Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by ghaff » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #243

davidw wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let the market work. If people don't have a car, they're doing the environment a favor for all of us and clogging the roads less. It's only fair that they should get a discount: not forcing them to pay for automobile storage they're not using!

Isn't that the case already pretty much everywhere land is scarce? When I lived in Seattle, parking was an extra $300 a month on top of rent but I didn't have to pay that when I didn't have a car.

Not everywhere. Resident parking permits are often cheap. You just need to be eligible.

In Cambridge it's $25/year and that's a city with absolutely no surplus of parking spaces.

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

#332

Post by mrep » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #331

mrep wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case already pretty much everywhere land is scarce? When I lived in Seattle, parking was an extra $300 a month on top of rent but I didn't have to pay that when I didn't have a car.

Not everywhere. Resident parking permits are often cheap. You just need to be eligible. In Cambridge it's $25/year and that's a city with absolutely no surplus of parking spaces.

I should clarify: everywhere land is scarce and the government isn't moronically not charging what they should for street parking. I have an even worse example than yours: my brother and his gf live in lower manhattan and are somehow able to find and park their car completely free on the street somewhat close to them. My jaw dropped when I heard that as I think it is beyond ridiculous.

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

#333

Post by beerandt » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #210

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).

That is still a public subsidy as the city is expected to maintain that on street parking.

No- it's part of the consideration in exchange for the developer generating increased tax revenue and dedicating the right of way to the city.

If that weren't the case, the developer would likely keep the parking and streets privately held. Which is something that you do see more and more of these days.

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

#334

Post by duped » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #290

duped wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people aren't solely motivated by the rise in their property. Evidence already suggests doing nothing increases it plenty. On the other hand, some folks just don't like living in higher density neighborhoods. I can empathize with someone that bought a single family home decades ago, probably can't afford to buy a new one today even after selling it, and doesn't want to see their quiet neighborhood turn into a bu…

I mean, if you are able to prevent apartment complex on someone else's property that is not even next you your house, then you have too much control.

I don't think exercising your right to vote in local elections and ballot initiatives and speak your mind about local issues is "too much control." It's part of living in a democracy that has some measure of municipal autonomy.

In this particular case, most of the local opposition is because city government is fast-tracking the project while neglecting their own regulatory processes and distrust of the developer (for good reasons, frankly).. Not only do local residents want the community to keep certain qualities in that neighborhood, it's encoded into the law. That wasn't done by one person with too much control, it was done by an elected body with the consent of the governed.

But I don't want to get into the specifics, the gist is I can empathize with someone that wants to preserve the community they live in.

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

#335

Post by milkytron » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

what_is_orcas wrote: post #186

nimbius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

housing reform has been a political third-rail for a while now and follows the same aggravating pattern. - Home owners delight in 100k of equity per year on what amounts to bungalow property held together by stucco, as they have since the late seventies when neoliberal tax reforms at a republican behest elevated them to an untouchable landed gentry. - Residents in the state bemoan "Reagans army," the indelible popula…

This is so frustrating. I live in a relatively low-income neighborhood in a west-coast city and I hear on social media all the time about how the local government doesn't prioritize us because of our relatively low average household income, but at the same time a lot of those folks are resistant to zoning for more apartment buildings in our neighborhood because of all the nimby classics (crime, diversity, etc.). Mayb…

> it seems to me that an influx of residents into the area might give our neighborhood more pull in local elections as we'd form a voting-block with some aligned interests (services & infrastructure in our neighborhood) even if we differ in other interests.

It might give more pull in local elections, but the one major benefit of having more residents is an increased tax base and being a more desirable place for businesses. There are lots of benefits of increasing the density of an area, like you mentioned. The NIMBY resistance has a lot of time and money on their side so it can be hard to overcome.

I'm also in a very similar spot as you, between expensive suburbs and a major urban core. Despite the city I live in voting to restrict new housing, they were able to approve an exception for my area. Definitely appears to be helping, lots of townhomes and apartments are going up and new businesses have been coming in.

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

#336

Post by JeremyNT » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

jperras wrote: post #7

Montréaler here; I live in a neighbourhood which is uniquely composed of plexes - 3 to 8 units per "plex", with the typical number being 3, thus the term "triplex". Honestly, it's the ideal density IMHO. I get the convenience factors of urban density, but without (most) of the downsides of a high-rise condominium building.

I'm moving into a "plex" in a southern city that has become heavily "plexed" over the last 15 years. There are two strategies basically: "plexing" or "tall and skinnying" (the latter is to make very slim houses that have very small easements between them, the advantage of which is that each lot is fully owned by an individual party).

It's got pros and cons. I think the big issue I observe here is that it doesn't help affordability in any noticeable way. Whenever the single family units are destroyed, they are typically the older / lower end variety first, which had previously been attractive as rentals for lower income people but now they have massive value as teardowns so they can be carved up. Those houses get replaced with high end new construction. So this results in increased real estate value and ultimately a concentration of amenities around these areas that are being "plexed." No affordable housing is built (since this is a southern US city, all low income housing is pushed away from the city core to the exurbs, with long car drive commutes).

Another con is that this town does not have public transportation, and their roads are ill suited for 2-3x the old density. This results in the dreaded "stroads" that have numerous stoplights, carry 5-6 lanes of traffic, and are lined by strip malls as the only connectors.

And finally, when a neighborhood gets "plexed," all the existing foliage is destroyed because it is in the way. So the newly plexed zones are barren with only small shrubs and decorative plants, no trees at all.

I think town home style developments make a lot of sense conceptually. They provide easier access than an apartment building and are much cheaper to build. The density improvements are real, although though not as large as an apartment. I just worry that the way it's being done is rather careless and with little thought for the future, at least in the southern US town I am staying in.

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

#337

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #256

Dylan16807 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #2. Repeal CA prop. 13, all housing should be taxed at current market value. (exclusions for older retirees and the disabled) Why the exclusions? Is there a reason to give extra help for the disabled to own homes (and, implicitly, not help disabled renters a similar amount)? Older retirees could sell off a third of their house's value and cover property taxes for something like 20 years.

Trying not to throw the older/helpless out into the street. Its no fault of theirs that the house they own increased from $40k to $3M(know 2 elderly people in this exact situation) and they would now incur a gigantic tax bill(if prop-13 was repealed). They could sell but would most likely be forced to move out of the area and away from all family/community and would be devastating to a person of advanced age or who w…

That doesn't really answer my question.

For older retirees, they can get money out of the house without having to move in their remaining years. The tax will be proportional to the value, so the numbers cancel out.

For someone that's disabled, are we helping equivalent renters too? Or only the homeowning disabled? And I feel like this is a bad way to help them in general.

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

#338

Post by milkytron » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

frumper wrote: post #278

notJim wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only issue that I have with this so far is that newer construction denser housing is not required to have parking for some reason The reason is that parking requirements massively add to the costs of building new apartments. It works out that everyone in the building has to pay extra, regardless of whether they actually use the parking. Parking minimums also mean that some projects just will never work economic…

The poster didn't say he wanted the city to provide free car storage. Parking on the street is being put on people because the city isn't putting in the realistic requirement that makes developers deal with the fact that people actually do have cars, especially in LA

Having car infrastructure paid for by the users is a much more fiscally responsible way to account for the cost of that infrastructure. If the option of building parking was left up to the developer, they would have to weigh whether the income from parking spaces would be greater than the income for residences. At a certain point, people will try to go from a 2 car household to 1 to save money, or go carless. The city shouldn't mandate how many people should have available parking, it makes more sense for the market to decide and allow people to have some flexibility if they so desire.

Making a requirement will just incentivize more people to drive and the costs will be baked in whether they do have a car or not, so they might as well get a car.

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

#339

Post by milkytron » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

KittenInABox wrote: post #253

ghaff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People complain about parking requirements but, in most US cities (and indeed in a great deal of the world) most households have cars. If I lived in Seattle, even if I didn't need one day to day for work/errands/etc., I'd certainly own one for going out to the mountains and so forth on the weekends.

Forgive me, since I don't own a car: Wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a car if you're only going to use it once a week or so? I mean, with the payment itself, plus insurance, plus gas, regular maintenance, is it worth the price?

I don't have a car either for this exact reason. I could get a car, but the costs are just insane when compared with the alternatives.

$8-10k a year in savings is usually what I come out to.

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

#340

Post by TulliusCicero » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

Slow_Hand wrote: post #318

opportune wrote: post #80

I find it interesting that the majority of democrats were in favor of the duplexes, republicans were split, and the LA city council (14/15 democrats) were all opposed to the new law. This matches my experiences in SF and other parts of the country. I’ll ignore the irony that republicans are voting against expanded property rights and transparently are voting simply for class interests… I am not sure why democratic el…

As you've suggested the dissonance between democrats largely polling in favor of the measure but city council democrats rejecting could be because the city council members have conflicting personal interests or are being influenced/lobbied by a minority who oppose the law. So perhaps the distinction of democrat is too broad and unhelpful in this situation and it should be broken down into finer demographics. 26% of A…

Republicans should be in favor in theory because of property rights and the free market/consumer demand, but in practice they’re opposed to density for lifestyle reasons: they really like car-only lifestyles, and they’re not above using the government to force their neighbors to go along with it. They talk a lot about free market principles, but just like with Facebook or Twitter, the instant it goes against their interests, suddenly their principles are nowhere to be seen.

Democrats aren’t as outright averse to density, and in theory should be for more housing because it would massively help the working class, but in practice they’re only okay with pre-existing density, because new density means redeveloping areas that probably already have people there, which means displacement. Plus, they hate the fact that new housing is more expensive than old housing, so every time a new development goes up you get a bunch of people yelling about “luxury condos”.