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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by wewewedxfgdf »

xmprt wrote: post #55
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 crazy how the same property investors and mega corporate landlords who apparently stand to gain from this were fighting it tooth and nail for the last decade...

Why is more housing a good thing if it is just going to be owned by the people who already own all the housing?

Why do we have to be thankful and grateful for that?

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

#103

Post by smegma2 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #98
thordenmark wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A large majority of SF residents support upzoning: https://growsf.org/pulse/growsf-pulse-october-2024/#allowing...

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

#104

Post by cyberax »

brokencode wrote: post #52
cyberax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. California has been trying this for decades and it really isn’t working out, except maybe for people with very high salaries. Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.

> So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides.

Yes? Why is that bad? And I want everyone to be able to do the same, and not get crammed into microapartments.

> Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.

No single large Western European or American city lowered housing costs by increasing density within the last 30 years. Your _only_ option to reduce housing costs is to reduce the population.

It's as simple as that.

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

#105

Post by cyberax »

dcrazy wrote: post #59
cyberax wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburbs subsidize cities. If we use personal income taxes as a proxy.

That’s an extremely poor proxy given that income tax is not the sole source of revenue in California, you’re not netting out state spend (which would be very important to the definition of subdsidy), and you don’t even specify whether you are speaking in aggregate or per capita.

No. It's the best proxy to determine who's sponsoring whom.

Corporate taxes are not a good proxy because they are imposed at the location of corporate headquarters. Which are almost always in the Downtowns even if the workers who produce all the value live in suburbs.

Ditto for sales taxes.

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

#106

Post by cyberax »

yongjik wrote: post #95
cyberax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The thing is, you are also not entitled to "affordble housing". Or to any housing, for that matter.

You can keep trying to make everyone's life worse by making dense city living inevitable, but it will just make _everyone's_ life worse (very much including yours).

Or you can try to advocate for ways to _improve_ the life of everyone.

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

#107

Post by cyberax »

xmprt wrote: post #39
cyberax wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Can't have nice things This is unironically the current state of things. If you want to live in a semi dense suburban area which is within walking distance of transit, restaurants, and parks, then you're pretty much out of luck or you're paying millions for the handful of houses that meet that demand.

Well. And why not make it more accessible for _everyone_ by ensuring that jobs are not available only in Downtowns of large cities?

It's not even that hard to do. Pass tax incentives for companies opening offices in smaller cities, tax incentives for remote work, and tax the dense office space.

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

#109

Post by HDThoreaun »

SilverElfin wrote: post #97
brokencode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No its doesnt. If you want a suburban sfh lifestyle you just need to buy in an area more than half a mile from public transit.
Post reply on HN