Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning • Hacker News Board

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#61

Post by 01100011 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #39

plank_time wrote: post #11

People are stupid if they think this will fix things. I went to the peninsula looking at houses and the new trend is to add ADUs as part of the house or in the back. You know why? To help the owners pay off their $3M houses they used to be $1M 8 years ago. This then figures into the calculus of how much you can afford to buy a house for. What is an unaffordable $8000/month mortgage now becomes $6000/month. So people…

Google is not the cause of the housing crisis. It’s purely demographic. Count up all the people that graduated high school in your town and subtract the number of people who died, and that’s how many houses you need to build that year. Simple demographics and this figure has been ignored in most Bay Area cities for fifty years.

Most of the people graduating in bay area cities are forever priced out of living in their hometowns already. Tech is largely to blame at this point because it fuels the extreme valuations. Without tech, prices would still be high because of lack of new supply for the growing population, but we left that price zone years ago.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#62

Post by winkeyless » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

jorts wrote: post #35

vlovich123 wrote: post #28

Go further. Get rid of all zoning that’s unrelated to pollution of some kind or strictly a safety issue. Why is the government involved in whether I can run a business from my home? Why is the government responsible for controlling where businesses might be located instead of the free market controlling that aspect more dynamically?

Opening a chicken farm or leather tannery in a residential neighborhood sounds great.

Extreme examples. In reality you’ll see more service industry like bodega, accounting, cafe, etc

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#63

Post by selectodude » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #51

nosianu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion is that this might end up like more/wider streets and highways: You built it => it will be filled to capacity asap and there is no difference in the end, only more of the same (literally). Of course, this won't happen to infinity but far enough. In the end the area is just too attractive, combined with the industries there generate a lot of money.

Yes, if SF/Bay Area is just that unique and that much more attractive to people than elsewhere, then the only solution would be to make another SF/Bay Area.

Didn’t you know the demand to live in the Bay Area is literally infinite and they could build 7 billion apartment units and the prices would continue to rise? It’s truly a special place.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#64

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

> Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects. Strong disagreement. The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style. As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#65

Post by jeffbee » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #48

slothtrop wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses are bought and destroyed to make way for tri-plex blds and condos at a pretty consistent pace where I live, because the returns are that good. I'm surprised that this would be any different in SF.

I suspect where you live doesn’t have environmental impact studies and objection by basically anyone in the entire city requiring design review. Fixing the zoning is a first step, but won’t solve all the other issues.

You don't have to live in the city of the project you want to stop. You don't even have to live in the state, in the United States, or even be a natural person. The requirements for standing under CEQA are so loose that anyone can sue on any basis. This was made perfectly clear when the California Supreme Court allowed "Save the Plastic Bag Coalition" to sue Manhattan Beach. Yes, you read that correctly.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#66

Post by throwaway0a5e » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #59

compiler-guy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect where you live doesn’t have environmental impact studies and objection by basically anyone in the entire city requiring design review. Fixing the zoning is a first step, but won’t solve all the other issues.

Also scarcity of contractors, architects, and essentially anyone who works on homes. Even with the project approved costs are going to be high in the Bay Area.

This is the stupid tax at work.

They should have pulled their heads out of their butts and respected people's property rights 20, 30yr ago when the problems were becoming obvious. But they didn't so they're gonna have to pay up.

Repealing some zoning is a small step in the right direction but they're gonna continue hemorrhaging money until they start tackling the other ideologically driven inefficiency (of which the person you are replying to has named a few types) before they really start seeing improvement.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#67

Post by throwaway0a5e » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

> Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects. Strong disagreement. The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style. As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.

Developers as a whole, sure.

The handful of developers who are working in the current environment? No.

You see this with every regulated industry. The people who pissed away a ton of time and money to get into the club don't want the club to fall apart.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#68

Post by throwaway0a5e » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

nosianu wrote: post #45

lotsofpulp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in the Bay Area don’t realize that every little thing that keeps costs low gets funneled back into house prices. Because the root cause is the demand for housing in Bay Area is far outstripping supply. You must tweak either or both of those to move the price. Addressing supply certainly does, but it might not be sufficient supply to overcome the demand. But it does help the situation.

My suspicion is that this might end up like more/wider streets and highways: You built it => it will be filled to capacity asap and there is no difference in the end, only more of the same (literally). Of course, this won't happen to infinity but far enough. In the end the area is just too attractive, combined with the industries there generate a lot of money.

> it will be filled to capacity asap and there is no difference in the end

The difference is VOLUME

House prices or commute times may only fall by the slimmest of margins but the number of people who have access to whatever the resource is at the same price point will be increased.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#69

Post by irrational » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

> Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects. Strong disagreement. The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style. As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.

Why would the Bay Area grow so much in the next decade? Now that remote working is becoming more normal, and considering the cost of living in the Bay Area, why would that many people want to move there? There are plenty of other places with comparable natural beauty, vibrant communities, cultural resources, etc.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#70

Post by mistrial9 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #65

compiler-guy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect where you live doesn’t have environmental impact studies and objection by basically anyone in the entire city requiring design review. Fixing the zoning is a first step, but won’t solve all the other issues.

You don't have to live in the city of the project you want to stop. You don't even have to live in the state, in the United States, or even be a natural person. The requirements for standing under CEQA are so loose that anyone can sue on any basis. This was made perfectly clear when the California Supreme Court allowed "Save the Plastic Bag Coalition" to sue Manhattan Beach. Yes, you read that correctly.

but if the CEQA proceedings are fact-based, a broader requirement for standing is not a bad thing, right?

An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.

The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.