Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 213 posts

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#61

Post by r0m4n0 »

Honestly I ran into partially related situation in NYC. I found a 1-bed apartment I liked at a nicer building, I decided to proceed and next thing you know I'm signing the lease. I read the lease and says a few very peculiar things:

1) the rent is 50% higher than what I saw being advertised/communicated

2) there is a massive discount that brings the rent down to what we agreed to on a separate page

3) this turned out to be a rent stabilized building so my rent is protected under rent control and I was informed I have more rights about increased rent

After some more thought I realize building management has been increasing the rent at the government regulated percentage every year behind the scenes and sometimes the market was relatively flat, they continued to raise the actual rent providing discounts, 10 years later they are giving a massive discount so that it actually meets the market demand. Later on they have full control on raising rent as often as to basically whatever price they want. Something about the whole thing seems like this isn't what rent stabilization was for...

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#62

Post by pengaru »

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".

It's like you guys didn't even read TFA.

The proposed building site is an existing public parking lot. The underground parking lot isn't just for the residents, it has to replace the public parking capacity it's occupying as well:

  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.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#63

Post by algeoMA »

nitrogen wrote: post #46
algeoMA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "“Low-income people tend to own cars that are in disrepair and ride motorcycles adding to the noise of a ‘lights out at 8 p.m. community,’” Marylyn Rinaldi, a neighboring condominium owner, wrote in 2011 in a letter to the City Council that was later cited in a lawsuit over the project." Nimbyism at its finest.

Why shouldn't a community be able to decide that they want quiet nights?

It's more the sneering, condescending tone of the comment that I thought was jaw-dropping. Sure, noise ordinances are reasonable. But labeling poor people as loud - and thus undesirable - is not okay. I can't believe I even had to explain this to be honest.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#64

Post by clairity »

Lammy wrote: post #18
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.

powerful forces aren't able to block decentralized developments dotting the country, but they're able to gather enough momentum to pass centralized and controversial regulations? that doesn't pass the smell test.

that said, CEQA challenges have become a de facto tool in the nimby arsenal in CA.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#65

Post by starclerk »

generalpass wrote: post #34
starclerk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a liber…

> Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else.

I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning.

> Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing.

Totally. There are tons of liberal orgs that are contributing to the housing shortage. I mean the few orgs I see advocating for development (eg SF YIMBY, or politicians like Scott Wiener) appear more liberal than libertarian.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#66

Post by twblalock »

dionidium wrote: post #58
twblalock wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two liberties in tension: the right to do what you want on your own land, and the right to live in peace on your own land (which requires you to restrict what your neighbors can do on their land).

It's odd to me that anyone finds this compelling. You have a right to wear whatever t-shirts you like. You don't have a right to prevent other people from wearing t-shirts with colors you find objectionable. Yet, somehow in housing we've decided that, no, you actually do have the right to object to all kind of innocuous nonsense (window styles, setbacks, paint colors, and on and on). There's nothing so trivial that i…

There are a lot of things that matter more than window styles and paint colors, and they can have a severe negative impact on quality of life and property values and safety.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#67

Post by Lammy »

chucksmash wrote: post #53
Lammy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Linking to a ngrams graph that shows "environmentalism" graphed against "civil rights" as evidence that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for segregation is beyond flimsy. Surely this must be the arch example of correlation ≠ causation.

Of course there's so much more to it, but there isn't really a single source I can link you that makes this argument. One example I can easily show is the history of planned freeways in the Bay Area that were canceled due to environmental concerns. Take a look at what areas the canceled freeways would have connected, then take a look at the demographics of those areas. Notice in particular how no freeway (or rail!) connection to the Golden Gate was ever allowed, since that would have connected Marin to the Bay Area megalopolis.

https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html

http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#68

Post by xvedejas »

tobylane wrote: post #25
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.

The city was given control of limited lands. The solution is to either be involved with the democracy of the city, or be outside of the city.

At least in California, counties have zoning ordinances and permitting requirements too.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#69

Post by algeoMA »

mc32 wrote: post #47
algeoMA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "“Low-income people tend to own cars that are in disrepair and ride motorcycles adding to the noise of a ‘lights out at 8 p.m. community,’” Marylyn Rinaldi, a neighboring condominium owner, wrote in 2011 in a letter to the City Council that was later cited in a lawsuit over the project." Nimbyism at its finest.

It may be, but there is a behavioral difference in different economic environments —though even within lower income communities many people who are forced to live there “put up with” these quality of life issues because they don’t have the ability to afford to live in communities that observe these standards. Not all that different from people complaining about the loudness of living next to college student rentals o…

Declaring that low-income people won't obey noise ordinances is extremely classist in my view. Yes, tell residents before they move in that the area has strict noise ordinances, and then hand out tickets for violators. But don't block affordable housing simply because it "might happen".

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#70

Post by mullingitover »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #32
sambull wrote: post #21

No new house around me was sub 1500 sq ft... guess bigger is better. But all the other houses in the area built between 1950-1990 were all under that.

I would be perfectly fine with 800-1000 sqft and little yard but nobody builds this anymore. And if you have a basement for storage you need less garage too. Why do US houses rarely have usable basements?

It depends on where you live. If you live in a place where the ground freezes in the winter, you must build your foundation deep enough below ground or your foundation will go to hell the first winter after you build it. So in large areas of the midwest, for example, pretty much every house has a basement.

In places where the ground doesn't freeze, most people skip the expense of excavating a basement.

Post reply on HN