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

361–370 of 645 posts

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

#361

Post by kelnos »

twiceaday wrote: post #17
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.

Because it drives down prices and increases competition. California gets exactly what it functionally wants, not what some people say they want.

Yup, and this is what saddens me the most.

I'm closing next week in SF on my first ever home purchase (after renting for 10 years here, and 6 years prior elsewhere in the Bay Area). Sure, I would like for it to be worth more (outpacing inflation) in 10, 20, or 30 years. But I am not buying a lifestyle, or a guarantee of value increase, or a neighborhood frozen in time at this point forever. I'm buying some floors, walls, and ceilings. I'm buying into a community that I know needs to grow and change if it's to survive and flourish.

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

#363

Post by moultano »

hannasanarion wrote: post #305
moultano wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It isn't the price of housing that's the root problem, it's the arithmetic. There aren't enough homes in places people want to live for the people who want to live there. The price decides who gets them, but arithmetic causes the underlying suffering.

If there isn't enough food, someone goes hungry. The price just decides who. If there isn't enough housing, someone has to move out. The price just decides who.

Choosing "who" via a more equitable method than price doesn't reduce the amount of suffering, it just spreads it around better.

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

#364

Post by tathougies »

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

Well... no. If your SFH zoned lot is now duplex-friendly, it means your house goes up in value because it can be immediately rented out to two people or you can rent it out to another family immediately, without asking anyone, as long as you do the required physical modifications. Now your home value is increased by the amount of revenue (at an appropriate discount rate) it would draw in from two simultaneous occupants in perpetuity, which is always higher than the rate possible from one occupant.

It literally benefits everyone

> Of course, history is littered with cases of YIMBY theory failing urban housing markets

No, it's not. History is a constant example of the success of the free market, which YIMBY's are in favor of, and NIMBY's are against. This is ridiculous.

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

#365

Post by deepakhj »

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…

Prop 13 would be easy to fix: 1) Limit to primary residence. 2) Charge market rate tax for everyone but for homeowners that want to defer assess it as a lien on the house that is collected once sold. New homeowner tax will drop once tax revenue is more equitable. Make this deferment income based. 3) Remove from commercial property.

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

#366

Post by tathougies »

bluGill wrote: post #144
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…

Prop 13 also has the perverse incentive that once you are in you should vote for tax increases and high spend policies - you won't have to pay for them. I'm surprised Republicans have not latch onto this as a reason to repeal it - they already like to point out it is easy to spend other people's money as an argument against socialism.

There are no republicans in california. Like, the CA republican party is completely defunct at this point, and I am a (former) California republican; now a republican in another liberal state.

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

#367

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #339

I have been asking someone..anyone..to give me an example of how building more housing leads to affordable housing. Like in real life.. Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining infrastructure that the government can’t seem to replace or upgrade. We have pestilence, rodent infestations, higher crime, big government…

I don't know if this holds water. Boomers who "bought in" during the 70s-80s (when prices were a much lower multiple of the median income) didn't have to make a public discussion of housing, because it was readily available to them. Had in not been affordable to those boomers, would have the silent generation said the boomers didn't deserve housing? As a public policy, it seems prudent to have home prices target some median of the income. If people can afford to buy homes, they are incentivized to stay in the area longer and establish strong community ties. That's why the U.S. Government heavily promoted home ownership post WW2.

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

#368

Post by notJim »

darksaints wrote: post #315
hannasanarion wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this comment is accurate just from a logical standpoint. Backyard has two possible meanings here:

* Literal backyard: in this case, then maybe one could argue that if we accept the premise[1] that YIMBYs aren't homeowners, then they are in fact arguing about other people's backyards.

* Figurative backyard: in this case, then whether someone is a homeowner is irrelevant, because the backyard refers to the general area, shared by all residents.

Of course, as we know from this thread, backyard in [N|Y]IMBY refers to the figurative backyard. Therefore, we must reject the argument that people are arguing over other's backyards.

[1]: As I argue elsewhere in this thread, I don't think we should accept this premise.

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

#369

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Let me the ask the YIMBY crowd this...what is stopping 2 dozen do you to pool funds together to build a community where land is affordable and have tailored amenities. And you can literally have your own transport to anywhere. Co-Own your shared vacation paradises. Private schools. Incorporated communities. Invest in farms and automation. You can grow your own food and use economics instead of govt bureaucracy to make it all work.

A satellite community of multiple such youthful communities is a win-win for all. That’s what real estate companies do, but they profit enormously from it with little value. They are building on top of existing infrastructure and not passing the monetary benefits of it and pocketing it for their purposes.

I am not being flippant because I have spent a few years on such a model. A community of 6000 can be supported in 600 acres that will actually not only be self sustaining but can also be income producing if you add farms and value added businesses for those who don’t wish full time jobs. There are monetary and communal benefits. There will be less reliance on govt and less wastage of resources.

120 is a good number because it would satisfy the Dunbar number limits. It shouldn’t be difficult to have a nice proportion of ageing, young and middle aged populations for diversity.

It’s just a modern tech supported version of eco villages and ..dare I say..cults. But they fail because they never take the necessary survival factor of monetary stability and most eschew technology. These don’t have to and will be better supported.

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

#370

Post by tathougies »

bbarn wrote: post #332
starpilot wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is homeownership a requirement for retirement savings? What about IRA's, 401ks? That they chose to stake so much on a more volatile asset is not the fault of the people around them. Should cities sacrifice their urban well-being, pushing people out on the streets and guaranteeing lower-income people can never live there, for the sake of some elderly residents who put their eggs in one basket?

Investment in the market is incredibly volatile compared to real estate. That's why it's called "real" estate.

No, it's not. In 2008 we saw that that is really not the case. Housing is awful because it's relatively difficult to find an owner and transaction fees are extremely high.
Post reply on HN