Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by abalashov » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:21 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #104

abalashov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

>It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing So we pay HOA fees for high-rise condos. Rents in SF grew $2000 over 5 years. I would be ecstatic if my worst-case housing market outcome were a measly $250/mo. My standard of living is going to fall every year at lease renewal t…

Oh, we've got problems of that sort in Atlanta, too (at a different price scale than SF, of course). There's an enormous spread between mortgages and rent at the moment; so many fewer people qualify for mortgages after the housing crash due to tougher underwriting standards and a return to traditional down-payment requirements that many, many more people are forced to rent. That has pushed rents way up. But for those who qualify, buying has never been cheaper. Needless to say, they pocket the difference, and it's an extreme landlord's market. They've got their pick of tenants and getting a place inside the Perimeter with anything less than impeccable credit is hard.

Median rent in Midtown Atlanta, where I last lived, is pushing north of $2000, which for Atlanta is a _princely_ sum considering it's ... well, it's Atlanta. It's not Brooklyn or Chicago. If I'm going to pay that much, I want Brooklyn or Chicago.

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

#122

Post by distances » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:21 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #37

cjensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under existing rules, developers do not pay enough fees to allow the School Districts to build new schools to support the new housing. Now you'd like to rubber stamp this? For example there's a new development in Fremont of a few hundred houses: the school district had to zone it as "we'll provide school for you, but it'll be wherever we have space across the entire city." That's not good. To me the idiocy is this: t…

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

Forgive my ignorance, but are taxes really earmarked in the US? As far as I understand, in most of Europe the government and municipality just collect their dues and spend according to an approved budget with no earmarking whatsoever.

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

#123

Post by jrapdx3 » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:22 AM UTC

jkimmel wrote: post #79

gumby wrote: post #40

For a bit of micro NIMBYism: my street in Palo Alto just instituted resident-only parking (I was the only one to object). Thus the people who cut our hair, serve our meals etc will have to walk even farther to work (my house is about 1.25 miles from downtown) while the wealthy shoppers park downtown for free. Yes it was a pain having a lot of cars on the street but I didn't feel it was a hardship that I couldn't park…

If SF housing politics has taught me anything, it's that the nastiest of human behavior is revealed by parking disagreements :( I never understood the residential parking permit argument anyway. Public dollars built the road, which now contains public parking spots. Implementing residential parking permits is a transfer of value from the public domain to private land owners. In Palo Alto (and the rest of the Bay Area…

I think you're right. I my observation (though not in SF) the top 2 sources of dispute are 1.) parking, and 2.) dogs. Not infrequently, there's a correlation between offensive parking and promoting bad dog behavior.

Of course it makes sense that would be the case. Inconsiderate people are likely not to care about encroaching on others' driveways when they or their guests leave their vehicles. They're also not likely to heed city leash laws, leaving their dogs deposit excrement randomly which neighbors tend to object to.

In some neighborhoods in town parking is a nightmare because there are not enough spaces on the street for visitors and residents. Institution of metered parking and permits was a price of success of urban redevelopment. Around here the residential permits aren't cheap, but most residents cough up the fee anyway. Even then there's no guarantee they will be able to find parking close to home, though the odds are improved and local dwellers say that's better than nothing.

Under the conditions operating here, I don't think there's a substantial "transfer of value" from public to private hands. It may be a different story in Palo Alto.

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

#124

Post by skewart » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:54 AM UTC

flomo wrote: post #117

voxmatt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Council. When you have a metropolitan area that spans multiple local governments, coordinating efforts around transportation, development, and environment is critical. And coordination is difficult without some sort of central authority. https://en.wikipedia.org…

Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.) In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt su…

> which is 99% developed.

Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco.

Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead.

Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted.

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

#125

Post by wbl » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:55 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #118

panzagl wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes pay for the schools that already exist. It's hard for a district to 'save up' because, well California, and 'surplus' money should be returned to the taxpayer. If developers don't cover the cost a district usually issues a bond but that's hard because, well, California, and direct democracy rarely votes to raise property tax mil rates whatever it would cost to cover the bond. And doesn't California bas…

A state shouldn't need a per-value increase in taxes to cover anything that scales with the number of residents, which would include schools; the additional revenue from the new residents should cover that. (Unless they've utterly failed at economies of scale, but that should not need repeated fixes.) The cost of accommodating growth for new capacity should be factored into the ongoing existing costs. The people alre…

I would suggest you never move to California. You will learn just how badly an entitled generation can behave.

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

#126

Post by wbl » Wed, May 10, 2017, 6:57 AM UTC

posixplz wrote: post #8

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…

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, i fear that any sufficiently strong measures to restrict empty homes or foreign investment (see: empty home taxes in British Columbia) will be met with strong resistance from Democrats. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, the same property squeeze is happening here on a similarly massive scale, also driven by foreign "investment". In my experience, advocating for…

Why should we restrict selling homes to people abroad who will never use them? It's a wonderful export market.

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

#127

Post by wbl » Wed, May 10, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #61

Nav_Panel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... not really how it works. Or, you could also argue that's what the area has been doing for the past 40 years, and look at the current state of housing. EDIT: I didn't downvote you, but I will elaborate: there's very little you can do to stop people from moving to California, short of forcefully putting them on buses and sending them away (which is what some cities actually do[1][2]). What you can do is figur…

But how many people are going to move there to live in a bus? I certainly wouldn't. If property values get too high I'll just not move there. I don't understand this mentality where everybody thinks they should be able to afford to live in the best cities in the country, especially in California. It's just simple supply and demand. If housing prices get too high and people can't afford to live there they will live so…

Why should existing residents have the power to prohibit the construction of apartment buildings, duplexes, and town houses by their neighbors?

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

#128

Post by azernik » Wed, May 10, 2017, 7:13 AM UTC

distances wrote: post #122

tomcam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

Forgive my ignorance, but are taxes really earmarked in the US? As far as I understand, in most of Europe the government and municipality just collect their dues and spend according to an approved budget with no earmarking whatsoever.

They really are. At least in California.

One of many ways in which local government here is fucked up.

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

#129

Post by azernik » Wed, May 10, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC

Oh my:

'During the recession, many market-rate projects that had been OK’d were abandoned by cash-strapped developers and converted into affordable housing projects because the government was the only entity doing any building. The community’s reception of a market-rate project compared with the same project when it became an affordable housing project was noticeably different, says Gloria, who was a San Diego city council member at the time.

“Whatever reason that might be, it could just be a pure no-growth approach or it could be a true fear of what affordable housing is perceived to be—and it’s never what it really is—maybe this [bill] is a way to address that,” he says.'

Amazing how they described this odd reaction without once uttering the words "black people".

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

#130

Post by sbov » Wed, May 10, 2017, 7:23 AM UTC

beering wrote: post #11

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?

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 bas…

In the last housing bubble rents and mortgages disconnected pretty severely. My friends and I were renting a million dollar house in Los Gatos for just $2400/month. Not sure how things are nowadays though.