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

How to Save a Ski Town

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#281

Post by Schiendelman »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #168
Schiendelman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should get a vote. Residents are the worst about opposing more housing. The ONLY constitutional basis for getting a say over how much housing your neighbor builds is excluding Black people (see the appellate ruling, Ambler Realty v City of Euclid). All zoning in the United States is based on the power of that ruling to keep Black people out.

Wierd. While I don't disagree with you that one of the primary uses of zoning has been racial discrimination and segregation, Ambler v. Euclid was about industrial land use in the context of otherwise residential property. The decision may indeed have to led to an expansion in the use of zoning for racist purposes, but it was not in and of itself about such a purpose.

This is a normal take of the case, but not what the appellate court decision was about.

SCOTUS ignored the real issue - the apartments - and focused on the industrial uses in order to ignore the apartment issue.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#282

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

aahortwwy wrote: post #274
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like shitty property tax laws. That kind of law is not normal in the rest of the world, afaik.

It's a very common type of property tax law in the USA, and quite popular here on HN (see: opposition to Prop. 13 in CA).

It sounds insane to me - so basically if you want to buy your own home to be safe against rent inflation, you can still be priced out of your own home. How does that make any sense?

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#283

Post by jseban »

ako wrote: post #270
refurb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it a bad equilibrium? If someone is willing to trade the time and cost of a long commute, can’t we trust that they decided it’s worth it? I keep hearing how we need to make the Bay Area affordable, but I’m also thinking “price is a signal” and people deciding to live elsewhere is exactly what we want . I spent time in a developing country and the government is struggling to creating new economic centers but fa…

Yes, often it is a bad equilibrium. When prices rise, taxes rise, and often people who were able to live somewhere no longer can. They're forced to move, eventhough they'd rather stay. This also happened in the bay area, where people were involuntarily forced out of their homes. See for an example: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wic...

These stories don't really make sense to me though, why are single elderly people living in the home that housed their whole family with children, now that the children have moved out? Shouldn't a family home be used for a family? And shouldn't prime location housing in the middle of big cities be used for the people that contribute most and are most needed there?

I think it's perfectly normal for a single senior citizen to "move over" and let another family take over their family home, while they downsize to an apartment, or relocate to a different location, since they are not required by work to live there.

I don't understand where this sentiment comes from, that a person should live in the same home their whole life, and once you have moved into a home it becomes someone else's problem to make sure you stay there the rest of your life, regardless of money and income? That is really unrealistic and obviously an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

I'm getting really tired of the fact that the boomers are the richest group of people in society, by far, and still the ones who are the most entitled and complaining. They already get hugely compensated for "having to move" by cashing out on the old houses, so what's the problem?

Edit: That's the whole purpose of the real estate tax, to avoid people hoarding big houses that they don't need. It's just working as intended.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#284

Post by jseban »

buttercraft wrote: post #92

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally al…

> Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work.

And I guess they also made huge amounts of money selling their homes in town, and now live in houses much bigger outside of town... Or if they were renting, they were taking a risk to begin with and can't really expect that work/life-balance opportunity to exist unchanged forever.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#285

Post by jseban »

aahortwwy wrote: post #232
emteycz wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't expect anything, I just find the notion of selling without wanting to sell funny.

Some friends in WA sold without wanting to sell. The market value of their home grew enormously, and with it their property taxes. They live frugally on a low, fixed income and eventually the tax burden grew too much. So yeah, they got a nice capital gain, but they had to move away from the home they bought as newlyweds and raised their family in. It probably would've been better for their children's inheritance if t…

Yeah but they were still forced to do something that actually makes sense, I mean considering the big picture it's good that an actual family now get to live in that home, that really needs a big home. And the couple downsized to a suitable home, and got a big pile of cash for the inconvenience. Seems like it's working great if you ask me, what's the issue here and how is it any "better" if we would spend tax money for singles/couples to live in large family homes that they don't need and can't afford?

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#286

Post by jseban »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #282
aahortwwy wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very common type of property tax law in the USA, and quite popular here on HN (see: opposition to Prop. 13 in CA).

It sounds insane to me - so basically if you want to buy your own home to be safe against rent inflation, you can still be priced out of your own home. How does that make any sense?

Well, only if your home is really oversized. The "issue" is that retired people are "forced" to move to a home sized for 1/2 people and not stay forever in a home made for 6 people, unless they have savings to pay for the property tax. And that's "sad" somehow

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#287

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lmm wrote: post #276
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is voting a law of nature, and nor is property ownership. So what's your point? That we don't have to do it this way ? Well, sure. But what's the actual alternative?

Where I live planning rules are set on a national level. The whole notion of incorporated and unincorporated land seems like a weird US-ism.

It's not really weird at all. It's a big enough country with enough different conditions that it does make some amount of sense that there is a heirarchy of levels of control. That looks something like:

                               |+-- incorporated municipality
   Federal -> state -> county -+
                               |+-- unincorporated land
In the case of an incorporated municipality, the people who live there have a political process to make decisions about planning/zoning/construction, but these (in general) cannot override the rules from the county, state and federal levels.

In the case of unincorporated land, the county makes the rules, and so these are controlled by a political process involving the entire population of the county, rather than just those who live on a particular piece of land (because "there is no there, there"). Again, the county generally cannot override rules from the state and federal level.

In general, the state doesn't really set planning rules that affect specific placement of things. There may be environmental and health regulations that would prevent X being built in a particular location, but the state doesn't normally control whether single family only zoning (as an example) should be used in a given neighborhood - that's up to the incorporated municipality to decide.

The federal level really doesn't set any planning rules other than high level environmental and health regulations.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#288

Post by asdff »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #254
asdff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you owned the land already, price of construction being what it is in the western US, the home will be several hundred thousand dollars. That's out of reach to a lift operator making $12/hr.

... which of course shows another, arguably deeper, aspect of the problem: the general share of GDP that goes to labor, particularly lower paid labor, and how that compares with increases in the cost of fundamental things like housing. Somehow, we've ended up with an economy and a culture where someone can work 40 hours a week but not be paid enough to afford a lot of what our culture also assumes to be basic. This i…

What is tough is that most other things are generally not that expensive in many of these expensive places. It's still roughly $14 entrees $9 appetizers and $8 bud lights in many of these expensive cost of living areas just like downtown midwestern cities anywhere else these days from what I've been finding myself personally. Other than the bay area or nyc where you really might see a costly big mac on the menu, it feels like the pricepoints for food service, movie tickets, concerts, car washes, cocktails, in state college tuition, groceries, and most other things are pretty much fixed across the country in metro areas at least whether its LA or Pittsburg you are comparing. It's only rent and housing costs that seem to vary so dramatically in my experience.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#289

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Schiendelman wrote: post #281
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wierd. While I don't disagree with you that one of the primary uses of zoning has been racial discrimination and segregation, Ambler v. Euclid was about industrial land use in the context of otherwise residential property. The decision may indeed have to led to an expansion in the use of zoning for racist purposes, but it was not in and of itself about such a purpose.

This is a normal take of the case, but not what the appellate court decision was about. SCOTUS ignored the real issue - the apartments - and focused on the industrial uses in order to ignore the apartment issue.

Actually, we are both wrong.

SCOTUS did explicitly address the apartment buildings and gave what to many contemporary eyes would be an absurd judgement:

"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#290

Post by ako »

jseban wrote: post #283
ako wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, often it is a bad equilibrium. When prices rise, taxes rise, and often people who were able to live somewhere no longer can. They're forced to move, eventhough they'd rather stay. This also happened in the bay area, where people were involuntarily forced out of their homes. See for an example: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wic...

These stories don't really make sense to me though, why are single elderly people living in the home that housed their whole family with children, now that the children have moved out? Shouldn't a family home be used for a family? And shouldn't prime location housing in the middle of big cities be used for the people that contribute most and are most needed there? I think it's perfectly normal for a single senior cit…

Wait till you’re old and live in a house filled with memories. And especially when you’re older, you should be able to rely on your friends and family around you, and not be forced to move to a new area where you know nobody, and cannot ask anyone for help.

I actually like the idea that you buy a house, pay it off and keep it in the family for next generations. I bought it, it’s mine, I paid for it, and now some else determines I have to move away to make room for someone else?

Post reply on HN