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

Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 403 posts

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#231

Post by thaumasiotes »

notJim wrote: post #222
thaumasiotes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Un-democratic in the sense that it casts out folks that don't live there, but democratic in the sense that the voices of those who own homes are clearly heard. And the voices of those who own land?

In the US, you typically own the land your house is on.

In what sense? Say I buy a bunch of land in San Francisco so I can put a skyscraper on it.

This is a form of "ownership" in which you don't control the property and you have to pay rent on it every year. What's left?

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#232

Post by clairity »

foofoo4u wrote: post #211
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

As soon as you look at the zoning of LA, the housing problem there becomes clear as day, even for someone who doesn't visit very often. I don't know what you would call this system but LA's problem is that the folks that have the power to fix housing have zero interest in doing because it would hurt their self interest. Housing is only a "problem" if you haven't bought a house yet, once you purchase a house, all the…

> Un-democratic in the sense that it casts out folks that don't live there, but democratic in the sense that the voices of those who own homes are clearly heard. California’s housing crisis has given me a clear perspective on the debate between centralized and distributed powers, a topic I have long struggled to resolve. It harkens back to debates as old as federalism vs anti-federalism. States rights versus federal…

as with many man-made constructs, we inadvertently introduced discontinuities into an otherwise continuous function: artificial governing units (city, county, state, country) when governance ranges continuously from the individual to the world. this is a self-inflicted problem of trying to wedge the ‘right’ level of government for each and every governance issue. rather than the federalism/anti-federalism dichotomy, we should be thinking about how to create a more continuous governance structure matched to the continuous scope of governance issues.

for instance, the state largely delegates zoning and housing starts to cities, but that’s turned into a regional concern as cities try to offload housing onto nearby cities to preserve existing stock and dedicate the rest to commercial property. so then, the right place to institute zoning/housing is not at the city level, or even the county level, but at the regional level. however, we don’t have a regional governance structure, so it gets wedged into existing city/county frameworks.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#233

Post by bluGill »

itake wrote: post #174
wanderingmoose wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is you are already allowed to build an ADU (additional dwelling unit) due to state laws. What I've seen in my city (LA adjacent) is the city can find really creative ways of making adding an ADU very expensive. On my block the same contractor built 2 different ~500 sq ft units on two different lots. They both were a garage tear down replaced by a 1 bedroom unit above a garage. The first unit was done…

1/ who actually wants to live in a ADU? 2/ adding 1 more unit to a plot is hardly going to make dent in the crisis. We need to look at Asia to see how they offer affordable house: giant high density housing complexes with ground floor grocery stores and shopping malls for convenient access.

> who actually wants to live in a ADU?

The homeless. The poor. Young students. Artists. Elderly. Refugees.

That is anyone who can't get anything better. ADUs are useful housing for those who are on the edges, but pretty much all of the above wants better - they just can't afford it.

If money wasn't a limit how would that change your housing? Indoor pool? Bowling alley off your bedroom? servant quarters? Everyone has a limit - I listed things that most of us would be not sure if they are worth it or not, but with money not being the limit maybe we would. However because money is a limit most of us don't seriously look at those things even though it is possible now (you might need a zoning variance to fit a bowling alley on your lot, but if you are reading this it probably is an affordable addition if you really want it)

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#234

Post by francisofascii »

sjg007 wrote: post #205
francisofascii wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the entitlement goes both ways. The current landowners feel entitled to enjoy massive appreciation gains while paying very little property tax, just because they settled there first. But I agree we are lucky in that we have other places to move, but that might not always be true.

People can vote for change.

Actually, no, they can't. You can't vote for change in a place you don't live yet. It is a flaw or an unfair downside of federalism. Call it tyranny of localism (or something)

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#235

Post by SnowProblem »

sushsjsuauahab wrote: post #199

I live in Washington and I don't understand how anybody can live in LA unless they have a physical job or family that is tying them there. If you like hot weather, there are many better places to live, like Scottsdale or Naples. If you must live in California, why not Palm Springs? If you are concerned about taxes and cost of living and you don't need California's weather, virtually any other state has a safe communi…

To each their own. I used to live in Seattle and had some reservations about LA, but my opinion changed after living there, on the west side specifically. I've since moved, but I do miss 70° and sunny everyday, all the diversity of food, and generally blissful living. Weekend trips for skiing, palm springs, malibu, even vegas were great too. There's a lot to like.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#236

Post by bluGill »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35
ethanbond wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That system is called feudalism! Just the lords don’t even have to take care of security anymore - peasants also pay for that.

> system is called feudalism Peasants didn't vote for their lords. Somehow California's poor and renters have been convinced that building less housing is in their interests. (For example, see [1].) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29419007

Renters are in general far less likely to vote. Many cities have higher property tax in areas with a lot of renters because the few people who vote in that neighborhood are no longer enough to matter to politicians. Even when they do vote, few renters see how property taxes turn into higher rent (though even for an economists this is tricky as supply and demand are important factors in rent)

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#237

Post by ghaff »

ihaveajob wrote: post #208
ghaff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect residential parking is pretty price-insensitive. Maybe more households would forgo owning a marginal second car. But if a households needs a car, they need a car. And if that means paying $100+/month that's just something they're going to have to eat.

With parking requirements, families who don't have/need/want a car still have to pay the extra price for a built-in feature they don't need. When we bought our first home, it was a condo in SoMa without car parking. We loved it because we didn't want or need a car, and we couldn't have comfortably afforded a place with parking included. Especially in metropolitan environments, minimum parking requirements are the nea…

The parent was making a different point though which was that increasing the price of parking would decrease the demand. And while that is true almost by definition, mostly you'll just transfer money from all the people who want/need cars to someone or someones else. Most adults aren't going to forego a car because parking is too expensive. (Of course, they may decide just to live someplace else where parking is cheaper/free.)

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#238

Post by danans »

usrusr wrote: post #207
danans wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a small step in the right direction but California has really dug themselves into a hole here. California needs whole apartment blocks, not just duplexes, but apartments is something that is likely to never happen because of the above issue where no one will vote against their self interest Incremental upzoning is what will get us there. So changing single family zoning to duplex zoning like what this does,…

Sorry for being so ignorant about particularities of American zoning (I hardly know more than what you pick up playing the original Sim City): could it be easier to shift commercial to high density residential? Of course the general threat to owners would still be there, "if we solve the housing crisis my Prophet might stop appreciating like mad". But that's true for any approach short of an October 1917 reenactment.…

> could it be easier to shift commercial to high density residential?

In some places it's possible, as long as the commercial spaces naturally lend themselves to residential occupation, or in places with enough demand to justify the costs of tearing down existing commercial spaces and building residential structures.

But most unused (therefore in theory available) American commercial space isn't comprised of smaller 19th century brick warehouses that you can convert into chic lofts.

Rather, it's more like abandoned or underutilized suburban shopping malls that can't be easily repurposed into housing. The most basic issue is that these buildings don't have many exterior windows. After all, in an indoor shopping mall, the whole point generally is to create an environment that isolates you from the outdoors by keeping it at a large distance.

Apartment buildings need to keep more access to the outdoors, both for light and ventilation reasons.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#239

Post by trgn »

mywittyname wrote: post #30
CPLX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's truth to that, but Paris and Barcelona are some of the densest cities on the planet. People really underestimate how much you can get just with 5 stories or so if you do it consistently. As anyone who's been to those places knows there's no sacrifice of beauty, sun, or livability really.

And getting rid of cars! Pre-1920s neighborhoods in the USA are dense, yet spacious. So much of the density problems in America are due to our over-reliance on cars.

This is _it_. There are so many good examples of dense but verdant urbanism in the US. But they all predate cars.

Funny thing is, people still will pay top dollar to either live in these neighborhoods, or visit them on vacation (Savanah, Charleston, New Orleans, Ashville, ...).

It's a complete tragedy, the answer is right there. Just do the same thing they did then, but today.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#240

Post by rcpt »

ihaveajob wrote: post #109
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

As soon as you look at the zoning of LA, the housing problem there becomes clear as day, even for someone who doesn't visit very often. I don't know what you would call this system but LA's problem is that the folks that have the power to fix housing have zero interest in doing because it would hurt their self interest. Housing is only a "problem" if you haven't bought a house yet, once you purchase a house, all the…

The thing I don't get is why many SFH owners don't see the benefit of upzoning their lot: Overnight, their house is much more valuable because if they choose to, they can sell to a developer who can make MORE money by building more homes. And if they choose to keep their house as is, nobody is going to force them. In the end, it boils down to cars, though. Many people see the free parking space in front of their hous…

It's the variance, not the expected value.

Development is work. Paying for it is risk. Easier to just bank land and watch your equity grow (tax free).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146986

Post reply on HN