California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing • Hacker News Board

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#11

Post by mamon » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

ab_testing wrote: post #9

kevingadd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-income families often pack many people into a small apartment, so it's not unrealistic for one apartment to need 3 parking spots for two working parents and a working child, just as an example. I lived in a household like that growing up

3 is still reasonable. They went to 5.3 parking spots per apartment.

By reducing number of apartments from 18 to 10 - I assume that by this time the garage had already been built so downsizing it was not possible.

Also, I've just noticed: why on earth would they build affordable housing next to the beach? Is this some twisted take on equality, that poor people also deserve view at the ocean? If "affordable housing" competes for the same land as luxury residences it will end up just as expensive.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#12

Post by sokoloff » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

virgilp wrote: post #5

> Pearl was cut from 18 apartments to 10 and its approval required an underground garage with 53 parking spots. How did it ever get here? Requiring more than 2 parking spots per apartment is insane.... especially for "affordable housing".

I think the original design as implied in the article was that the garage was to be a paid garage for the community and the fees from it would help to repay some of the grants to build the housing. It was not "you need 5 parking spots per unit plus 3 for building management".

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#13

Post by xvedejas » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #8

kevingadd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-income families often pack many people into a small apartment, so it's not unrealistic for one apartment to need 3 parking spots for two working parents and a working child, just as an example. I lived in a household like that growing up

OR decent mass transit. But forget that in California.

Now, I'll grant it's only very specific corridors, but the densest parts of California do have passable mass transit. The majority of Californians don't have access to this, but the most crowded parts do.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#14

Post by dugmartin » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

starclerk wrote: post #10

kwillets wrote: post #6

Amongst the various human rights, the right to build a house should be fundamental, but somehow it was lost to political forces.

Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.

I think the libertarians are worried that their next door neighbor will drag in a trailer. Ideals are one thing, property values are another.

Around here we have a lot of open space advocates that don't want any development (even though we are losing population and in a generation won't be able to fund our schools). I've often wanted to ask one of those folks (normally older with a nice older home) if they are so invested in open space why don't they knock down their house?

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#15

Post by majormajor » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

virgilp wrote: post #5

> Pearl was cut from 18 apartments to 10 and its approval required an underground garage with 53 parking spots. How did it ever get here? Requiring more than 2 parking spots per apartment is insane.... especially for "affordable housing".

> Residents and the public would pay for parking in an underground garage, which would help finance the project, as would rent from a small grocery store.

Mixed use is gonna need a lot more parking.

> After a year of negotiations with the city, Hitzke agreed to shrink the Pearl to 10 apartments and make it free for the public to park in the 53-space garage.

Unclear if the grocery store is still there at this point, but now it's a free public garage, not just residents.

This isn't a story of parking minimums, this is a story of a small town being picky about the type of development permitted.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#16

Post by sokoloff » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

starclerk wrote: post #10

kwillets wrote: post #6

Amongst the various human rights, the right to build a house should be fundamental, but somehow it was lost to political forces.

Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.

Some libertarians are presumably also in support of "you spent money buying land and a house in an area with full awareness of a specific framework of zoning laws and those laws should not be changed without good cause and due process". (Libertarians are not necessarily and are often not anarchists.)

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#17

Post by subsubzero » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

What can't be discounted besides the usual suspects of bad zoning, high cost of land etc. is construction costs. Basically an area gets so expensive that it prices out construction workers and their families. This is being seen in the bay area now as a typical single family home goes for over 1M in the pennisula/SF/South Bay area. Go farther out to the east bay, far south bay(gilroy etc) and prices are still 700/800k+. The need for housing is so great but also it is a vicious feedback loop of ever increasing construction costs to build this housing. For LA/San Diego area it is rather large so more affordable housing can be found but overall it is still extremely expensive compared to the rest of America.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#18

Post by Lammy » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

ab_testing wrote: post #4

The bullshit and nimbyism in California is truly breathtaking. That happened in the wealthy San Diego County enclave of Solana Beach, where the Pearl was cut from 18 apartments to 10 and its approval required an underground garage with 53 parking spots.

It makes a lot more sense when you realize the entire "environmental movement" arose as the justifiable/defensible workaround for the Fair Housing Act in 1968: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=environmentali...

e: I can't get the direct link to work properly, but press the blue "Search lots of books" button and it will work.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#19

Post by komali2 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #8

kevingadd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-income families often pack many people into a small apartment, so it's not unrealistic for one apartment to need 3 parking spots for two working parents and a working child, just as an example. I lived in a household like that growing up

OR decent mass transit. But forget that in California.

Uh, is there any state with decent mass transit in the USA? Some of the cities have "passable" mass transit, but they're an exception imo. Nothing comes close to take-your-pick medium sized town in take-your-pick European country.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#20

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

starclerk wrote: post #10

kwillets wrote: post #6

Amongst the various human rights, the right to build a house should be fundamental, but somehow it was lost to political forces.

Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.

[deleted]