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

471–480 of 645 posts

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

#471

Post by infecto »

dominotw wrote: post #454
infecto wrote: post #449

Fuck California and fuck the Bay Area. Just a bold statement. I wish for change but i don't see it happening. I love the weather, love the environment and sometimes love the people here but after living here for a number of years, I am started to not understand it. I pay pretty high taxes to live here. We have the most embarrassing property tax laws that include business property. I walk to work and walk through so m…

looks like you are describing a specific part of 'bay area' . lots of burbs don't have these issues.

I mean I am but I am not? A lot of the people in the safe "burbs" are commuting somewhere. But even then I feel like I could count far fewer safe burbs than what I described above.

Anyway, just because there are some safe burbs does not mean what I describe is wrong. Our roads suck, we have a backwards property tax, its expensive to live in a decent school district and I generally feel pretty unsafe here.

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

#472

Post by infecto »

gonehome wrote: post #467
zionic wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember to adjust your voting habits when you inevitably move somewhere else.

For clarity the people voting for policies to restrict housing are not the people moving away because they can't afford housing. There's a class of people that own housing that pay very little property tax because they bought years ago and are protected by Prop 13. These people vote to prevent building anything because they benefit both from insane house prices and property tax protection. All the new people live wit…

Fuck Prop 13. It blows my mind how many long time California people don't even realize prop 13 covers many business properties.

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

#473

Post by nrp »

tryitnow wrote: post #469
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!

I used to be YIMBY, but I doubt more construction would lead to lower costs of living. When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing. You would think that more construction would lead to more affordable housing, but it seems like more construction doesn't just increase supply, it also increases demand, which can offset any price effects…

The YIMBY argument mentioned in the article is that expensive new housing today becomes mid-range and eventually lower-end housing over decades as it ages. If you don’t put units into the front of that pipeline now, nothing comes out of the other end of it later. This seems plausible to me, and there is research stating the filtering effects may happen a lot faster than that on a regional level: https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/06/housing-supply-d...

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

#475

Post by irq11 »

Kalium wrote: post #409
irq11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

You're absolutely right. People are rarely self-consciously irrationally opposed to any given proposal to build housing. In theory, it should be possible to address any given rational concern! Too tall? Make it shorter. Not enough public space? Make the area in front of it a parklet! Not enough subsidized housing? More BMR units and a donation to a neighborhood group will solve that one. Doesn't fit with the style or…

Well, I think that pretty much anything is more effective than calling people names. But rhetorically, it’s probably a lot more effective to just be honest about what you want: shared sacrifice for lower rents.

It’s cynical to call it YIMBY, because a) it mirrors the name-calling, and b) anyone who is intellectually honest knows that YIMBY really means YIYBY for most people. So stop it. Own that you want something that will be at least a little bit painful for everyone. Then sell the positives.

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

#476

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

tmh79 wrote: post #397
pruneridge wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument does not account for people currently outside the Bay Area moving into the Bay Area because of cheaper housing. While people currently residing in far flung places would move closer to their work, the people living in other parts of the country aspiring to live in Silicon Valley would now move to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Eventually, we will end up with the same housing crunch, except with twice the numbe…

If you look at the data for SF, 95% of brand new units are first occupied by people who have lived here for a at least a few years. New housing serves people who are already here. What causes people to migrate to the bay is the office creation, not the housing creation.

That logic doesn't work. 95% of new units going to existing residents doesn't mean that if I built 100 new units, I only get 5 new houses. Those 95% who move to new units leave their old local places open, which in turn go to god knows where.

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

#477

Post by davidw »

tryitnow wrote: post #469
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!

I used to be YIMBY, but I doubt more construction would lead to lower costs of living. When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing. You would think that more construction would lead to more affordable housing, but it seems like more construction doesn't just increase supply, it also increases demand, which can offset any price effects…

Desirable places are never going to be the absolute cheapest option, for sure, but they could be a lot cheaper. Here are some concrete (ha ha) examples:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-th...

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

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

#478

Post by buss »

tryitnow wrote: post #469
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!

I used to be YIMBY, but I doubt more construction would lead to lower costs of living. When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing. You would think that more construction would lead to more affordable housing, but it seems like more construction doesn't just increase supply, it also increases demand, which can offset any price effects…

There's absolutely zero evidence of "induced demand" for housing. And all available evidence suggests that 1: SF & CA have huge shortages of homes and 2: Building more is a good solution.

Please see this non-exhaustive list of things which all show building more housing leads to housing affordability.

* http://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-nei...

* https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/12/02/how...

* https://jamesjgleeson.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/how-tokyo-bui...

* https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-th...

* https://medium.com/land-buildings-identity-and-values/what-i...

* https://fee.org/articles/why-isnt-rent-in-tokyo-out-of-contr...

* https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-...

* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/arti...

* https://medium.com/@eddiesun/no-vacancy-the-housing-crisis-l...

* https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1165339989774749696?s=...

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

#479

Post by bcrosby95 »

danans wrote: post #426
bcrosby95 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I feel like any removal or reduction of prop 13 should be used to help reduce California income taxes, which is abnormally high due to prop 13, not spend more money on stuff.

This repeal effort is specifically motivated by the desire to increase education funding, not to reduce income taxes. It may also have the Georgist side effect of pushing more expensive commercial property into productive uses vs idling as financial instruments. I'm not saying you have to agree with that cause, but if lowering state income taxes is your goal, then there are plenty of groups in CA advocating for that…

My goal is for California to have a more stable revenue story so the state doesn't enter crisis mode every 10 years. California revenue is volatile because of the heavy reliance on income taxes, which are volatile due to the stock market. Property taxes are a much more stable source of revenue to rely upon.

Backing out prop 13 to fund certain ventures is just going to create even more problems down the road. Revenue will still be volatile. Then in the next downturn education will get screwed again, like what happened in the last recession. And you won't have prop 13 to back out anymore. It will be permanently fucked. Maybe the state will bump income taxes even more to fund things.

So more volatile revenue for the state to rely on. More fun times ahead!

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

#480

Post by zamfi »

manfredo wrote: post #89
zamfi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We squander the capacity of our main commuter railroad (BART) Out of curiosity, do you ride Bart at commute hours? At 5pm, the platforms at Embarcadero and Montgomery are dangerously packed. I didn’t think there is much excess capacity for commuting. All other times? Absolutely yes.

You're putting the cart before the horse. More commuters creates more ticket revenue, which gives BART more resources to expand capacity. They're not going to expand capacity until there's more demand.

> You're putting the cart before the horse.

I'm not, let me explain.

> More commuters creates more ticket revenue, which gives BART more resources to expand capacity. They're not going to expand capacity until there's more demand.

BART needs money to expand, and this money is not going to come from commuters. Why?

First, "expand capacity" can mean two things:

1) Buy and/or run more trains on existing tracks, serving existing stations.

2) Build more tracks and/or stations.

For 1), BART already operates at or nearly at maximum physical capacity at commute hours in the peak commute direction: there is not headroom in the Transbay tube to add more trains at rush hour, at least for trips between SF and the East Bay. BART could earn more revenue from more commuters that are not on the peak lines -- but building more housing in the suburbs will not provide this.

For 2), this money comes from the capital budget, not the operating budget. BART fares provide about 70% of the operating costs of BART. There is no profit, no money left over to go to pay for more tracks or stations. That money comes from voters who approve bonds or other sources of funding for this constructions. More commuters will not provide this either.

We need to expand BART, and we need development -- these two go hand in hand!

Post reply on HN