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

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 329 posts

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#11

Post by beering »

School-Cotton wrote: post #6
colordrops wrote: post #2

I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions. It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that o…

> afford a home Can you afford rent, though? Isn't a bit extreme to expect to be able to own property -- like some sort of medieval lord -- in a major city?

Wouldn't rent and a monthly mortgage end up being about the same? The value provided by one unit of housing to its tenants should be about the same as the value to an owner living there, so an investor buying a unit shouldn't expect to reap huge returns relative to someone buying a unit with a X0-year mortgage, right?

I think owning property would be much more expensive than renting in the case where the value is based on future appreciation, vs actual value that it provides as a living area. I admit I'm not an expert on real estate, so please explain to me whether this makes sense or not.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#12

Post by imbusy111 »

Unlikely to happen, in my opinion. Locals, who have lived in the Bay Area for a long time, have all the voting rights and they either own homes and want to see their property value increase or are considered poor and get cheap housing and plenty of handouts. Only those who move here actually suffer and pay all the taxes to support the locals and end up renting forever.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#13

Post by favorited »

golemotron wrote: post #9

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if…

Why would you expect California to want to grow the tech industry in other states? California has a pretty vested interest in making sure that high-earning tech employees and companies continue to pay California state taxes.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#14

Post by iamacynic »

colordrops wrote: post #2

I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions. It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that o…

the recent ballot measure that uncorks development passed; it will get better in LA. the NIMBYs reigned supreme here for a while but they are being beaten.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#15

Post by golemotron »

favorited wrote: post #13
golemotron wrote: post #9

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if…

Why would you expect California to want to grow the tech industry in other states? California has a pretty vested interest in making sure that high-earning tech employees and companies continue to pay California state taxes.

It is something we could do as a nation. There is so much land and there are so many people who need jobs. Many of them can't move to the cities.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#16

Post by ThrustVectoring »

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact".

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#17

Post by imbusy111 »

golemotron wrote: post #9

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if…

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#18

Post by School-Cotton »

alexbecker wrote: post #10
School-Cotton wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> afford a home Can you afford rent, though? Isn't a bit extreme to expect to be able to own property -- like some sort of medieval lord -- in a major city?

It didn't used to be. We should be asking why things seem to have regressed, shouldn't we?

Didn't it? Were individuals ever commonly buying houses (EDIT: any property) in Manhattan, for example?

I don't have any hard numbers, but I suspect LA simply having become more urban and desirable is a big part of it. It's certainly still possible to buy houses in suburban flyover country very cheaply.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#19

Post by mythrwy »

School-Cotton wrote: post #6
colordrops wrote: post #2

I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions. It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that o…

> afford a home Can you afford rent, though? Isn't a bit extreme to expect to be able to own property -- like some sort of medieval lord -- in a major city?

Well given the number of houses in a major city obviously SOMEONE is affording them. Unless they are all owned by a handful of people (not really what we are shooting for here I'd think).

Point being, its not unreasonable at all to expect to be able to afford a home.

Post reply on HN