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

California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 645 posts

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#131

Post by Invictus0 »

komali2 wrote: post #121
Invictus0 wrote: post #88

If California were its own country, would it try to build more housing or would it put up a border wall and halt immigration? It's clear to me that Californians would choose the latter, and I don't really blame them. Deep down, everyone hates change, especially the type of transformative change that is taking place in these California suburbs. What does Lafayette owe the people of San Francisco?--or more accurately,…

If they wanted to halt immigration, why would they build a border wall? That would be a highly expensive and ineffective way to halt immigration, for fairly obvious reasons.

Merely a figure of speech.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#133

Post by notJim »

thedance wrote: post #60
ryandrake wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention water, sewer, electrical capacity, schools, parks, police and fire services... You can’t just plop a 100-unit apartment down and then say you helped with the housing problem.

The reason Bay Area cities can't afford their water and sewer and roads is because they are not dense enough. Apartment dwellers demand far less water, and drive on roads much less than people who live in detached homes. Density is the _solution_ to infrastructure funding.

> Apartment dwellers demand far less water

It is also obviously far cheaper (and better for the environment) to water a single building than to water a bunch of dispersed SFHs.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#134

Post by skybrian »

manfredo wrote: post #81
aty268 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this? Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

Remember that many renters (>70% in some cities like San Francisco) have price controls on their rents. If you're guaranteed that your rent will effectively never go up, then you're much more likely to block an apartment complex construction because it'll block your view or "change neighborhood character". Price controls on rents means many renters enjoy privileged status that insulates them from housing costs.

Rent control gives people an option to buy future housing at a fixed price, which works much like a property interest.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#136

Post by bluGill »

fra wrote: post #127
i_am_nomad wrote: post #115

YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.

If it is only in your backyard it is better for your property value in the long run: eventually someone will offer you a ton of money to replace your house with a large apartment complex. If it is everywhere that can build, than the builders can take whatever property comes up - and because they have to compete with other developers for renters they are likely to build smaller so on both counts property values don't increase as fast.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#137

Post by notJim »

gdubs wrote: post #61

Honest question: how do we address the housing crisis in the Bay Area without turning it into Los Angeles?

What does "turning it into Los Angeles?" mean? Everyone replying seems to know what you're talking about, but it's totally baffling to me.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#138

Post by i_am_nomad »

fra wrote: post #127
i_am_nomad wrote: post #115

YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.

There’s already plenty of places to build affordable housing. Nearly all of it is outside the Bay Area. But evidently, living in Modesto, or Bakersfield, or God forbid Kansas is some kind of horrible punishment, and it’s wrong to deny people the “right” to live near San Francisco.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#140

Post by riazrizvi »

Lendal wrote: post #93

This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty of room there, but the kids who got on the bus first would ban together to prevent new kids from sitting. Today these kids have grown up and own homes in the suburbs. New kids need to move in, but the kids who got there first refuse to let them build. That's w…

I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.
Post reply on HN