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

311–320 of 645 posts

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

#311

Post by njarboe »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #157
jdhn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd be paying _more_ in property taxes, California homeowners who are 55 or older get a one time chance to sell their existing primary residence, and transfer its property tax assessment to another house[0]. Only catch is that the valuation of the new property has to be equal or less than the p…

"if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification" Only if you are leaving the Bay Area. Often, these older houses have a lot of deferred maintenance and the retired seller wants to downsize into something in the Bay Area that is newer build/renovated.

And you can't leave the Bay Area as the transfer has to be in the same county in most cases.

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

#312

Post by jelliclesfarm »

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…

You want to displace retired people on fixed income because you like to have young and diverse neighbours?

It is more than selfish. This is bigotry against the elderly.

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

#313

Post by mlyle »

RangerScience wrote: post #47
quotemstr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shif…

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.

Lots of states have regimes where you can defer (often interest-free) the amount of property tax increase above a certain limit to time of sale. This may be a better way to handle it than what California does.

That is, if your property tax was $10,000 last year when you bought, and would increase to $12,000 this year, the state would give you an indefinite, interest free loan for $1500 or whatever secured by the property.

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

#314

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

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…

Californians seem like people who would care about co2 and emissions, the only good solution is to build higher and denser, instead of long drives.

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

#315

Post by darksaints »

hannasanarion wrote: post #260
darksaints wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course. Which nullifies any argument about whether it is Yes-in-my-back-yard or yes-in-your-back-yard. You only get to make that distinction if you're talking about your own literal back yard.

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

#316

Post by mlyle »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #122
rndmize wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahead of most of this, you probably need to remove or heavily adjust Prop 13. The primary problem, as detailed in the article, is that homeowners have every incentive to be against new construction and no incentives to be for it. If property taxes rose appropriately with property values, homeowners would have an interest in maintaining housing prices rather than doing everything they can to keep them rising. There's…

I don't know a single long time home owner that is NIMBY because they want their house's value to rise. They're NIMBY because they want their neighborhood to stay the same. > For example, I've talked to retired folks that have considered leaving the bay due to the increased cost of living. But because they have owned their house for decades + P13, if they bought a _cheaper_ house elsewhere in CA to downsize, they'd b…

> I don't know a single long time home owner that is NIMBY because they want their house's value to rise. They're NIMBY because they want their neighborhood to stay the same.

There's lots of people who move into a neighborhood near a airport, landfill, etc, and who over some time living there decide the airport is a big problem because it's holding property values down.

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

#318

Post by foxx-boxx »

You should always respect people who was there first. When money talks, bs takes the bus: new tenants are needed to support bankrupt pension system anyway.

Even international law admits that.

High cost of real estate should force many people to sell their homes and leave to cheaper places.

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

#319

Post by njarboe »

trianglesphere wrote: post #230
riazrizvi wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depreciati…

Although recently in the Bay Area construction costs have skyrocketed so much that in the last 5 years my home replacement cost (for insurance) has about doubled causing the land value to actually drop.

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

#320

Post by hodgesrm »

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.

There's resistance to change but economics are far more important and explain the consistent opposition across the state. It's not as simple as sell your house and make a profit, then find something nicer. If your neighbors sell first to the developer of the N-story apartment building it can drop the value of houses around it. Also, buying a house in California resets your property taxes to current property value (a legacy of Prop 13).

I suspect it will be hard to solving the housing problem without unwinding Prop 13 and some of the other issues that make it harder for people to sell homes.

Post reply on HN