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

What if public housing were for everyone?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#21

Post by diziet_sma »

brtkdotse wrote: post #18
jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

A significant amount of zoning is about what type of housing you can build where, how much of it you can build, and how you have to build it.

For example, in Berkeley California, which was one of the first cities to implement "exclusionary zoning" has roughly the following zoning restrictions:

* R-1: One home per lot or estate, only. Bans apartments in 49% of the city.

* R-1A: One home per lot or estate, unless the parcel exceeds 2,400 SF which allows for an additional home.

* R-2: Two homes on one parcel, only.

* R-2A: One home per every 1,650 square feet on a parcel. A typical residential parcel in Berkeley is about 5,300 square ft thus commonly three homes maximum.

[source](https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/berkeleys-upzoning-would...)

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#23

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

brtkdotse wrote: post #18
jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

it's also "you can't build multi family housing" and "you must include 1 parking spot per resident"

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#24

Post by jonfw »

brtkdotse wrote: post #18
jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

Zoning limits the density of housing. I live near an area that used to be rural, now is suburban, and zoning around here often requires more than 1 acre per house.

The major developers are able to figure out how to rezone and build houses on less than a quarter acre, but if you wanted to do it on a small scale (i.e. buy an old house on 4 acres, tear it down, and build a small subdivision instead) it's just not practical.

In more urban areas, it can be similar. But rather than requiring 1 acre per house, the restriction is that you can't build multi-family, etc.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#25

Post by pydry »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> the program is perfectly palatable to voters. [...] The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. I'm not sure that's largely true. I suspect that many property-owning voters are okay with the concept of public housing, but are less ken on the actuality that building public housing increas…

[flagged]

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#26

Post by nickpinkston »

Aurornis wrote: post #5
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…

It's actually well established in the research. In the below article, it summarizes the issue by saying:

"Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interests groups also want it."

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#27

Post by grugagag »

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #3
harimau777 wrote: post #2

My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.

One of the other things about Singapore is that they will bring the hammer down on you for abusing the public housing. If you pee in an elevator, the doors will shut and the police will come. Compare that to public housing in America...

Public housing is neglected in the US because it pushes certain demographics in it and wants it neglected Imo.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#28

Post by shockeychap »

brtkdotse wrote: post #18
jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

- You can only build single-family units (no apartments, no duplexes, etc.) - Each lot must be at least a half acre - You must have at least one (or two) parking spots per lot. - You must have multiple stairwells and an elevator for any multi-floor shared units.

And on. And on. And on. Zoning and building restrictions are an absolute gauntlet in many places. For an extreme example, check this out: https://reason.com/video/2018/12/27/san-francisco-mission-ho... (He did eventually succeed, but the cost and effort was tremendous.)

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#29

Post by estebank »

brtkdotse wrote: post #18
jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

Not in the US. It is segregating cities between places people work at, places people shop at, places people live in buildings with multiple units and places where people live in single family housing, without any intermingling. Trying to build a triplex where the neighborhood might already be zoned for it, but where most of the buildings are (or seem to be) detached houses is also an uphill battle because neighbors will fight tooth and nail against "changes to the neighborhood character". This leads to the only multi family housing that has gotten built in recent history to be larger towers, which leads to what urbanists call "missing middle".

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#30

Post by grugagag »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #17
Aurornis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…

Any weirder than the idea that, having managed to eventually buy my own home, I secretly want to go live in section 8?

Why is that?
Post reply on HN