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

California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

realclearinvestigations.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 163 posts

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#91

Post by tablespoon »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #70
tablespoon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes. Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way. >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 and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks. The current restrictions that have created subu…

> The current restrictions that have created suburbia are already yield expensive, cookie cutter and flimsy housing, so even if your arguments were taken at face value (Which I disagree with), nothing changes for the worse.

I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is denser housing would get us "a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan..." It's false advertising.

The only thing you'll get with density is density.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#92

Post by zeruch »

sofixa wrote: post #72
arbor_day wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Quoted post unavailable.

"Cities aren't loud, cars are"

Happy city dweller here...no, cars are indeed loud, but so are cities. People, trains, the buzz of lights, the rumble of skateboards, chatter, endless motion at all hours, etc. That's part of the charm.

"NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people."

Agreed.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#93

Post by JaimeThompson »

A nearby house that is slightly less fancy than mine just sold for 100+K more then mine is listed on the tax rolls which is drastically above previous sales for such homes in this area. Not a large town, lots of empty land for sale, excellent Internet and prices are still thru the roof so it isn't just a California issue when talking about housing and such costs.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#94

Post by RestlessMind »

sofixa wrote: post #72
arbor_day wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Your strawman arguments are quite poor.

I found those arguments informative.

> Cities aren't loud, cars are

And. Bay Area neighborhoods will still be full of cars because public transportation is not going to materialize overnight.

> Cars go into underground parking garages

Then we add a restriction that any multi-family unit should come with an underground parking garage. Good luck seeing that through.

> There, done.

Not done, really.

> but NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people.

In this thread, your arguments seem shallow to me without addressing any real concerns of the bay area homeowners. You seem to be selfishly imposing your political ideology without considering all the costs which you won't be incurring anyway.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#95

Post by twblalock »

jollybean wrote: post #28

Among myriad of issues, one is that the tax rates for the very rich are not high enough. And the absolute parrallel there is - people probably wouldn't feel their money is being spent effectively. I really do feel that rich Californians would accept higher taxes if the money was really well spent. Impossible to talk about is the 'low end' - where you have (and bringing in) people in very, very low skilled and economi…

More tax dollars won't change anything. The state government already has more money than it needs. It just doesn't spend it well. If we give the government more money, it won't spend that money well either.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#96

Post by itissid »

arbor_day wrote: post #58
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!

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 woul…

> my neighborhood is quiet

I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) which excludes most of the noise from the interiors.

> not crowded

By what metric? I can walk my dog outside easily, travel easily in the train to manhattan, and get reservations to any restaurant on the day in Hoboken. I don't think most places are as crazy crowded as Manhattan (Brooklyn, Queen and Bronx are much lower density) where the dynamics are different because work and tourism.

Are most single family zoned places in California work building heavy areas and touristy destinations?

> easy parking.

I can find parking for ~200$ per month here. So it is kind of expensive, i'll give you that.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#97

Post by RestlessMind »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #70
tablespoon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes. Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way. >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 and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks. The current restrictions that have created subu…

> Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way.

That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#99

Post by skrbjc »

rayiner wrote: post #85

I’m convinced that tax rates on the upper middle class (top 10%) need to be much, much higher. An interesting premise of Modern Monetary Theory is that taxes can and should be used to control inflation, and further that this can be done in a controlled way based on where inflation is occurring. If that is correct, one can reason that inflation for things like housing, education, etc., is caused by taxes being too low…

One of the actual major tax problems in CA is that property taxes are not equally applied. I bought my house in 2017 and pay well in excess of $10,000 a year in property taxes. But guess what? My neighbors who bought their houses in the 90s pay far less than half of that despite their houses being twice the size and worth far more than my home. Prop 13 has been a terrible thing for California over the long run and has served to inflate housing prices while trapping people in their current home because selling it and moving would force them to immediately increase their tax burden by a significant amount.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#100

Post by dekhn »

jkubicek wrote: post #26

> San Francisco, meanwhile, suffers the highest property crime rate in the country. Businesses like Walgreens have shut down numerous Bay Area locations due to “rampant burglaries.” Hasn't the "we're shutting down this Walgreens because of rampant burglaries" been repeatedly debunked? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-shoplifting-forcing-wal...

No, it was not debunked. These things actually happened and the reasoning for closure was as stated. A fair number of progressive people were unhappy about that and tried to write rebuttals, but they were wrong.
Post reply on HN