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

301–310 of 403 posts

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

#301

Post by 999900000999 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #283
999900000999 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5k is more than enough to get established in a more reasonable state. I'd say offer families a one time lump sum if they want to relocate. After that forbid them from ever receiving another dime in assistance. While you'll have some who try to take the money and come back anyway, I imagine many would find better places to live. California is losing people https://ktla.com/news/california/california-sees-its-populat..…

> I'd say offer families a one time lump sum if they want to relocate. You say families, but these already get the most help from the system via welfare and other programs. The real problem are the single homeless people who have addiction or mental illness problems. And they are incredibly mobile, they'll take your $5k, buy a bunch of drugs, and be back next week. And your solution to cut off the funding spigot...we…

I'm optimistic more people will look at moving to places where they can afford to pay rent.

The average income in LA is only around $70,000 for a household, but the rent keeps skyrocketing every single year. Back when I was a bit younger could still find an apartment in LA for $600, try doing that now.

I very much miss the working class city of my youth. It was such a fun, funky place.

While you do have tons of homeless people who have no interest in changing their situation, many are just stuck. Help people who want to relocate relocate. I'm extremely fortunate in that I make enough money where I can just up and move to practically anywhere in the United States. But if you're working class, this is near impossible.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if people fled LA en mass for the next 20 years or so while housing catches up. Then in 2040 the city might have a middle class again.

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

#302

Post by seanmcdirmid »

999900000999 wrote: post #301
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say offer families a one time lump sum if they want to relocate. You say families, but these already get the most help from the system via welfare and other programs. The real problem are the single homeless people who have addiction or mental illness problems. And they are incredibly mobile, they'll take your $5k, buy a bunch of drugs, and be back next week. And your solution to cut off the funding spigot...we…

I'm optimistic more people will look at moving to places where they can afford to pay rent. The average income in LA is only around $70,000 for a household, but the rent keeps skyrocketing every single year. Back when I was a bit younger could still find an apartment in LA for $600, try doing that now. I very much miss the working class city of my youth. It was such a fun, funky place. While you do have tons of homel…

> Back when I was a bit younger could still find an apartment in LA for $600, try doing that now.

What cities in the USA could you still find an apartment for $600? Inflation has long blown past those prices. According to:

https://www.rent.com/research/cheapest-rent-in-the-us/

The only city that comes close to $600 is Fargo ND.

> While you do have tons of homeless people who have no interest in changing their situation, many are just stuck.

Those are the easiest homeless cases to solve and I'm not convinced that they aren't being solved already (by public services and/or charities).

> I'm extremely fortunate in that I make enough money where I can just up and move to practically anywhere in the United States.

People are extremely mobile when they don't have roots (either an owned house or job or family or a kid in school that they like). It actually is pretty easy to just pick up and move. And that's what has happened throughout history (including the original Okies that moved to California during the great depression).

> It wouldn't be a bad thing if people fled LA en mass for the next 20 years or so while housing catches up. Then in 2040 the city might have a middle class again.

I agree, but the law of supply and demand probably means that will never happen. If people fled LA, there is enough demand from people wanting to live there that other people would move in and keep things about the same as they are now. As long the wish is "I hope LA becomes less popular so I can move there", it is simply never going to happen.

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

#303

Post by TulliusCicero »

burmer wrote: post #268
TulliusCicero wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s exactly this. Imagine if we restricted how many cars could be made a year, with the predictable result of new and used car prices steadily increasing every year. And then when anyone suggested what maybe we should let car makers make more cars, you got a bunch of people complaining about the property values of the cars they already owned, or that this would ruin car culture.

Ironically, people do kind of do this, with discussions about traffic, except that nobody benefits. Everyone wants to drive, and no one wants to be stuck in traffic. Restrictions on driving like tolls or special driving zones, bus lanes, etc. all seem to meet the same kinds of headwinds in the US. Maybe this is too far of a stretch for a connection, but your comment got me thinking.

Well, yes. Americans have sort of a brain block when it comes to driving vs any other mode of transportation.

It’s at least partially rational, though: usually non-car transportation is hilariously impractical wherever they currently live, and also wherever they’ve lived in the past.

The struggle is to get people to see what could be possible when they have minimal to no experience with it.

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

#304

Post by beerandt »

alistairSH wrote: post #193
beerandt wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers are typically required to include on street parking in their developments before the right-of-way is deeded over to the public. There's rarely any public subsidies for parking. That's largely a myth. It's paid for in the price of the development by the developer (and is usual a government or zoning requirement).

In brand new developments, that might be true. But, the state eventually ends up paying for maintenance of those spaces. In older urban areas, that parking has costs in terms of re-developing the roadway for alternative transit. And in both cases, that land could be better allocated to economically productive use. And that's just on-street parking. There are also per-unit or per-sqft requirements for off-street parki…

Every development was new at some point. The space for parking wasn't public until the developer signed it over.

And maintenance costs money, but the increased tax revenue from the development more than offsets that. Which is why the city/ state is willing to accept maintenance responsibility for it as part of the dedication.

>that land could be better allocated to economically productive use.

Maybe, but it's not what it was deeded for.

But you actually see a lot of this nowadays, where the development doesn't dedicate the right of way to the public and assumes its own maintenance costs, specifically because they don't want to lose long term control over how the land is used.

If people keep seeing public on-street parking as a free lunch to turn into mass transit or bike lanes, you'll start seeing more and more private street developments.

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

#305

Post by autarch »

kgermino wrote: post #250
autarch wrote: post #84

(Stealing this argument from a friend who I discussed something similar with ...) It's hard to see how allowing duplexes will do _anything_ to address housing issues. We have a similar law here in Minneapolis which allows triplexes on any property. But what are the economics of this? Surely there's not a lot of vacant land in LA or Mpls just waiting for a new plex to be built. Instead, all the plots are already occup…

Those are some crazy numbers. I could build a garage apartment for a bit over 100k in Milwaukee. I could divide my house into 2 units with a few walls and electrical work. Lots of houses have unused or underused attic/garage/conditioned space that can be converted relatively cheaply. My "fully built out" neighborhood has plenty of tear-downs, houses on double or triple lots, and even a few truly vacant lots. This is…

> *I could divide my house into 2 units with a few walls and electrical work. Lots of houses have unused or underused attic/garage/conditioned space that can be converted relatively cheaply.

A few walls, some electrical work, an entirely new kitchen, and a new master bath unless you happen to have a house with two full bathrooms.

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

#306

Post by what_is_orcas »

Causality1 wrote: post #87
baby wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced that this is the reason behind SF housing problems as well. There’s just too much value for landlords.

I think anti-profiteering laws could be helpful. If you bought land and built a house and want to live in a quiet neighborhood until you die, fine. But maybe if you vote against expanded housing you don't get to sell your house for more than you paid for it, or maybe don't get to sell it at all while you're alive. Separating the homesteaders from the investors would do a lot of good.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot: how to make homes less of an "investment".

When I bought my house my realtor seemed unable to accept that I don't plan on ever selling. I bought this house because I like it and I want to live here, not because I think I can sell it in a few years. I work remote and I hate moving.

I know a lot of the HN crowd hates the thought of government regulation but I do agree that the individual interests are directly at odds with community interests and I'm not sure how to correct that without regulating the individuals.

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

#307

Post by ihaveajob »

ghaff wrote: post #237
ihaveajob wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chea…

There's definitely a core set of drivers who can't give up their cars, for whom any price increase will just be swallowed. However there's a big swath of gray cases at the boundary.

For example, when we moved to San Francisco, we kept our car and parked on the street. After two parking tickets within the first month (because we forgot the weekly sweep schedule), we decided it didn't make sense to keep the car. We sold it, and started using Caltrain/Muni/biking for most of our trips, with a few Zipcar rentals peppered in. Without those parking tickets, we would definitely have kept our car because there would be no downside.

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

#308

Post by alistairSH »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #242
alistairSH wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incremental upzoning is what will get us there. This. It's been relatively successful (in terms of units built) in Northern VA. All along the Metro rail through Arlington and Fairfax Counties, we've changed zoning to allow dense multi-use development. Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston in Arlington were heavily redeveloped in the 90s and 00s. And Reston and Herndon's Transit Oriented Development Zones have been unde…

With better zoning, has Northern VA become more affordable? Or has it just become more popular?

Impossible to say - too complex to figure that out. You are correct that demand has grown faster than supply, so in aggregate, housing prices have continued to rise.

But, we have mixed-use where single-use/non-residential existed previously, so relatively speaking, we're better off (in terms of total housing units). And in terms of economic activity, those zones all appear to be successful.

EDIT - Also worth nothing the zoning changes are pretty limited - within a few city blocks of the metro stations. They make a good PoC for changes, but expanding them beyond their current boundaries will run into the same NIMBY issues we see across the large cities in CA.

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

#309

Post by throwawaysea »

baby wrote: post #12
_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…

I’m convinced that this is the reason behind SF housing problems as well. There’s just too much value for landlords.

I think this is a convenient caricature of why people want to keep single family zoning, but it doesn't match my experience. I am one of those people that favors single family zoning, and no one I know that shares the same view favors low-density zoning to drive value. Not one. The reason I hear consistently is that people want to preserve their way of life and quality of life. Introducing new zoning and higher density works against that. It brings an influx of newcomers that change local politics, it causes additional traffic beyond what driving infrastructure can support, it soaks up parking and makes businesses/neighborhoods less accessible to those living outside the immediate vicinity, it makes parks/amenities more crowded, it changes the sense of community, it affects safety, and so on. Those things are important to many people, not just current home owners, and I think it particularly matters to those who have lived in an area for a long time and helped make it what it is.
Post reply on HN