Live data from Hacker News

Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

mnolangray.substack.com

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can have both SFH and public transit. Again, you’re reducing choice on the quality of life people want locally.

The problem is that public transport will be poorly utilized and will cost way too much. Look at this from an economic perspective. And, public transit is already public decision making. This is just more public decision making, which, IMO, makes it fair game.

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? Moscow, Tokyo, Minneapolis, Seattle. Moscow is the one most familiar to me personally. They went full-in on density, demolishing 5-story buildings and putting in 20-story towers instead with the speed only possible in a corruption-filled society. You can guess what happened with housing costs. > The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and…

You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally…

> You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc.

Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control? You get tons of dilapidated housing with generational poverty, among other skyrocketing market-based housing.

> Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here.

There actually is. Stop trying to make density happen. Instead, promote suburbs and smaller cities. It's as simple as that.

> I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach.

You don't get other options.

> Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers.

"Poor people" are the ones suffering from urbanization the most.

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

#133
post #31

This doesn't cover Atherton's train stop, based on their estimated map, which is interesting.

Aside from the other reasons, Atherton is also below the 35k population threshold so the influence of SB 79 would be minimal even if the train station was open.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally…

> You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control?…

Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.

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

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have both SFH and public transit. Again, you’re reducing choice on the quality of life people want locally.

You can also buy a sfh near public transit. You are the one who wants top reduce choices, no one is trying to take away the option to live in a sfh, you are trying to take away the option to live in multi family homes.

It's you who's trying to force everyone to conform to the sick urbanist vision of people living in microapartments.

SFH can not work with regular transit. It's impossible.

Fortunately, self-driving cars will finally put the transit out of misery within this decade.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control?…

Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.

Can you provide counter-examples for my points? Just one would suffice.

And no, Austin is not an example. It stopped the bubble by reducing the population. As did Denver, btw.

And yeah, I absolutely hate density. It's murdering Western civilization and the very fabric of democracy.

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

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.

Can you provide counter-examples for my points? Just one would suffice. And no, Austin is not an example. It stopped the bubble by reducing the population. As did Denver, btw. And yeah, I absolutely hate density. It's murdering Western civilization and the very fabric of democracy.

The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on.

I’m not going to keep on arguing with you on this because what would be the point? I attempted to have a reasonable conversation and you repeatedly showed that you will not consider any nuance.

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

#138
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people. You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units…

> They are mutually exclusive things. Source: You made it up. Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option. > USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount…

Please go back to reddit with your nonsense

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

#139
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

Working backwards from not wanting immigrants to be here paints them into some nonsensical corners.

You want immigrants that plunder the indigenous population while at the same time enriching the upper class at the expense of the lower classes, but you project your own nonsense on others, thereby proving you are full of it. Why do you support the ruling class using "immigrants" to plunder the non-ruling class? You do not even have the capacity to understand that, but you speak on it anyways.

I benefit immensely financially from "immigrants", but that does not mean it is just and I have the integrity to be honest about that. You clearly do not. Stealing by abstraction and supporting it makes you a bad person, not at all the good person you think you are by supporting "immigration", regardless of whether I get richer today than you make in one year or not because of immigrants.

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide counter-examples for my points? Just one would suffice. And no, Austin is not an example. It stopped the bubble by reducing the population. As did Denver, btw. And yeah, I absolutely hate density. It's murdering Western civilization and the very fabric of democracy.

The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on. I’m not going to keep on arguing with you on this because what would be the point? I attempted to have a reasonable conversation and you repeatedly showed that you will not consider any nuance.

> The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on.

And? The situation is _always_ more complicated.

Yet somehow, all these complications always lead to one outcome. We'll soon see how California becomes even more polarized politically, with the agricultural parts probably engaging in real terrorism out of powerlessness and poverty. While the coastal cities will have even higher and higher housing costs.

Post reply on HN