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

Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

timesheraldonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#81

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jeffbee wrote: post #46
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More supply also increases traffic. This isn't just about everyone worrying about their housing prices (there are a lot of NIMBY reasons beyond that).

More housing where the jobs are creates less traffic. Putting your jobs in Berkeley and your housing in Vacaville is what creates more traffic. A Berkeley with 300k people - which is the population that would support the number of jobs already in Berkeley today - would have noticeably less traffic. Same for a San Francisco with two million people etc.

That’s true, but it is difficult to do in the USA since the company town concept/complex fell out of style in this country after WW2. People don’t generally live where they work, especially if they bought 10 years ago and switched jobs twice since then (and that isn’t even counting second body problems). Transit is really needed to fill in the gaps, or perhaps renting should be encouraged so people more easily move when they change jobs (but the second body problem remains).

WFH works also, but then you don’t need to be near where your jobs is.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#82

Post by tcmart14 »

colechristensen wrote: post #64
anonuser123456 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the causality wrong. - Builders build because if high demand. - Landlords raise rent because of high demand. - High demand is based on the localities productivity. Places that are in high demand have lots of jobs that pay high wages. The only way to relieve the pressure is to build faster than existing demand or to lower the productivity of the region.

Yes that’s the econ 101 explanation but what seems to have actually happened is the existing demand wasn’t driving up prices in a neighborhood of old brownstones and some rental houses until after new large apartment complexes went up and the new places charged considerably higher rent than the existing supply. This is something I heard first hand more than once from small landlords saying they were increasing prices…

It depends how deep in the weeds we want to get. I remember when first moving to Oregon, a news station played an interview with a contractor building apartments in Portland. The TLDR of that interview was, we could build affordable housing. However, if the investors in the complex spend a few extra hundred bucks on materials (think granite counter tops), they can append 'luxury' to the word 'apartment' and easily ask a couple hundred more a month. Resulting in a better investment.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#83

Post by jeffbee »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #81
jeffbee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More housing where the jobs are creates less traffic. Putting your jobs in Berkeley and your housing in Vacaville is what creates more traffic. A Berkeley with 300k people - which is the population that would support the number of jobs already in Berkeley today - would have noticeably less traffic. Same for a San Francisco with two million people etc.

That’s true, but it is difficult to do in the USA since the company town concept/complex fell out of style in this country after WW2. People don’t generally live where they work, especially if they bought 10 years ago and switched jobs twice since then (and that isn’t even counting second body problems). Transit is really needed to fill in the gaps, or perhaps renting should be encouraged so people more easily move w…

Tenure of homeownership has more than doubled in the last twenty years, and it is a harmful symptom of the housing crisis, not something to be accommodated. When the housing market was more functional and job mobility in America was more robust, people only owned homes for 4 years at the median. That was the same as the median tenure at jobs. That’s the way it should be.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#84

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jeffbee wrote: post #83
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true, but it is difficult to do in the USA since the company town concept/complex fell out of style in this country after WW2. People don’t generally live where they work, especially if they bought 10 years ago and switched jobs twice since then (and that isn’t even counting second body problems). Transit is really needed to fill in the gaps, or perhaps renting should be encouraged so people more easily move w…

Tenure of homeownership has more than doubled in the last twenty years, and it is a harmful symptom of the housing crisis, not something to be accommodated. When the housing market was more functional and job mobility in America was more robust, people only owned homes for 4 years at the median. That was the same as the median tenure at jobs. That’s the way it should be.

That isn’t true in other countries, like most of Western Europe. It isn’t how it should be, especially if you have kids (yes, I moved around almost exactly every 4 years as a kid, it sucked). Good transit in urban areas with a lot of jobs is a wonderful combination. Also, husband and wife don’t need to work in the same neighborhood, which is highly unlikely as you go up the skill chain.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#85

Post by nostrademons »

kbob wrote: post #72
nostrademons wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see it affecting say Atherton or Los Altos Hills much - the people who live there are rich enough that splitting a lot and putting up duplexes isn't going to make a measurable economic difference to them, at least not one worth giving up their prime estate. The hillside communities (mid-peninsula, Oakland/Berkeley hills, Saratoga/Portola/Woodside) likely also won't see much adoption, just because the g…

It might be a popular action for people to take just before they move out. Instead of selling one house for $3M, build the duplices, sell them for a combined $5-6M, and leave instead of living with the consequences. That might happen in the really rich neighborhoods too.

I half-joked on Reddit that folks in Atherton or Palo Alto might do it just to troll their neighbors. Not every rich person likes every other rich person; if you've had a rocky relationship, what better way to get even than to make your uptight neighbors live next to a bunch of ordinary people?

You'd have way better liquidity too. It's hard to sell a $15M estate. It's significantly easier to sell a pair of nice duplexes, each on 1/2-acre lots with double ADUs on each. You could probably get more than $15M in total for them too, since 8 units with an Atherton zip would rent for a pretty penny.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#87

Post by foogazi »

Can’t see how this is a good thing - property prices will rise since there is no cap on income generation

If my neighbor sells his house to a developer building condos, then my property appreciates

First house to convert to condos just makes everyone else’s experience that much worse: traffic congestion, parking, schools

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#88

Post by fighterpilot »

colechristensen wrote: post #66
fighterpilot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning laws are responsible for higher prices: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/pdf/rdp2018-03.... The mechanism is clear cut. Restrict supply, price goes up. There's quite a bit of empirical support as well. I don't doubt what you've observed but I think it needs to be addressed rigorously.

All i’ve seen so far is people explaining their preferred reasons for why things happen and their guesses for what new policy will do. What I haven’t seen is a case study or anecdote of something actually resulting in lower prices. (besides tech busts and covid in SF)

There's lots of evidence and many studies that show that zoning causes high real estate prices. I don't think it's fair to say it's merely a preferred reason. Here's one of many:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3507803

The bar that you're asking for is too high. Relaxing zoning laws in a specific locale shouldn't lead to lower prices necessarily. It should lead to a smaller price increase than what would have otherwise occurred due to supply still being restricted elsewhere and the relative fungibility of low to mid income housing.

But I agree that it would be good to see an event study of a natural experiment in addition to the correlational studies. However given the existing evidence we have, as well as the underlying economic logic, we shouldn't pretend as though there's no basis for bringing up zoning as a major cause of high real estate prices.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#89

Post by foxpurple »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31
esrauch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that last part. In general the people who own single family homes in the Bay Area have had nimby opposition to more dense housing being constructed since more supply lowers prices.

More supply also increases traffic. This isn't just about everyone worrying about their housing prices (there are a lot of NIMBY reasons beyond that).

Only if you don’t build up walkable areas and public transport. With high density housing many people won’t even own cars as there is not much point.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#90

Post by thissuchness »

foogazi wrote: post #87

Can’t see how this is a good thing - property prices will rise since there is no cap on income generation If my neighbor sells his house to a developer building condos, then my property appreciates First house to convert to condos just makes everyone else’s experience that much worse: traffic congestion, parking, schools

It's a good thing because while land prices rise with density, rent prices will decrease as housing stock increases. If your neighbor sells his house and it gets replaced with condos, then more people will be able to live there.

Maybe it's counterintuitive to you, but dense housing is actually better for traffic congestion as people are better able to live near the places they need to go, instead of having vast swaths of suburbs a la Los Angeles.

Post reply on HN