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

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#101

Post by notacoward »

cowmoo728 wrote: post #25

This seems more like a political diatribe than an informative look at cost of living and wages in California.

This reminds me of a quote from Dune.

"My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation."

The column contains dozens upon dozens of hard numbers, most with links to sites that can back them up. Maybe you don't like the political implications, but - as my daughter might say - that's a you problem. It doesn't mean the column is any less factual or more political than it should be.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#102

Post by jollybean »

ffggvv wrote: post #89
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…

california is among the highest state tax rates in the country...

USA generally has lower tax burden than other nations, but I don't think taxes on the bottom 90% need to change so much, the issue is in the massive surplus of those earning capital gains.

Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that.

i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade.

... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#103

Post by verve_rat »

skrbjc wrote: post #59
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!

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 a…

Hopefully working from home is here to stay and gets wide spread adoption. Then we won't need to increase city density again and again. Smaller new towns with single family homes and nearby schools and shops, maybe a community co-working centre. If the population doesn't need to commute for work then the housing doesn't need to be in the city. Lots of smaller towns.

Replace some of that water intensive agriculture with small towns for people to live in.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#104

Post by confidantlake »

guelo wrote: post #57

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.

SF isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous cities. Yet article after article about how it is falling apart. Where are all the articles about St Louis or Jackson Mississippi?

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#105

Post by ipaddr »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #68
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…

The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not. I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.

It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million.

Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does.

At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further. The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#106

Post by MoosePirate »

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…

This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning.

Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going to get results.

But given that the zoning impacts have just as big an impact on the low-paid worker who has to commute hours to the local hospital to work, it is entirely reasonable to allow those impacted parties a vote by moving zoning away from total local control up to a larger level. Recent legislative steps in CA are a move in the right direction, but need to go much farther to create more meaningful changes.

Basically, if you want a quiet neighborhood with large plots of land, you should be required to bear the full cost of that, rather than voting to externalize the majority of those costs across the larger population.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#107

Post by anamax »

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…

> >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.

And when they do (as an upstream commenter has done), they're attacked by the good people who blame single-family houses for what's wrong with California.

This thread is an example.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#108

Post by deathanatos »

xwdv wrote: post #27
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!

Keeps out undesirables.

Yes, "undesirables", like young adults (millennials, ugh) trying to afford enough space to do society degrading things like building a home office or gasp starting a family.

/s lest someone Poe's Law on this.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#109

Post by mullingitover »

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!

> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.

Give it time. The state government is hobbled and regional fiefdoms have far too much sway. That's slowly changing.

The state is in the middle of planning the long-term Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Regions across the state are responsible for coughing up realistic plans to meet the growth targets. If they don't come up with realistic plans to meet those targets, not only can they lose their precious single family home zoning, they can lose their zoning privileges entirely. There are even plans in the works for local governments to have state oversight officials appointed for them to completely take over their housing policy. Get your popcorn.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#110

Post by infamouscow »

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?

Moral narcissism.

People developed a sense of moral superiority over anyone that disagrees with their policy. So when the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming shows their policies failed, they can't bring themselves to admit being wrong.

Post reply on HN