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

Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

mnolangray.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#91

Post by hamdingers »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #15

It's all just to help the property investors - the mom and pop landlords, the mega corporate landlords. "If we, your landlords, own a LOT more housing, surely you can see how that will trickle down to YOU eventually owning a house. It's obvious isn't it? Our goal as investors is to build so many houses that prices will crash and everyone will be able to afford a house to live in. That's what we deeply want for all, a…

> It's all just to help the property investors - the mom and pop landlords, the mega corporate landlords.

The landlord lobby explicitly opposes this because new housing challenges their monopoly. They are pro-shortage for very obvious reasons, and this comment shows you have misunderstood the situation entirely.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#92

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #89
Supermancho wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too. Relative to the rest of the area, for that specific pollutant, yes. Relative to a city dwelling of the same distance, no. Volume (ie Traffic) matters when comparing health impacts.

Freeway traffic next to suburbs is really the major driver here, with high speeds and tire microplastics (the biggest source of microplastics in the SF Bay Area is tires). A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city. And even city streets do not see the level of pollution caused by freeways that snake through subur…

[deleted]

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#93

Post by yongjik »

ummonk wrote: post #28

Great for much needed housing, but this will poison the well for public transit and cause NIMBYs to triple down on opposition to public transit expansion…

That could happen. But on the other hand, all those new housing will create more people living around stations, providing more ridership and more revenue for public transportation, and hopefully more stations along the way.

Also, these new people would vote. The old NIMBYs are already opposing everything; how harder can they go? The demographic change might be enough to change local politics in some places.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#94

Post by doctorpangloss »

hamdingers wrote: post #88
doctorpangloss wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 is getting repealed practically speaking through time, as the main beneficiaries of the low taxes die; and the taxes they dynastically transfer to their kids get capped; and as those kids choose to sell those homes and move to New York. There is no one simple solution to e.g. poor performance of US public schools. Repealing Prop 13 isn’t going to close the achievement gap, it’s not even going to slow the fall…

> Prop 13 sort of being phased out naturally I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. When the property is transferred it is reassessed and the new buyer pays the full tax, but after that the taxes effectively decrease annually (increase at a rate lower than inflation). Everyone who owns a property more than a year or two in California benefits from Prop 13. Nothing is phasing out and it has no sunset claus…

Okay… even if things worked exactly as you say. Is the repeal going to fix education? Is it going to result in home prices going down or up? Will the change in home prices that you predict cause more or fewer homes to be built? I hate Prop 13 but I hate it for reasons of justice and equity, not because I think it will have effects that it will not.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#95

Post by yongjik »

cyberax wrote: post #32
brokencode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want rural, then don’t move to a metro area with millions of people.

Ah. But that is the trick! You have to move into dense helks, because it is the only place with decent jobs.

You are not entitled to have a town with no bus service within a humanly drivable distance from you decent job, to which you aren't entitled either.

Those who blame others of collectivism have the weirdest sense of entitlements...

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#96

Post by fyrn_ »

yongjik wrote: post #93
ummonk wrote: post #28

Great for much needed housing, but this will poison the well for public transit and cause NIMBYs to triple down on opposition to public transit expansion…

That could happen. But on the other hand, all those new housing will create more people living around stations, providing more ridership and more revenue for public transportation, and hopefully more stations along the way. Also, these new people would vote. The old NIMBYs are already opposing everything; how harder can they go? The demographic change might be enough to change local politics in some places.

Right but SB79 will never go into effect in counties if existing homeowners vote to prevent public transit ststions to stop the upzoning..

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#97

Post by SilverElfin »

brokencode wrote: post #24
cyberax wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you want rural, then don’t move to a metro area with millions of people.

Those aren’t the only choices. It’s okay to have urban areas that are low density but not quite as low as rural. This prop overrides that choice.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#98

Post by SilverElfin »

thordenmark wrote: post #41
hamdingers wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California housing crisis is a result of restrictive local policy preventing housing starts, not a shortage of materials.

onerous and overly burdensome regulations make it nye impossible to build in this state. The environmentalists have a throttle on California. That is coupled with the wealthy not wanting their home values to go down with new low cost housing built anywhere near them. These add up to skyrocketing home prices in CA.

> That is coupled with the wealthy not wanting their home values to go down

I keep hearing this criticism but I think it’s less about home values and more about how many people - wealthy and not wealthy - simply value their quality of life and don’t want that to be damaged by forced rezoning.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#99

Post by zdragnar »

pixl97 wrote: post #46
smelendez wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure! But you could treat it as an emergency and staff up. It could even be through a mutual aid system the way utilities team up to do repairs after disasters, borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions.

>borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions. I don't think those people exist... State/City budgets have already been cut lean on this stuff and most places that aren't in the middle of a disaster are many months behind as it is.

The cost of permits alone would easily pay for the extra staff and overtime. Most places in California charge what, $1-3k per house?

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#100

Post by SilverElfin »

yongjik wrote: post #93
ummonk wrote: post #28

Great for much needed housing, but this will poison the well for public transit and cause NIMBYs to triple down on opposition to public transit expansion…

That could happen. But on the other hand, all those new housing will create more people living around stations, providing more ridership and more revenue for public transportation, and hopefully more stations along the way. Also, these new people would vote. The old NIMBYs are already opposing everything; how harder can they go? The demographic change might be enough to change local politics in some places.

Sounds a lot like replacement theory. New people come in, replace and marginalize the existing ones, who will be left with a changed neighborhood and no voice?
Post reply on HN