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

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–289 of 289 posts

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#281

Post by CalRobert »

jjav wrote: post #250
CalRobert wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal? Anyway pricing means that people can allocate the scarce resource of land in a city efficiently.

> So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal? That's a good question, difficult to answer in the general sense. At the individual level the answer seems very easy. Of course I wouldn't want it to be illegal to live however you want or configure your apartment however you like, with or without parking! You do you. But what about the next owner? If the very first owner gets to spec the…

"But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene"

OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.

Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#282

Post by jjav »

CalRobert wrote: post #281
jjav wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal? That's a good question, difficult to answer in the general sense. At the individual level the answer seems very easy. Of course I wouldn't want it to be illegal to live however you want or configure your apartment however you like, with or without parking! You do you. But what about the next owner? If the very first owner gets to spec the…

"But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene" OK, they can pay market rate for street parking. Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.

See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency.

> Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

I'm advocating the exact opposite.

I'm saying it never works well if residents have to participate in the street parking scene because residents are by definition there every night/day, so they need a dedicated spot. And the optimal way to provide that, is for the building they live in to have a spot for them (which they pay for, in either rent or mortgage).

That's why mandated parking minimums are still the best compromise solution. Anything else just externalizes the problem which is worse for everyone.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#283

Post by jjav »

snotrockets wrote: post #280
jjav wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/ Thanks for the link, I had seen that site before but forgotten about it. Have you confirmed that 3.5k number with the neighbor, or is it from the website? I see a few large errors on that site for my neighborhood, so can't really trust it. There is one house similar to mine shown as paying less than one fifth property tax. But if I look up the tax history in zillow, it'…

I think some of the data is just old: my house is listed with the tax assessment for the previous owner. But all the tax bills are published (though in a harder to navigate format) on the country website. I went and checked all my neighbors property taxes there when signs against a modest tax increase for road fixing started going up in the neighborhood. As for property tax drop: there are such mechanisms, like those…

> I think some of the data is just old: my house is listed with the tax assessment for the previous owner.

You can compare in zillow which lists it year by year (though some data is missing).

> As for property tax drop: there are such mechanisms, like those in the Mills act.

I looked up Mills act, it is for designated historical buildings.

These are cookie-cutter houses, all built by the same builder during the same year in the 90s. No designated historical buildings here, so that's not it.

First year after being built in the 90s that house paid near $3K in property taxes. I'm pretty sure there is no mechanism for it to actually pay $900 in property taxes in 2024. It's just bad data in the system.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#284

Post by CalRobert »

jjav wrote: post #282
CalRobert wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene" OK, they can pay market rate for street parking. Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking. See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency. > Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge. I'm advocating the exact oppos…

Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes.

You can build parking! Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#285

Post by jjav »

CalRobert wrote: post #284
jjav wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking. See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency. > Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge. I'm advocating the exact oppos…

Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes. You can build parking! Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.

> Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes.

Yes, of course it does. The goal ultimately is to create livable housing, not just pack the maximum numbers of units into a space without practical considerations. Everything is a compromise.

I mentioned above what happens when you build apartments without enough parking: Constant fights over parking, vandalized cars, people circling four hours looking for a spot.

> You can build parking!

Where?

You can't build parking after the fact into an apartment building. It had to be designed in before construction started. If the building is already done and doesn't have enough parking, it will never have enough parking. You'd have to tear it down and that's too disruptive and expensive, will never get done.

(I am assuming city blocks which are fully built-out already. If there's a bunch of empty land nearby there probably is no parking problem either so this is all a moot point.)

> Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.

Capitalism always seeks maximum profit, not a sustainable long term solution. In the absence of regulation the builder will maximize units, which is more profit. The problems that arise when new residents realize they won't find street parking only occur after the builder is done and gone, not their problem. They are very happy to externalize the problem to others.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#286

Post by CalRobert »

jjav wrote: post #285
CalRobert wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes. You can build parking! Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.

> Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes. Yes, of course it does. The goal ultimately is to create livable housing, not just pack the maximum numbers of units into a space without practical considerations. Everything is a compromise. I mentioned above what happens when you build apartments without enough parking…

You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough. Or you can let people who don't need parking live there. Full disclosure, I have no car and enjoy not having parking

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#287

Post by jjav »

CalRobert wrote: post #286
jjav wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes. Yes, of course it does. The goal ultimately is to create livable housing, not just pack the maximum numbers of units into a space without practical considerations. Everything is a compromise. I mentioned above what happens when you build apartments without enough parking…

You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough. Or you can let people who don't need parking live there. Full disclosure, I have no car and enjoy not having parking

> You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough.

You "can", but that's right up there with spherical cows. Let's be serious.

It will never happen that a recently built apartment building gets demolished because they realize in hindsight that it does not have enough parking. That will never happen.

The problem will simply be externalized to the surrounding neighborhood, good luck in the street parking wars.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#288

Post by CydeWeys »

apsurd wrote: post #275
CydeWeys wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That knowledge is severely out of date, then. You don't need bedrock to build skyscrapers, and indeed the tallest skyscraper in the world, the Burj Khalifa, is built on top of sand with no connection to bedrock whatsoever. You just need to pour immense amounts of concrete to serve as a foundation.

Which is cost prohibitive and doesn't make sense for any other entity other than "let's light money on fire + enslave people to flex so the cool kids like us" UAE. it's not a good look. hope my comment doesn't flag me in unforeseen ways 20 years from now. To be clear, I'm saying effectively yep need bedrock otherwise it makes zero actual sense. (I do take you point, and lesson learned on my part)

It's not cost prohibitive, it's a technique that is widely used in US cities too. The cost of building the foundation is still small relative to the cost of acquiring the land and building the rest of the building.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#289

Post by astrange »

jjav wrote: post #274
astrange wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you'd be quite sad and probably annoyed by all that, suddenly having rearrange your life in a big way (either move, or get a car and parking). I would say the point of housing abundance is to make moving easy. This is both the best way to increase customer power vs landlords and the best way to let people reduce their commutes as their life circumstances change (like where their job is and where their childr…

> I would say the point of housing abundance is to make moving easy. That's an interesting take, although I can't agree these are related. It's not scarcity of housing that keep people from moving, it is that moving is mostly undesirable once you settle somewhere. If both spouses have a job and kids in school, you have three sites anchoring you there. And you like your neighbors and friends in the area and you like t…

Because your kids move out eventually, or go to different schools, or your job sites change.
Post reply on HN