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

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#191

Post by cmendel »

RHSeeger wrote: post #189
komali2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's not too bad, but it's rapidly falling to pieces, and personally I haven't seen the kind of action I think necessary to ensure it functions at all 50 years from now, shit, let alone 20. And that's a huge chunk of the US population, but still, it's one city. What of Los Angeles, with its buses stuck in permanent traffic, or its subway with, what, 15 stops? What of Houston, with a light rail that travels ab…

That's totally fair. As a rule, the US's mass transit system is a garbage fire. However, I consider NYC's to be reasonably good, specifically in response to > Some of the cities have "passable" mass transit

GP was talking about states rather than cities though

>is there any state with decent mass transit in the USA?

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#193

Post by instaheat »

zozbot234 wrote: post #54
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.

Motorbike noise is quite real. Hopefully electric motorbikes will grow more common over time and cut down on this widespread nuisance.

Just a thought, but several of my motorbike-owning friends tell me the noise generated from the bike reminds those in larger vehicles of their presence.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#194

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

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…

I'm still sbuurprised at how many people think we don't have buildings because of NIMBY residents, or because of lack of space. Our building issue is entirely self-inflicted. Do most people even know what it takes to remove an ordinance tree on your property? There's red tape EVERYWHERE, and special interest has made sure that their pet issues have considerations along each step of the way.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#195

Post by proc0 »

pascalxus wrote: post #74

I know this will be downvoted because people aren't really interested in solving the real problem. We could fix the whole SF homeless population problem in the space of one parking lot. Just build micro apartments of 10'x10' feet. Make it 150' wide at the base: 15x15 = 225 x 40 stories = 9000 inhabitants. 100' feet might not be much, but it's a hella of a lot more space to live in than hong kong, where people barely…

People would rather leave those on the streets to do whatever they want, including settling down on the street, even if it means more suffering for them from the weather and danger from criminals outside.

Instead of seeing laws that keep people from the street as empathetic (because you force them to shelter), they are seen as cruel. Of course lack of enforcement sends a message and further discourages people from trying to find an alternative. Year by year this gets reinforced and it will be that much harder to fix the problem.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#196

Post by TA_askhn_iplaw »

doorstar wrote: post #75
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.

I admit I don't know much about the affordable housing efforts, but I don't know why anyone would put a lot of work into building affordable housing in Solana Beach. https://goo.gl/maps/X1MN673Pwc57eS2C9 It's a tiny ( by CA standards ) town right on the beach and most non-service jobs are a crowded commute away. I don't object to having affordable housing everywhere, but if I wanted to build some in San Diego county,…

> ... the last place I would go.

A slight exaggeration. The Pearl site is only a 5-minute walk from the train station. Other than that yes, grossly uneconomical. As to your question "why": State of California mandate enforced on all incorporated cities, waste of money or no.

And this is why other ritzy areas have no interest in incorporating as cities proper. Rancho Santa Fe has a "Covenant" that performs usual city functions to the maximum extent legally possible e.g. private security guards, while dodging State mandates.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#197

Post by twblalock »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #172
twblalock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass transit exists but it's really bad -- e.g. Muni and BART and Caltrain in the San Francisco area. Constant delays, mechanical failures, and overcrowding. Now that Coronavirus and social distancing are the new normal, I expect some of those transit systems to lose funding and perhaps even shut down. I'm a huge fan of public transit and I'd love to see good transit systems exist in California, but I have no hope th…

BART! I used it once just to see how it went. A cross between a cattle car and a shipping container. Unbearably noisy and dirty. Reminded me of the public transit in Gotham when Bruce Wayne returned.

I used to take Caltrain to work. The best way to find out about the frequent service outages and accidents was not from Caltrain, but from stranded passengers complaining on Twitter.

Caltrain doesn't really communicate, their delay estimates are as reliable as the progress bar on Windows 3.1, and the stations are unstaffed. It's a total joke from top to bottom.

I used to spend a lot of money on Uber to get home when Caltrain let me down.

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#198

Post by greedo »

TA_askhn_iplaw wrote: post #192

I live in Solana Beach, a few blocks from the Pearl site. AMA.

I grew up in SB, moved away in 95. Went back last summer for a wedding in La Jolla. Town sure has changed. House prices are crazy as ever, and even the poorer parts of town had crazy prices for housing. But it has the best Mex restaurant in SoCal (Tony's Jacal).

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#199

Post by tropdrop »

Lammy wrote: post #67
chucksmash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!) c…

The canceling of those planned freeways for environmental concerns is not problematic in itself - the failure to deliver the planned rail alternative is. [1]

1 - https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.... (Proposed rail lines for BART, 1961)

Re: California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

#200

Post by Lammy »

tropdrop wrote: post #199
Lammy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!) c…

The canceling of those planned freeways for environmental concerns is not problematic in itself - the failure to deliver the planned rail alternative is. [1] 1 - https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.... (Proposed rail lines for BART, 1961)

Freeways vs rail is a false dichotomy. The best transit systems are multi-modal for different needs, and those things do serve different needs. What we're really talking about is establishing rights of way. Once you have those it's usually no harder (politically) to build one type of artery alongside the other, like how BART's Concord and Dublin lines were built in the medians of the existing CA-24 and I-580, respectively.
Post reply on HN