

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…

Agreed 100%

I'm very involved with YIMBY Action here in SF: I'm on the board of both YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, and I'm also running for local office in the current election: https://buss2020.org

If you have any questions about YIMBY, send them my way!

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

#307

Post by kelnos »

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…

> the high-income and low-income housing markets are often effectively separate markets

That's certainly not true in SF. Housing quality certainly runs the entire spectrum here, but in the last decade I've seen low-income renters forced out of ok-ish buildings, and replaced with several high-income renters who do the roommate thing in order to afford it all.

Over time, even building "market rate" (which some people erroneously call "luxury") housing in SF will start to free up the older housing stock that's being occupied by people who in any other market would be considered high-income, and return that housing to its former middle- or low-income renters.

Regardless, with the exception of subsidized housing, it's not even possible to build low- or middle-income housing in SF right now. If you build anything at any size, it will immediately price out of budget for any low-income renters, and most middle-income renters. Part of that is just because landlords and sellers charge whatever the market will bear (which is a lot), and part is because new housing development gets so much opposition that it costs developers way more than it should to actually complete a project (it can take years and countless lawsuits and legal fees to even break ground), and they need to recoup their costs and make even a modest profit somehow.

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

#308

Post by panopticon »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #284
RangerScience wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one". Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.

How does one “lose their home” if the value (to resell to others) goes down, but they aren’t moving & still living there?

> it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey

This would imply that the value goes up (location, location, location). That would cause property taxes to increase and may drive people out that can't afford to stay.

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

#309

Post by mlyle »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #284
RangerScience wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one". Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.

How does one “lose their home” if the value (to resell to others) goes down, but they aren’t moving & still living there?

They're saying that if the value goes up you can have to pay increased property taxes that you now can't afford.

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

#310

Post by jdc »

Koremat6666 wrote: post #303

Either ways my recommendation is to make a informed choice of NIMBY vs YIMBY. It appeared so far that NIMBY is winning and large number of people support NIMBY. This need not be because all these are evil people who oppose three points but might have legitimate reasons for their stand. Make an informed choice rather than blindly picking sides.

Why don't you fill us in on what those reasons might be instead of making strawman arguments?
Post reply on HN