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

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#141

Post by dbspin »

balfirevic wrote: post #93
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.

This is the largest building in Croatia, housing around 5000 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamutica It's a normal building with normal apartments, not a ghetto or a prison.

Actually it currently houses less than 3000 people, and is serviced by enormous green space. That's not remotely comparable to a 9000 seat cube in an urban setting. I can't speak to Croatia, but having travelled in the former Soviet Union often what makes such places livable are the enormous (by Western standards) amount of amenities which survive from Soviet times - skating rinks, public parks, ice skating rinks, bowling alleys etc. Added to which is a grey economy of apartment run stores selling fresh and preserved produce.

Also - and I have no idea how you'd quantify this, lack of negative comparators may play a part. When most people in your city, be it Mariupol or Tallin, also live in enormous modernist silos, it's not a source of resentment.

Finally it's important to note that by comparison to any US city, Croatia has a tiny crime rate, especially in terms of violent offences. It's a safe, relatively ethnically homogeneous, socially integrated country. This is not similar to the lack of social cohesion in play in the American context.

https://cafebabel.com/en/article/life-in-mamutica-the-bigges...

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#142

Post by ageitgey »

mgolawala wrote: post #73
standardUser wrote: post #3

"...and rules that compel developers to meet labor and environmental standards that often exceed what’s required for luxury condominiums." It's not just rules. Funding is competitive, and if you want a competitive bid you need to promise the world. Parking, green technologies, accessibility, community space, lots of amenities for residents, landscaping, not to mention the cost of ongoing compliance. "Another is Calif…

This is so depressing to see. These are the symptoms of a system slowly grinding to a halt under its own weight. Compare the tax code in 1970 (or earlier) vs today (1). Regulations and laws keep getting more and more complex. It keeps getting slower and costlier to get anything done. Then throw in the aging infrastructure, the greater wealth inequality along with significantly decreased social mobility. Un-affordable…

I sold a piece of software to the state of California once. Among the 100+ page contract was a page where we had to agree that if, during the installation of this web app, a baby was to be abandoned, that we promise that we would abandon said baby at an approved fire station within 3 days of birth.

That was probably 10+ years ago, but it was a real eye opening moment in seeing the mindless wheels of bureaucracy turn. Obviously everyone at every stage of the procurement process knew this page of the contract was insane in the context of installing a simple web app, but no one had the power remove unneeded rules in situations in which they don't apply and no one is going out on an anti-baby-safety ledge. So everyone for the rest of time has to agree on how to properly abandon babies in every contract.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#143

Post by kwillets »

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…

Right now there's the colloquial meaning, and a proper noun which means taking 10-30% of housing output and selling it at a government-set price to government-approved people.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#144

Post by fmajid »

aianus wrote: post #114
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…

$15/mo is far too high at current interest rates so your point stands, but, rich people with steady balances are also paying the bank a fee in the form of an interest-free loan that the bank re-invests. $15/mo is equivalent to ~$14,400 balance at 1.25% APR [0] so anyone with a higher balance than that across their big bank low-interest/no-interest accounts is paying more than $15/mo. [0] I chose this number as someth…

Banks have been getting essentially free money from the Fed for over a decade, they don't need deposits, whether from rich or poor.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#145

Post by _-david-_ »

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.

>It’s crazy, I can barely afford to buy a house here with a 300k/yr income.

How can you barely afford a house?

Lets say you pay 100K in taxes and 50K in food, gas, healthcare, luxuries, etc. You could save 50K and still have an extra 100K a year to spend on the mortgage. You would be able to pay off your house in less than 10 years. Many people take out 30 year loans for their house!

Its a massive investment and probably not worth it for the price but it definitely seems like you could afford to buy a house.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#146

Post by lotsofpulp »

beambot wrote: post #130
idoh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks are businesses, why can't they charge what they want for services?

And the dark patterns of opening accounts without your permission, burying fee information in the fine print, etc etc...? It's not just business; it's predatory.

Unless every bank is opening up accounts with permission, I don't see how your comment is relevant.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#147

Post by pavlov »

geodel wrote: post #94
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…

> The account has an exorbitant monthly fee, something like $15, Maybe it is really exorbitant but I have seen fees even in third world for keeping account which maintain lower than minimum balance specified. Would it also be the structural bias all over the world that stores give more discount to people who spent more money there.

I mean, this is entirely anecdotal. I'm just surprised by how American corporations seem to have laid such deep roots for price-gouging the most vulnerable. So many things come with hidden fees, impenetrable cost structures and customer-hostile communication.

It has made me realize that consumer-facing companies in my home country Finland seemed to be traditionally more aligned as participants in society, rather than money-extracting machines outside of it. Maybe one reason is that some basic industries like banking and grocery stores are dominated by co-ops in Finland.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#148

Post by fmajid »

Lammy wrote: post #71
clairity wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of local governments were overtaken by the anti-growth environmental crowd at the time. Marin County in particular had their 1968 growth plan revoked and a famously anti-growth plan replaced it in 1971: http://www.sausalitohistoricalsociety.com/new-blog/2018/3/7/... 'The decisive blow against growth was initiated in 1971 with the issuance of a Marin Planning Department report that proposed preserving Marin's la…

The city of Bolinas is notorious for vandalizing signs that point to it, to ensure outsiders can't find their way there. And they have a Bolinas Border Patrol, in a "ha, ha, only serious" kind of xenophobic way.

https://www.belle-aurore.com/mike/2013/05/bolinas-vigilante-...

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#149

Post by fmajid »

komali2 wrote: post #19
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Half the transit in the US is New York City alone.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#150

Post by viklove »

fmajid wrote: post #144
aianus wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$15/mo is far too high at current interest rates so your point stands, but, rich people with steady balances are also paying the bank a fee in the form of an interest-free loan that the bank re-invests. $15/mo is equivalent to ~$14,400 balance at 1.25% APR [0] so anyone with a higher balance than that across their big bank low-interest/no-interest accounts is paying more than $15/mo. [0] I chose this number as someth…

Banks have been getting essentially free money from the Fed for over a decade, they don't need deposits, whether from rich or poor.

You're forgetting about this thing called greed
Post reply on HN