California’s population shrinks for third straight year • Hacker News Board

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#111

Post by xnx » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #106

random314 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Probably cost 4K, not 40K.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Actually, it's how many of the leases I've had worked, and I've lived in dozens of states. Probably cost 4K, not 40K. It cost my friend $11,000 to move his one bedroom apartment from Southern California to Texas last year using Mayflower. And he was just one person, not a family. Moving an entire…

Wow. I haven't researched moving costs at all, but I'd probably buy all new stuff and still save money at those prices.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#112

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:02 PM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #79

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right "Increasing price of cars during pandemic not an issue for people who already have cars." Yes, people are upset that the government pushes policies that hurt people, and that make no sense generationally (intentionally targeting rising property values is just a generational…

> If your stance is apathy or even pleasure upon seeing the suffering caused by bad policy, it's no wonder you're being downvoted. There was absolutely nothing in the comment to imply he derived "pleasure from seeing suffering." You are making that leap in bad faith. I think the build-or-not argument might be more productive if the "YIMBY" side would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and theref…

> But quietly, I'm ok with it. They can move if they want to. I love it here and having fewer people on the fringes of society as neighbors isn't really the worst outcome to me.

Maybe pleasure was the wrong word, but they certainly seem to enjoy the terrible situation. It's not very far off, and saying that you're okay with and even love the current setup that helps you at the expense of others isn't a great look.

> would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and therefore population density) does have an effect on existing residents.

Obviously it does, just like increasing the supply of anything has an impact relative to the option of constrained supply.

Realistically, the real solution is radical upzoning at the state or even federal level. Upzoning individual neighborhoods and cities exacerbates the negative side effects of upzoning by concentrating them in small areas. If the population increase is broadly spread out, it'll be much less of an issue.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#113

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

skrtskrt wrote: post #77

TulliusCicero wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well they did just pass a bunch of laws last year to upzone the whole state Have you seen the particulars of that law that upzoned the state? It's actually extremely weak: "* Benefits homeowners NOT institutional investors. Recent amendments require a local agency to impose an owner occupancy requirement as a condition of a homeowner receiving a ministerial lot split. This bill also prohibits the development of sma…

local NIMBY density restrictions still have to comply with all the other state laws regarding submitting plans to increase housing units. If the state says no that’s not enough units you are just jerking us around, then the municipality is out of compliance and builders are basically autopermitted to build whatever they want (oversimplifying but look at builder’s remedy - it’s already being applied). One of the impor…

I take a dim view of "approve more density or we'll sue you". That's more than nothing, sure, but it'll inevitably lead to less housing than just outright requiring various upzoning rules, as various cities do the minimum or even less and fight things in court.

Like, the state already had targets set for cities for a long time, and most cities just kinda ignored them. I know the newer regulations have more teeth, but when you know the other party is hostile to helping people to begin with, it makes more sense to me to explicitly set all the rules up front.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#114

Post by skrtskrt » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #113

skrtskrt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

local NIMBY density restrictions still have to comply with all the other state laws regarding submitting plans to increase housing units. If the state says no that’s not enough units you are just jerking us around, then the municipality is out of compliance and builders are basically autopermitted to build whatever they want (oversimplifying but look at builder’s remedy - it’s already being applied). One of the impor…

I take a dim view of "approve more density or we'll sue you". That's more than nothing, sure, but it'll inevitably lead to less housing than just outright requiring various upzoning rules, as various cities do the minimum or even less and fight things in court. Like, the state already had targets set for cities for a long time, and most cities just kinda ignored them. I know the newer regulations have more teeth, but…

It’s not “approve more density or we’ll sue you” it’s “approve more density yourselves or literally any state-compliant development is auto approved and you have no recourse, also state compliance is easier now.”

If you follow this stuff, these changes are the ones that have finally broken the impasse with these towns - it’s literally already working. The state has come in hard and fast to show it’s for real.

> It it'll inevitably lead to less housing than just outright requiring various upzoning rules

Sure but I’m sure they did their homework and figured out that would be harder to pass in legislature, defend in courts, and defend politically. Giving the towns some chance to increase housing units their way is more politically defensible.

I think it’s gonna turn out to be a pretty darn good solution, better than waiting longer for a more optimal one.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#115

Post by rsj_hn » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #96

rsj_hn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be difficult to understand, and I can accept if you refuse to believe it, but it's possible to say that two steps are needed without the first step also accomplishing the second. "e.g. 1) switch to more funding on property taxes and 2) reduce administrative bloat" Shockingly, this does not make the two steps "self-contradictory".

Despite your condescending tone: my comment was what WOULD happen. Yours is what you'd like.

I mean, how do you communicate with someone that has no ability to make quantitative estimates? Yes, getting rid of prop 13 would require the administrative complexity of one specific job of one department to increase. No, this does not contradict the goal of reducing administrative waste. Fire a million bureaucrats (15% of the population of California works for state and local government), shut down 20 departments, and the 1000 people you need to hire for prop 13 rollback will not reduce the overall goal.

And by shifting responsibilities, you could easily do this without hiring anyone else - almost all states have a value-based property tax system, and this includes states with extremely lean administrative load compared to California, so your claim that following their model is some self-contradictory nut to crack is specious.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#116

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #113

skrtskrt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

local NIMBY density restrictions still have to comply with all the other state laws regarding submitting plans to increase housing units. If the state says no that’s not enough units you are just jerking us around, then the municipality is out of compliance and builders are basically autopermitted to build whatever they want (oversimplifying but look at builder’s remedy - it’s already being applied). One of the impor…

I take a dim view of "approve more density or we'll sue you". That's more than nothing, sure, but it'll inevitably lead to less housing than just outright requiring various upzoning rules, as various cities do the minimum or even less and fight things in court. Like, the state already had targets set for cities for a long time, and most cities just kinda ignored them. I know the newer regulations have more teeth, but…

> I take a dim view of "approve more density or we'll sue you".

That's not the rule.

The rule is “approve developments such that you meet state housing requirements or lose your ability to deny planning approval to otherwise legally-compliant developments”.

There is no suing involved: the requirements are known up front, and the consequence of not meeting them is automatic.

> Like, the state already had targets set for cities for a long time, and most cities just kinda ignored them.

Yes, that's why they changed the consequences from just “lose access to certain funding, and lose preference points in applications for other funding” to be that plus losing the ability to block housing developments.

And those new teeth have been biting very hard.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#117

Post by khazhoux » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:29 PM UTC

pragmatic wrote: post #80

wysewun wrote: post #43

Moved from the bay to Texas because of everything i heard. It was such a horrible experience. The heat, the bugs, the lack of density. So few days of good weather. Maybe worth it to some, but a bigger house was not worth it to me at all. We moved back in 6 months. So many people want to live in California which causes more issues

You didn’t visit or research local climate before moving?

It occasionally happens that even research does not prepare you for an actual experience.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#118

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #106

random314 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Probably cost 4K, not 40K.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Actually, it's how many of the leases I've had worked, and I've lived in dozens of states. Probably cost 4K, not 40K. It cost my friend $11,000 to move his one bedroom apartment from Southern California to Texas last year using Mayflower. And he was just one person, not a family. Moving an entire…

> Actually, it's how many of the leases I've had worked, and I've lived in dozens of states.

In the majority of states, the landlord has a duty to mitigate losses, which means you are only on the hook as long as the landlord is unable, making a reasonable, good-faith effort, to rent the unit.

And usually any part of a deposit not used to pay for damages beyond nornal wear and tear or rent for which the tenant was legally liable must be returned.

(The lease may assert something else, but where these laws are in place such terms have no legal effect.)

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#119

Post by khazhoux » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #90

khazhoux wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most analogies, those fail. One person's quality of life is not affected in any way by another person having a sofa. More housing and population density does lead to increased crowding, which some people consider a decrease in quality of life. We can argue which QOL argument outweighs the other, but it's plain wrong to say that increasing housing has no impact on existing residents.

If I did not want more people to live near me, I would simply not live in the most economically productive region in the country. People who hate other people are free to sell their homes and move to the country.

> People who hate other people

Why introduce "hate other people" into the discussion? Would you maybe allow that what some people actually "hate," are jammed highways and thoroughfares, not enough parking, and everything crowded? To the extent that people have a say (a vote) in zoning regulations, people are entitled to voice their opinion about the population density of the area where they live.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#120

Post by kelseyfrog » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #99

wonderwonder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's the beauty of democracy though. Everyone gets an equal say. Seems like not enough of the voting population agrees with you and as such no new houses are built. America is a huge country though, plenty of very affordable housing elsewhere. Everyone doesn't get to just have what they want where they want it though, that's capitalism for you.

It's not capitalism, though. In capitalism, I could use money to build an apartment building on the land that I own. If wouldn't be capitalism if we demanded you let us build on your land, but it's certainly not capitalism when you won't let us build on our land.

In any -ism.you could build an apartment on your own land[1]. It's capitalism that turns it into capital which allows you to rent it out or sell it as property.

1. to the extent that land can be owned under a given mode of production.