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

51–60 of 299 posts

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

#51

Post by shuckles »

majormajor wrote: post #46
shuckles wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's sorta just how private property works. At some point, land was unowned, structures were unbuilt, etc. Ever since then, we've put the "rights" in the hands of the current owners and/or the government they live under... Short of arguing from a purely socialist or communist approach, saying the current owner's preferences matter less than the hypothetical would-be future occupants of the area is the non-sensical…

And who was compensated when those rights were taken away from property owners by the invention of zoning in the early 1900s and down zoning in the mid 1900s? In addition, you are confusing owning a particular plot of land with rights over all neighboring plots. The latter is distinctly not your private property.

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

#52

Post by majormajor »

imtringued wrote: post #42
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…

>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. The expectation that one can settle down and expect their city to be built to a finished state which is kept frozen in time is an incredibly damaging mindset. City planners have to predict what is going to happen in the future decades ahead.…

> City planners have to predict what is going to happen in the future decades ahead.

Current trend: single family houses have shot up in demand due to remote work.

So is the prescription "tear down single family houses"? Seems like cities that do that are just going to push people even faster towards other areas which aren't so saturated.

If this trend continues some sort of balancing between not just SF/NY but even Dallas/Austin and smaller, more rural areas, is inevitable. There just isn't enough land for more single family houses in the most popular cities! But reacting as if consumer preferences for housing type doesn't matter seems like a recipe for putting yourself into an even worse position long-term.

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

#53

Post by jeffbee »

gonehome wrote: post #48
jeffbee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. This isn't enough to support the idea unless prices have also not climbed. The Bay Area population has dramatically increased and prices have too because building to support this growth has been fought by NIMBYs via bad policy.[0] As a result houses on the peninsula h…

I mean, population _is_ pretty good evidence of growth. 20 years ago Houston MSA was 15% larger than SF MSA and today it's 50% larger. What other evidence of "building for growth" can you demand?

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

#54

Post by majormajor »

shuckles wrote: post #51
majormajor wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sorta just how private property works. At some point, land was unowned, structures were unbuilt, etc. Ever since then, we've put the "rights" in the hands of the current owners and/or the government they live under... Short of arguing from a purely socialist or communist approach, saying the current owner's preferences matter less than the hypothetical would-be future occupants of the area is the non-sensical…

And who was compensated when those rights were taken away from property owners by the invention of zoning in the early 1900s and down zoning in the mid 1900s? In addition, you are confusing owning a particular plot of land with rights over all neighboring plots. The latter is distinctly not your private property.

Yes, that's where the government aspect comes in. But again, what you decry as "non-sensical" instead seems like it could also just be called "response of a community towards potential market failure modes." You are ascribing moral blame to just one side of a more complicated situation. It would be like if all I was talking about is how big developers bribe local governments to get permits to build their shit - neither side is blameless, both sides are understandable, there isn't a clear easy answer to "reduce harm."

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

#55

Post by AdrianB1 »

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.

Using your logic, you should never immiserate people that want to live in your house, maybe even in your bed just because you think you paid for it.

Wanting to live in a place that is already occupied does not give the right to force people there to rebuild their houses into high density places. There is a lot of free land in that country where people can build skyscrapers with millions of cheap, small living pods inside.

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

#56

Post by Guest42 »

majormajor wrote: post #41
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…

Demonizing single family houses seems rather dated in 2021. Single family home prices are surging in much of California too (while apartment prices and condo prices... not so much!), it's not just "everyone is fleeing!" California was short on both types of housing - what has changed is that it is in even higher demand now! And if remote work continues after COVID, that will continue. Add to that more efficient elect…

From my observations it seems as though many houses and apartments are intentionally left empty and one possible approach towards improving housing availability is to disincentive this practice by increasing property taxes on those.

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

#57

Post by imtringued »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #43

Affordable housing is a misleading term used for a few different situations: unless the problem is well defined, there is no proper solution. if affordable means anyone should own a house, no matter the income or lack of - that is utopia. If affordable means cheap enough that lower third income bracket can still afford a house, there are solutions - high density blocks of flats like we have all over in Europe. But if…

You're not supposed to build towers. You're supposed to incrementally upzone neighborhoods over time. detached single family housing to row houses, row houses to 2 story apartment buildings, 2 story apartment buildings to 3-4 story apartment buildings and so on.

Building big towers does work, but only if they are surrounded by other, slightly smaller towers.

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

#58

Post by subpixel »

jeffbee wrote: post #50
majormajor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonizing single family houses seems rather dated in 2021. Single family home prices are surging in much of California too (while apartment prices and condo prices... not so much!), it's not just "everyone is fleeing!" California was short on both types of housing - what has changed is that it is in even higher demand now! And if remote work continues after COVID, that will continue. Add to that more efficient elect…

People don't buy houses because they have children, they gather both children and houses because they are prosperous. Millenials (some of whom are now past their child-bearing years) and younger generations won't just get houses because of the inexorable march of time. First they'll need money.

Actually, there is an inverse relationship between prosperity and child-bearing.

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

#59

Post by gonehome »

jeffbee wrote: post #53
gonehome wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This isn't enough to support the idea unless prices have also not climbed. The Bay Area population has dramatically increased and prices have too because building to support this growth has been fought by NIMBYs via bad policy.[0] As a result houses on the peninsula h…

I mean, population _is_ pretty good evidence of growth. 20 years ago Houston MSA was 15% larger than SF MSA and today it's 50% larger. What other evidence of "building for growth" can you demand?

A ratio of new housing vs. new population.

You can expand sprawl via single family homes and still not build nearly enough housing to meet population growth requirements.

You can have a lot more population and still build little. It just forces people to live in shared housing with roommates at very expensive rents.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong about Houston - maybe they did build enough. I'm just saying that population growth itself doesn't tell you too much.

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

#60

Post by imtringued »

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.

I agree that availability of jobs is the driving factor of migration. There are lots of decaying towns with no hope of recovery. However, the children that were born there did go to college. Their best option is to go somewhere else and it would be foolish of them to not set their aim high and to at least try their luck in one of the bigger cities.
Post reply on HN