Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

531–540 of 645 posts

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

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if it's fair for you to say "my neighbor should not develop his land" --by virtue of living near your neighbor-- am I not equally valid in saying "my neighbor should be able to develop his land?"

Yes. Exactly. When we all bought in, it was with the promise of a certain percentage for residential zoning and commercial zoning and resource allocation. Any decision should be subject to a referendum of said owners. It doesn’t make sense for non property tax payers to vote on how tax payers and property owners should be taxed. That’s a form of tyranny. Property rights are important to this country and is foundation…

I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of your own plot: that's what ownership means, right? The choice do decide its destiny. If you wanted that choice for a full square mile around you, should've bought the land to ensure it never, ever was developed.

> Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated?

That's my point: you have no rights to your neighbors land. You property rights begin and end at the physical demarcation of your parcel. You never paid for the promise of immutable zoning laws (I would be shocked if your deed made such claims).

I may not agree with your position, but I do definitely understand the thought processes regarding it, which I did not before, and for that I am appreciative.

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

#532

Housing: * European way - build centrally design urban cities, with infrastructure, schools, public transportation, community spaces, recreation/business spaces. * American way - let for-profit developers build luxury houses around enormous google/fb/other tech giant campuses, and let struggling communities to figure out how to live with it... Medical care: * European way - build an efficient medical system which is…

On healthcare, this isn't true simply because of how drastically different approaches are across Europe. There are countries there that have something a lot like ACA, just better implemented (Switzerland). There are countries with true single payer nationalized systems (UK). There are countries where healthcare is run by a bunch of private non-profit coops for most people, but those who want to can opt out into a ful…

yeah, I've exaggerated a bit with the comparison, thanks for correcting. I think it will be right to say, that a decent medical care is a right, not a privilege, in most of the European countries. And the private hospitals come to play when you want a premium services. But even then you know the price list most of the services, or it is all included for a reasonable price.

In either case, I see quite a different approach - attempt to provide social oriented services by just relaying the problems on the working population, instead of owning the problem and solving the proper way.

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

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding extra lanes to a road just increases the amount of people driving on them, instead of easing traffic. So I would bet the same is true of public transit.

Yes, but it moves more people. Driving doesn’t need to compete with public transit for speed—transit is immensely slower than driving even in places with excellent transit.

er, what? the NYC subway for example is vastly faster than driving.

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

#534
> In backing every single project in the development pipeline that day, Ms. Trauss laid out a platform that would make her a celebrity of Bay Area politics: how expensive new housing today would become affordable old housing tomorrow, how San Francisco was blowing its chance to harness the energy of an economic boom to mass-build homes that generations of residents could enjoy. She didn’t care if a proposal was for apartments or condos or how much money its future residents had. It was a universal platform of more. Ms. Trauss was for anything and everything, so long as it was built tall and fast and had people living in it.

What a great article, I'm glad that not all is lost in SF Bay w.r.t. the housing crisis.

TBH, I'm amazed how the above points seem so controversial in SF Bay. It's as common-sense as it gets. Build more, always. Denying market-rate housing projects because they don't have income-restricted units doesn't help anyone in any way; I'm all for free-speech and stuff, but anyone who's trying to argue any such points that interfere with adding more capacity to the market and which make zero economic sense should be escorted out of the meetings.

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

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "yeah, screw them, I got mine." A more charitable interpretation is that it takes a lifetime of wealth accumulation to be able to buy a home in today's California, and it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the potential of losing your life's single largest investment. Casting them as a cartoon villains solves nothing.

Is it even primarily an economic self interest thing? If they intend to continue living in their current neighborhood it would be hard to realize that home value, although I'm sure there's some people that plan to sell the house and retire out of state. Increasing density might not even necessarily be bad for property prices (for people who want to sell) since the land might be redeveloped into more than one unit. I'…

I'm sure you're right, in that there are multiple reasons all mashed together. A family that buys in Neighborhood X likely selected that neighborhood because they liked it as it is, so I think it's easy to see why homeowners would be resistant to change, economic or not.

My gut tells me a lot of it is genuinely about the money, though. Of the people I know, most have to spend >50% of their income per month just to maintain a roof over my head. And these are working-professional families, well above median state incomes. That kind of pressure, even under the guise of paying a mortgage instead of renting, is a real stressor.

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

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Choosin…

What you're saying is that price isn't the problem, scarcity is the problem. Price is just an inevitable consequence of scarcity – the symptom, not the cause.

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

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Exactly. When we all bought in, it was with the promise of a certain percentage for residential zoning and commercial zoning and resource allocation. Any decision should be subject to a referendum of said owners. It doesn’t make sense for non property tax payers to vote on how tax payers and property owners should be taxed. That’s a form of tyranny. Property rights are important to this country and is foundation…

I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of your own plot: that's what ownership means, right? The choice do decide its destiny. If you wanted that choice for a full square mile around you, should've bought the land to ensure it never, ever was developed. > Why should anyone who has no rights to an ass…

But that’s the point. The city’s general plan okays zoning before developments are built. Single family homes bought in to preserve that density to avail the share in resources. The city council is supposed to get people’s input before they change zoning. If property owners want to change it, put it to a referendum, but that never happens. Of course, those who don’t have property want those who have it to part with it so they can own too. The government is just manufacturing drama by pointing to their begging bowl and painting the tax paying citizens as villains. The only beneficiary is the govt and redistribution of income. And twenty years from now, it will be the turn of the Silicon Valley youth who are hoping to displace Silicon Valley senior citizenry because their property is coveted.

It should be by referendum. But this is not what’s happening in California. People should understand how regional governance works. There is no more local governments for cities. ABAG(Bay Area cities need to have mandatory membership) and MTC(metropolitan transport Corp) have been merged. Both are highly inefficient and bought in by the real estate mafia. There is a revolving door for politicians who were elected at city level and in the boards of non profits and housing advocacy groups. They are changing zoning and erasing CEQA without public input.

They are purposely NOT improving transport and infrastructure and increasing density around existing inefficient transport hubs so more property taxes from dense areas can be distributed to the rest of California.

Meanwhile they keep everyone on poverty sustenance and keep high density/high income Bay Area cities unsustainable. Why should they? When it’s easy enough to bleed just a highly productive population for taxes? Meanwhile seniors are hindering and it’s easy to cast them as scapegoats

In this lovely large state, there is enough places to become the next Bay Area..but it’s not happening. If you dig deeper..and I have..you will see that this is all a vile coverup of unsustainable unfunded public sector pension liabilities and backed by unions.

It is appalling the youth clamoring to scapegoat ‘boomers’ and NIMBYs are so easily brainwashed that they don’t ask the right questions. It’s very easy to go all forensic on California budget. I think it’s worth it.

There are laws in place but individual votes have no more value. It’s mob rule manufactured by the government. There is no transparency or accountability.

Not just in America..in every country, the richest demographic is the most vulnerable. Even globally every oil producing country is poor or is ruled by totalitarian govt or has sanctions. In the United States, cattlemen and ranchers and farmers are rich because of land. Guess who is the the most bankrupt today? Land rich and cash poor farmers and ranchers. This is systematic raid on the one resource that can’t be manufactured. Land. You can’t print land, but you can print money. Land is being taken away from those that the PTB who feel like they don’t deserve it. That’s why there are so few people of colour who are land owning farmers. There are so few middle class who own property and it’s made more and more expensive to own property by way of taxes and parcel taxes and supplemental taxes.

It’s driven by fear and uncertainty that is being fed at school. When the govt offers to play nanny and thinks that you can’t manage your assets as well as they can, it’s time to start shaking in your boots with fear.

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

#538
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/201…

While I vigorously support more construction in the SF metro area, I think expectations need to be set correctly as to the amount of construction required to actually bring prices down, instead of just slowing their rate of increase. It's a lot . I don't recall all the numbers, but I believe I saw something suggesting that we need to increase the rate of housing starts by a factor of 4 just to stabilize prices. To ac…

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of “we’ve been building a ton and prices are still high” comments on Nextdoor and heard the same in person. Not sure if it’s all in good faith, but some people at least seem to be persuaded by what you’re talking about.

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

#539

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…

> Fuck California and fuck the Bay Area.

I'm Californian (7th generation) born and raised and I had to leave for the aforementioned reasons, I spent a summer in Sunnyvale and I just couldn't cope with the dreariness of it all, (this is also about the time I became really fascinated with the Cyberpunk genre, because I felt it had already happened there).

If I'm honest the Bay area feels the least like the California I knew and love(d). I'm originally from SoCal, but my family is from NorCal (Santa Cruz and San Jose) and its just not worth it. The costs, the traffic, the taxes, the headache of just being somewhere that shutdowns so early but feels like its never dormant. I used to go to San Jose in the 90s and the feel and the vibe of the place is night and day to present-day.

I've traveled all over Europe and lived in Hawaii for a while, and the World is much bigger than California. The one thing California does have above over every other place is the weather, and that's debatable as I thought NorCal weather was far too muggy and sticky for my preference and I lived in Coast in SoCal, and the diverse cultural environment. In OC I can honestly immerse myself in Vietnamese, Laotion, Chinese, Japanese, Korean centric towns within a 45 miles radius all in the same day. Its amazing if you're into food culture, LA is even better, San Diego less so but still good.

Where as if I lived in Germany or Italy, while they have their own regional 'cuccina tipica' it was just not the same at all. And that's what I missed the most when away from California, everything else I can cope with.

With that said, I hate the BART, its gross and a relic of terrible system. It was cool to see it from afar, but having to go from Sunnyvale to the East Bay, to SFO on a regular basis... I'll never see why anyone would do that instead of ride a motorcycle or an EV and drive in the carpool for free if you value your time ad health. I got stuck in SFO on a Sunday for 13 hours because I forgot the BART stopped early.

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

#540
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…

Huh? You mean the present sky-high housing prices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and other cities is not due to a shortage of units?
Post reply on HN