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

271–280 of 299 posts

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

#271

Post by malandrew »

yks wrote: post #215
pgsimp wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is understandable if people don't want the surroundings of their property cluttered with buildings.

It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that people actually have such a power to derail urbanization while at the same time profiteer off of it. Society just pays [1] those people basically because they were born at the right time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...

> It is understandable that people are selfish

Existing residents resisting change really aren't any more selfish than new residents demanding change. Both are championing changes that are in their self interest at the expense of the self interest to others.

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

#272

Post by shuckles »

shuckles wrote: post #253
lazide wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s nice and all, but none of those things but SB35 actually matters in any real way that I can tell - and SB35 passed in ‘17 and so far hasn’t changed anything important, or we wouldn’t still all be bitching about the exact same thing we have been since well before then! SB50 never passed, Modesto can ‘be pissed’ (why exactly?) at the higher property values and income all their residents who work in SF are benefi…

1. You are naive about how this process works. SB35 has already led to thousands of new units of construction, including - finally - the construction of 2k units at what was formerly Vallco mall, despite lawsuits and general objections by Cupertino city council. That is only the beginning, because it was paired with reforms to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process which has 10x'd the planned minimum requireme…

I missed that you specifically asked for legal standing. The basis of SFH zoning was created in Euclid, which required it be necessary to uphold safety and be reasonable. There are strong arguments against it on both grounds: https://ij.org/sc_podcast/148/

In that case, standing was any landowner holding land zoned single family. A Phoenix landowner of a SFH subdivision could screw it for the whole country.

Not narrowly zoning, but the viability of single family zoning also depends on property tax stabilization regimes, which themselves can be challenged under the equal protection clause.

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

#273

Post by lisper »

shuckles wrote: post #115
lisper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no reason to believe the Santa Cruz wouldn't be the same without expensive urban infrastructure Like I said, my neighborhood began as a vacation destination for rich San Franciscans in the late 1800s. It has been affluent for over 100 years, long before Silicon Valley was a thing, in fact, before electricity was a thing. There are rich urban areas and there are poor urban areas, and there are rich rural area…

You can't both say "I would be happy if home prices in my neighborhood went down" and "I am confident that my area will always be one where rich people want to visit." The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away, at which point you likely will want to go away as well.

> The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away

No, the former will happen when fewer people, for whatever reason, want to buy real estate here. This was a nice place to live even (perhaps especially) back when the main industry in the surrounding area was orange farming.

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

#274

Post by rayiner »

MrMan wrote: post #266
rayiner wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, housing isn’t a problem in a city whose population is the same today as it was in 1935, in a country that’s projected to slowly shrink over the next century.

The whole population of the US is not growing, there are just a few places where there is growth.

The whole US population is growing, as are most states. (Although California and New York shrank this past year.)

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

#275

Post by ansdfbgdfsvver »

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 live in one of those state Californians are moving to, and the hate for them is simply epic.

I keep thinking it would be amusing to give out bumper stickers that change in the rain -- with text to the effect of "STAY OUT", or "GO HOME", and a red circle/slash over an image of California. When it rains, the image of California changes to an image of Mexico.

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

#276

Post by yks »

malandrew wrote: post #271
yks wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that people actually have such a power to derail urbanization while at the same time profiteer off of it. Society just pays [1] those people basically because they were born at the right time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...

> It is understandable that people are selfish Existing residents resisting change really aren't any more selfish than new residents demanding change. Both are championing changes that are in their self interest at the expense of the self interest to others.

Sure, and every oppressed person demands changes in their self interest at the expense of the oppressor. Now, I'm not trying to call people who want to live in HCOL city but don't have money oppressed but want to point out that this line of thinking is unhelpful. What matters is the outcome for the majority of people now and in the future, and based on that I don't see how rights of the existing residents to tell their neighbors what to do with their property in the world class cities make the world a better place. And research supports that conclusion.

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

#277

Post by rcpt »

lazide wrote: post #247
rcpt wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't get a say until they live there. Future residents have zero representation.

So you’re saying people who don’t live in an area...... don’t get to vote on the laws in that area? What else do you propose should happen? Should California allow Texans to vote on state propositions? Should Marin county voters decide on who the Santa Clara County Sheriff is? Since they haven’t moved there, how could you even decide which hypothetical future residence county they were voting for or eligible in? Woul…

If we're going to make slippery slopes might as well slide both ways.

Should city councils be able to craft their own interpretation of civil rights? Should HOAs be allowed to imprison and execute people?

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

#278

Post by helen___keller »

MrMan wrote: post #264

This anti-NIMBY astroturfing on HN is fascinating. There is a repetitive hammering of a short list of talking points. I am from the East Coast which is very built up. We largely don't have this weird NIMBY anger. In a lot of places here there are tons of tall buildings being built. The whole angry discourse is alien to me. No one moving to New York is angrily ranting about "NIMBYS" undermining their supposed right to…

> This anti-NIMBY astroturfing on HN is fascinating. There is a repetitive hammering of a short list of talking points.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to call something "astroturfing" for this reason. Astroturfing specifically refers to inorganic discourse, there's plenty of organic anti-NIMBY anger

> I am from the East Coast which is very built up. We largely don't have this weird NIMBY anger. In a lot of places here there are tons of tall buildings being built. The whole angry discourse is alien to me.

Speak for yourself, there's plenty of YIMBY types in Boston, because the urban core is plenty dense but many of the surrounding towns and cities (which aren't in Boston proper) are low density, despite having rail lines straight to downtown Boston, which has contributed to our awful rent costs.

Frankly I had heard that it's the same issue in the outer boroughs in New York but maybe I was mistaken.

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

#279

Post by souprock »

dublinben wrote: post #265
souprock wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the fair share of on-street parking? A normal home will have 1 to 3 cars, but most likely they go in a garage or driveway. The street is mostly left for visitors. There is room for a friend, a grandma, a kitchen renovator, a pool cleaning service, and so on. Spill-over happens when somebody has a big party or when the SWAT team shows up, but those are rare occurrences. Add the apartment complex though, and…

>A normal home will have 1 to 3 cars Maybe in a single-family zoned, suburban community. Density allows for more efficient transportation modes, like walking, biking, and public transit. To cite one of the most extreme examples in the US, fewer than half of households in New York City have a car. In some neighborhoods like Hell's Kitchen, as few as 11% of households have a car.[0] [0] https://www.addressreport.com/bl…

Yes, in a single-family zoned, suburban community. The proposal was to add more people there, presumably without also adding a 24x7 subway system. It would be immensely unfair to the people who purchased homes with the expectation that plenty of free parking would always be available.

Also, not that it matters for the fairness issue, I disagree that those other transportation modes are more efficient. They are definitely not acceptable alternatives.

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

#280

Post by dublinben »

souprock wrote: post #279
dublinben wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A normal home will have 1 to 3 cars Maybe in a single-family zoned, suburban community. Density allows for more efficient transportation modes, like walking, biking, and public transit. To cite one of the most extreme examples in the US, fewer than half of households in New York City have a car. In some neighborhoods like Hell's Kitchen, as few as 11% of households have a car.[0] [0] https://www.addressreport.com/bl…

Yes, in a single-family zoned, suburban community. The proposal was to add more people there, presumably without also adding a 24x7 subway system. It would be immensely unfair to the people who purchased homes with the expectation that plenty of free parking would always be available. Also, not that it matters for the fairness issue, I disagree that those other transportation modes are more efficient. They are defini…

>They are definitely not acceptable alternatives.

Not in suburbia, but they work in dense cities.

Post reply on HN