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

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#131

Post by [deleted] »

Causality1 wrote: post #102
pavlov wrote: post #78

After moving to America a while ago, one thing that struck me is how a lot of things are designed as effectively regressive taxes: the poor pay more than the rich. I opened a basic bank account with a giant American bank. The account has an exorbitant monthly fee, something like $15, but it’s waived if you keep a sufficient balance or have a steady salary. So the only people who pay the crazy fee are the broke people…

I have no idea why someone would use a bank instead of a credit union.

[deleted]

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#132

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#133

Post by jayd16 »

pascalxus wrote: post #106
jayd16 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure building a ghetto is the right answer. Whats stopping anyone from claiming a 10x10? Can I claim one? You're grossly oversimplifying the issue.

The first 10K or so units would be for the homeless. But, after that you can rent them out for some small amount to anyone that needs it. Just imagine, if you're homeless and it's raining. What would you prefer? live in the streets or live in a small micro apartment? Sure, not everyone wants one, but why not give people more choices? Right now, your only choices are this: 2 million dollar condo or 20$ tent under a br…

You're hand waiving a lot here. Means testing is complex and a 10x10 in SF is valuable enough to bring a lot of bad actors. I'm pointing out that its not as simple as building a 10k occupant building.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#134

Post by kwillets »

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…

Building codes and zoning are constitutional, but it's now the case that nobody is allowed to build up to the limits of zoning, and the approval process has been hijacked to impose all sorts of expensive economic programs.

Mao's Great Leap Forward was similar -- essentially an "Affordable Rice" program which drove producers out of the market.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#135

Post by sokoloff »

dionidium wrote: post #116
sokoloff wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never buy a property that's subject to an HOA board of approval for things. Mostly for the reasons you list above. However, people who did buy in an area subject to an HOA presumably did want that and agreed to it ahead of time. I don't think that should allow someone to come in, buy into the development, and unilaterally decide "because my liberty" that they don't have to follow any of the HOA rules.

HOAs are the vanguard of unreasonableness. What I’m more concerned about has nothing to do with HOAs. It’s zoning, design review, and scores of other unreasonable laws that impact even those of us who aren’t crazy enough to join an HOA.

Sorry, I was trying to say that even though I would personally never buy into an HOA, I support the legal rights of those who did to enforce the bylaws/covenants of the HOA agreement.

I think HOAs are stupid, much the same way I think that many other things are stupid, but I also support the right of people to choose to voluntarily do things I find stupid (like worshipping an obviously incorrect deity [because it's different from mine]).

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#136

Post by mixmastamyk »

supernova87a wrote: post #109

One thing I would really like a clear explanation of: When public officials in CA cities talk about "affordable housing", there is actually some definition of this, isn't there? And it doesn't usually match what people in casual conversation mean by affordable housing, right? "Affordable housing" doesn't just mean a normal house or apartment at an affordable price, does it? Does it mean public housing units built and…

It's a means-tested govt program for below-market rate apartments, with tons of red tape. Which in true government fashion exacerbates the problem it is meant to solve.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#137

Post by kragen »

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.

This is pragmatically correct, but it doesn't make it just. The city was given policing authority over those lands, too; that doesn't mean they should have the right to torture you until you confess, even if the democratic voters are in favor of that — as they might be, for example, if you're black.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#138

Post by algeoMA »

mc32 wrote: post #72
algeoMA wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I'd like to agree -and in principle I do, just not in practice. In my case, I didn't have a loud muffler because I liked it. It was rusted through and I could not afford the repair. It had to wait. Ordinance or not didn't influence my choice. That's different from the guy who opens the throttle on his wannabe Harley as he accelerates from every stop sign on the street at 10 and 11PM... He does it just because... he's…

Still, you must concede that the parade of "rusty muffler" arguments are a silly compared to a legitimate housing crisis. Not everything our neighbors/family/friends do makes us happy. And hey, they might have a rusty muffler, but maybe they're less snobbish and more friendly. So while it's totally reasonable to be worried about traffic and school crowding, I feel people should at least try a bit harder to shrug their shoulders about the little things and give it a chance.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#139

Post by xnyan »

tru3_power wrote: post #115

Man this hits deep. I moved out to Southern California a few years ago from the south east. It’s crazy, I can barely afford to buy a house here with a 300k/yr income. Even then it’s gonna be some non remodeled, in need of upgrades 700k home. To get anything decent (new kitchen, windows, working hvac) it’s at-least 900k+. I don’t get how people are buying these homes.

Help me understand. An average mortgage is 200k, at the average household income of 63k and a 30 year at 4.1%, thats 18.5% of your pretax income going into a mortgage. The same numbers for a 300k income and a 700k house works out to 13.5%. Seems like you are doing significant better than most? Happy to be corrected.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#140

Post by dbspin »

asdff wrote: post #118
dbspin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just described a 560 foot tall prison cube. No cooking, toilets, corridors or walls apparently. Perhaps the inhabitants whose true crime was poverty, will be happy to inhabit your force walled thought experiment. Some would be reticent. But I foresee great things coming from this most lateral solution.

They could just be efficency apartments or have a shared community kitchen or something. No need to dive into semantics, the argument is sound imo. High rise public housing works in other countries, in some cases they are architectural marvels and not prison cubes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Copan

I'm certainly not arguing against public housing. It can be an incredible good, and in almost all Western countries is considered a right.

However, we've been down this road before. Cramming people - especially homeless people, frequently with mental health concerns, polydrug use, and severe behavioral issues; into a giant cube isn't how you solve homelessness.

These people need their own homes, in neighborhoods with services that support them, integrated into the community.

Disastrous efforts to ghettoise the poor in small under-serviced apartments in the 1960s lead to social problems that persist to this day in both Europe and the US. I believe the're generally termed 'the projects' in America.

My comment was a sarcastic reaction to the ahistorical and ludicrously reductive lack of insight or thought in the original proposal.

Post reply on HN