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

161–170 of 299 posts

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

#161

Post by xvedejas »

mpg33 wrote: post #111
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

Texas is also a good example of that density only matters if there is a land scarcity problem. There are areas in Canada where building massive towers has been premature and also led to increase in costs.

I sincerely doubt that building towers lead to an increase in costs in the existing housing stock, unless something very strange is afoot.

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

#162

Post by ashtonkem »

zippergz wrote: post #153
tqi wrote: post #141

Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. I'm not the one who decided to approve all those new office buildings. Yet I was the problem for renting an overpriced apartment from an SF native who bought in the 90s, and now pays less than $8K/yr in taxes on a place worth over $1M.…

I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.

I’d say that another constant is the belief that living in a place for a certain period of time confers a sense of ownership over a city, along with the right to decide who should and should not live there.

You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job.

Frankly I find it completely bizarre.

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

#163

Post by maerF0x0 »

It strikes me as a simple solution to turn abandoned malls into homes. Many malls are centrally located, near transit, and have plenty of parking. For the ones that are indoor style, you could even have easily accessed amenities like a gym or something. I wonder what the issue is besides zoning laws?

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

#164

Post by jeffbee »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #154
jeffbee wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many jurisdictions in California require city permits for demolition and the process for getting those permits is by no means guaranteed. In my city after you apply for a permit you have to post public notice for 90 days so your nosy neighbors have a chance to go to the "landmarks preservation commission" to argue that your dilapidated shack in which nobody has lived for 50 years is, in fact, a priceless treasur…

That's sad. The whole use permit thing is confusing: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Iwantto/Permits/Pages/UsePe... On initial reading, I don't see why land zoned for a house would even need a use permit. But then the linked "more" website (which goes to blob.core.windows.net?) says: >What is a Use Permit? >A Use Permit is a discretionary land use approval which, under certain circumstances, may authorize a use that…

I don't know things about that county, I can only tell you the tactics they use in my city. One of them is at some point the minimum lot size for anything was increased to 5000 sq ft, even though most lots are 4000 or less. This means if you want a new structure on a 4000 sq ft lot, you need a special permit from the city.

Another one is setbacks. If most parcels are 40x100 feet, and the city says you need a 15-foot side yard on both sides, then you either need to figure out how to build a house that's only ten feet wide, or you need a special permit.

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

#165

Post by ashtonkem »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #163

It strikes me as a simple solution to turn abandoned malls into homes. Many malls are centrally located, near transit, and have plenty of parking. For the ones that are indoor style, you could even have easily accessed amenities like a gym or something. I wonder what the issue is besides zoning laws?

Industrial buildings are built to very different codes and requirements than residential buildings. Off the top of my head, I think that a dearth of insulation and water pipes would be an issue, along with the ratio of exterior to interior space (no windows leads to depression fast).

It reminds me of industrial loft apartments that sprung up when Midwestern small manufacturing died. I knew some people who lived in one and their quality of life was pretty terrible compared to purpose built residential housing. Their place was cold and all mechanicals had to be run in exterior conduit which was ugly and hard to keep clean. Better than being homeless though.

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

#166

Post by gwright »

ashtonkem wrote: post #162
zippergz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.

I’d say that another constant is the belief that living in a place for a certain period of time confers a sense of ownership over a city, along with the right to decide who should and should not live there. You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job. Frankly I find it completely bizarre.

Without taking an opinion on whether that "sense of ownership" is right or wrong, I would say that the response to gentrification is another example of the phenomena you are describing.

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

#167

Post by jayd16 »

tqi wrote: post #141

Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. I'm not the one who decided to approve all those new office buildings. Yet I was the problem for renting an overpriced apartment from an SF native who bought in the 90s, and now pays less than $8K/yr in taxes on a place worth over $1M.…

Why is it everyone else's problem to accommodate you?

>I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years.

California's population has increased 4x since 1950 vs 2x for the country as a whole, more so in SF. To say there is no new housing is just ignoring the (finally waning) population boom.

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

#168

Post by petschge »

mmaunder wrote: post #15
GoOnThenDoTell wrote: post #11

Long ago: let’s go West Now: let’s go East

If you could animate it the flow might look like it bounces off the west coast and heads back inland. Technically, cities are infestations of humans.

It might look like that. But it doesn't. At least not yet. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_Stat...

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

#169

Post by offtop5 »

California is uniquely messed up because of Prop 13. There's way too much regulation to getting anything built, unless somehow less land starts to exist in States like Texas which don't cripple housing developers, it'll always be much cheaper to leave the Golden State.

From my time in LA I found there to be a very nasty spiral. Whereas young adults will never be able to get their own places to live, this impedes their maturing, and then you end up with 30 something year old brats who feel entitled to everything.

I don't even want these people as friends, nonetheless romantic partners. Once I left La I found it much easier to find amazing, hard-working folks.

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

#170

Post by zippergz »

ashtonkem wrote: post #162
zippergz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.

I’d say that another constant is the belief that living in a place for a certain period of time confers a sense of ownership over a city, along with the right to decide who should and should not live there. You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job. Frankly I find it completely bizarre.

I know this is kind of the opposite of the (mostly joking) point I made that you replied to. But the thing I find bizarre is that people can't understand why other people oppose change in the place they live in. Most people choose places to live because they like those places. I think it's safe to say that the things they like extend beyond the four walls of the residence they buy or rent. They might like the walkability, or the views, or the diversity of the neighborhood, or the proximity to friends and family. All of these are things that are subject to change over time, and are more likely to change as the demographics of the town do. The shops you liked to walk to get priced out and replaced with Starbucks and Lululemon. The views get blocked by new buildings. The diversity goes away as people are priced out. The friends and family move because rent went up too much.

How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? This doesn't mean they "own" the city, but it does mean it's quite understandable for them to try to do things to prevent the change if they can. I'm not arguing that this is good, or even completely rational in all cases, but it's far from surprising.

Post reply on HN