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

431–440 of 645 posts

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

#431

Post by lazyasciiart »

collias wrote: post #146
xamuel wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy isn't exactly accurate. To make it accurate, the kids sitting in the current seats would have to have paid a significant amount to purchase those seats. Also, throw in some kids who, for neurological reasons, become extremely distressed if they're forced to sit next to very loud kids. Because of this, they (or their parents) made a big sacrifice to secure single seats for them at great expense.

You're right, and I feel like this is something that is frequently either downplayed or willfully ignored. If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? This is a legitimate question, not trying to be a jerk. I'm gen…

Same reason people are willing to argue for any tax raises that will cost them money? Because they think the value of a functioning society is greater than the value of the personal assets they will lose.

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

#432

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#433

Post by lazyasciiart »

foota wrote: post #200
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…

...Bellevue?

I don't think you can physically get half a mile away from the nearest available parking in Bellevue.

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

#434

Post by lopmotr »

Spooky23 wrote: post #273
dv_dt wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its pretty easy, your standard of living declines and sucks. I grew up in a single family detached home in Queens, NY in the 80s as the shift to bigger condos and rentals started. The newer buildings are almost always shoddy and ugly, and dealing with landlords for property issues suck as compared to the homeowner.

The owner of your detached house would have been very happy though, wouldn't he? The issues you listed wouldn't affect him, but the opportunity to sell to an apartment developer would.

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

#435

Post by korethr »

jbattle wrote: post #345
jschwartzi wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're misrepresenting what the OP is saying. Someone opposed to HOA and zoning isn't saying that it should be okay to locate a chemical plant next door to a preschool. It's more that we as a society shouldn't let people with entrenched interests in the status quo dictate that we stay with the status quo even when it's clear how awful the status quo is. To wit if I want to raise chickens or garden in my suburban…

I really don't think I'm misrepresenting. I tried to take a literal but good-faith reading of what the OP wrote: > You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. Zoning laws and HOAs are (some of the more comm…

Your reply ran straight away into an absurd reading of the post's point.

There are scales where it is or is not practical to do various things. You might have noticed that fracking rigs, chemical plants, hog farms, et cetera, tend to take up a large area. All the various things one can do on a parcel of land cease to be worth trying to do once that parcel of land goes below a certain size. A fracking rig is unlikely to be practical to erect and operate in a typical suburban lot.

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

#436

Post by logfromblammo »

korethr wrote: post #420
logfromblammo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good. Thank you. I had already figured that considering one's house to be an asset is the wrong way to think about it, but lacked the words for how to then accurately describe what it actually is. "Durable consumer good" captures what a house is and does much better, IMO. Getting this attitude more widespread is going to be difficult, sadly.…

The location is an asset. But it's one whose value is largely dependent on the value of other nearby locations, and its connectedness to them. As that is something the owner cannot do much to influence individually, that's more a speculation than an investment.

I don't think the US will even be able to start on a tear-down-and-rebuild attitude until there is already a sufficiency of housing. As it is now, it appears to be in a cycle of new development, then decline, then revitalization, where redevelopment only occurs when property values in a place have already collapsed, and ruined those who weren't able to move before the wave hit.

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

#437

Post by Reedx »

buss wrote: post #306
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!

"I won't throw my hands in the air and blame a boogeyman, I won't ignore data because it doesn't fit my ideology...

It's time we stop blaming everyone else and start taking responsibility."

This is encouraging to see. I think Andrew Yang showed there's a real hunger for a solutions and data oriented approach, eschewing tribalism. Although perhaps still in a nascent stage, there finally seem to be signs of an increasing appetite for this.

Good luck!

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

#438

Post by buss »

davidw wrote: post #328
buss wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Nice work! It'd be fun to have a mini-meetup at the YimbyTown conference this spring; there seems to be an overlap of tech people and YIMBYs.

I'll be there! SF YIMBY will probably put on a happy hour or something

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

#439

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

starik36 wrote: post #423
mlyle wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? 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?

I think he means that taxes are indirectly passed to renters in form of a higher rent.

Correct, also in the places that the market does not bear it. If your only concept of renting is in the Bay Area or Brooklyn or some high end captive market, you don't really get that you can't always just raise rent until costs are covered. Most of the country won't bear it so the landlord eats it. I have rentals, I know this first hand.

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

#440

Post by x0054 »

tmh79 wrote: post #401
x0054 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen what happens in those projects? I lived in Chicago and those were not a good place to live because of incredible levels of crime. What we need is to stop clustering so much around SF and LA. There are lots of places in CA that are basically empty. What we need is more ways for people to make money remotely so they can live in lower density areas and still make good living. High density is not the answer…

The reason we have a housing crises is because people want high density living. Our market crises is a literal refutation of your proposed solution.

What proof do you have for that? Why isn't it more likely that what people actually want is good paying jobs without having to spend 2 hours in traffic every day?

Say you have 2 options, one is to live in a lower density area with plenty of playgrounds for your kids, space to decompress and have fun, and a good paying job that you can do from home or close by.

Option two is being shoved like sardines into a 20 story high density apartment building for the privilege of what? What's the point of high density living? So you can all die from a pandemic faster? Or so you can eat at fancy restaurants unhealthy food?

Are you sure that your bubble isn't shaping your opinion?

Post reply on HN