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

California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 299 posts

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#31

Post by shuckles »

sokoloff wrote: post #8

I feel like I got served an appetizer and a small dessert, with no main course in between. California has a housing crisis in some cities. Californians are moving out of those cities. The cities that they're moving into are experiencing an increase in demand (directly restating the previous). That's pushing up prices (not shocking), which is preventing some people with less money from outbidding people with more mone…

California has a statewide housing crisis. Most cities in the country also have their own housing crises.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#32

Post by chasd00 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #9

It's an urban problem. No one is short of space in bumfuck, nowhere. The jobs are all in cities. Workers need to be in cities. Commuting by car isn't viable on a large scale. Other forms of commuting require investment (building rail etc) and governments won't do that. So house prices spiral.

> The jobs are all in cities. Workers need to be in cities.

This is beginning to change and the pandemic quickened the pace. If Starlink comes online and works as promised it will further speed up the process.

I think there are many people who live in a crowded city only because that's where the office is and would chose to live elsewhere if it were possible.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#33

Post by rustybelt »

asdff wrote: post #4

Nowhere is building enough housing for growth. In low cost of living places, chances are if you look at population data, the metro region has been stagnant for decades which has alleviated pressure on supply. In any area with growth at all, prices rise because we don't build actual dense housing like we did before WWII (when row houses and mixed use development in walking distance to frequent public transit were the…

As you say some places are growing and others are stagnating or shrinking. If every place has a certain capacity to grow given the necessary pressure to do so, wouldn't more evenly distributed growth reduce the problems caused by the current uneven distribution of growth/stagnation/shrinkage?

In other words, how can you say we're not growing fast enough when so many places aren't growing at all?

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#34

Post by majormajor »

shuckles wrote: post #26
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

Unfortunately (for you), your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people who want to live there by prohibiting the construction of homes for them. Do you value your quiet suburban neighborhood enough to buy and pay property taxes on the whole block or subdivision? If not, I recommend you look for estates on acreage in remote areas.

You could reframe the opposition as "your money shouldn't mean you can just come into our area and remake it however you want." Neither side is purely unsympathetic here.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#35

Post by lisper »

shuckles wrote: post #26
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

Unfortunately (for you), your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people who want to live there by prohibiting the construction of homes for them. Do you value your quiet suburban neighborhood enough to buy and pay property taxes on the whole block or subdivision? If not, I recommend you look for estates on acreage in remote areas.

> your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people

Of course not. I'm not saying I have any kind of right to keep my neighborhood from changing, only that my desire to keep it from changing is not purely financial. (In fact, in my case, it is the exact opposite!)

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#36

Post by lisper »

cltby wrote: post #25
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

The structure itself does depreciate (ask any landlord!). It's the land value that's surging.

Sure, but the structure and the land are tightly bound. I can't buy or sell a structure without also buying or selling the land that it sits on, so this is kind of irrelevant.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#37

Post by desert_boi »

jeffbee wrote: post #22
asdff wrote: post #4

Nowhere is building enough housing for growth. In low cost of living places, chances are if you look at population data, the metro region has been stagnant for decades which has alleviated pressure on supply. In any area with growth at all, prices rise because we don't build actual dense housing like we did before WWII (when row houses and mixed use development in walking distance to frequent public transit were the…

It's handy to say "nowhere is building" but it's not really supported by the data. Look at Dallas and Houston compared to San Francisco. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=B6Tc

Is there a similar source that would let you compare MSAs for building of housing units? I'd be interested to see how Boise's MSA lines up with the Bay Area. Most Californian transplants I'd met growing up in the area were from Sacremento/SoCal though.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#38

Post by jeffbee »

kwk1 wrote: post #23
jeffbee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's handy to say "nowhere is building" but it's not really supported by the data. Look at Dallas and Houston compared to San Francisco. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=B6Tc

Your quote chopped off an important qualifier present in the original comment.

Explain? The fact that the population of greater Houston has more than doubled in 30 years tends to support the idea that they are building enough for growth. They've got a city the size of Berkeley that didn't even exist 50 years ago.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#39

Post by zepto »

shuckles wrote: post #26
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

Unfortunately (for you), your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people who want to live there by prohibiting the construction of homes for them. Do you value your quiet suburban neighborhood enough to buy and pay property taxes on the whole block or subdivision? If not, I recommend you look for estates on acreage in remote areas.

“immiserate other people who want to live there“

Perhaps true, but what right do the people who don’t live in his neighborhood but want to have the right to immiserate the people who already live there by building high density blocks?

Why do you not recommend those people to look for acreage in remote areas?

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#40

Post by shuckles »

majormajor wrote: post #34
shuckles wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately (for you), your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people who want to live there by prohibiting the construction of homes for them. Do you value your quiet suburban neighborhood enough to buy and pay property taxes on the whole block or subdivision? If not, I recommend you look for estates on acreage in remote areas.

You could reframe the opposition as "your money shouldn't mean you can just come into our area and remake it however you want." Neither side is purely unsympathetic here.

Was one’s single family home a naturally occurring building? What gave one the right to build it? Your both sides argument sounds plausible but it’s not-sensical.
Post reply on HN