California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers • Hacker News Board

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#51

Post by tr_user » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #24

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

>Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.

Do they own valuable homes or do they own valuable land? I can see the land value increasing because it is now rezone-able and you can build multiple units worth on it.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#52

Post by pishpash » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

reillyse wrote: post #31

I don’t recognize the California described in this article and I live in Los Angeles. It seems like a politically motivated attack on liberalism using California as a proxy for the Democratic Party.

Or maybe you are a non-average beneficiary of the system and don't recognize the problems and dangers of a one-party state. Would not be the first time.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#53

Post by CorrectHorseBat » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #49

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes. > Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates! You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of [r…

>You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings.

Are you claiming those cities don't have zoning?

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#54

Post by kelvin0 » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

A funny, yet very well researched video on that exact same topic of Zoning nonsense. Entertaining AND informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#55

Post by protomyth » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

peder wrote: post #40

ceeplusplus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly urge you to just stand in an SF Walgreens and watch how many people walk out the door with stolen goods. None of those incidents are reported, the security guards don't even bother getting up.

And why are people so staunchly in denial about crime in Seattle/San Francisco? Why do they seem to feel personally attacked?

It often provides evidence that the politics they believe in doesn't have a solution to their community's problems thus it becomes personal. Crime is the most basic indicator of failures in policy.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#56

Post by timcavel » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

No post body was provided.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#57

Post by guelo » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

Why are there so many "California/San Francisco is horrible" articles? As if every state didn't have different sets of issues. To me it looks like conservative bias in our media since all I hear these days is how everything is liberals fault.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#58

Post by arbor_day » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

Cities don't vote, people do.

I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here.

I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that would make that worse.

I get I represent NIMBY-ism, but these tradeoffs are real. I often see people strawman them like there are easy/obvious solutions to shared problems. There aren't.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#59

Post by skrbjc » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

The article does suggest that housing density doesn't really solve the problem and that we should be more OK with letting "urban sprawl" happen.

Personally, I think we need both. Let the urban areas increasingly densify and let the people who want larger single family homes move into those types of developments that are farther out of the city centers.

Some people just don't want to live in apartment buildings, and as someone with a young child, I much prefer having my own home with a yard and parking space and garage for projects than living in an apartment building and parking on the street or in a garage. But when I was younger I wanted to be closer to restaurants and the like.

CA should invest heavily in opening up more land for housing developments and equipping them with schools and shopping close by, with transit for commuters, while prioritizing density projects in the urban centers.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#60

Post by neura » Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #24

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

>Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.

I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more.

Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".