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

Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#141

Post by cwp »

btilly wrote: post #51

I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again. The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where they work rather than where they live. Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of NIMBYism. But when everyon…

I'd rather see the repeal of Prop 13:

• more municipal revenue means better schools and infrastructure

• better schools and infrastructure would support more development

• higher property taxes would remove the incentive to hang on to property forever making it easier to buy and develop property

• removing the disincentive to sell property also reduces the NIMBY imperative, since home owner can move to another area if they don't like how their neighborhood is developing

It's not a silver bullet; we'd still have to tackle zoning issues, remaining (and still powerful) NIMBYs, and the everyone-has-a-veto problem, but it's a good start.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#142

Post by Redoubts »

opportune wrote: post #138
Redoubts wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the Bay Area shouldn't have municipalities smaller than counties.

I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities or even boroughs: San Rafael-Sausalito SF + Daly City + Colma + Brisbane + South SF San Bruno - RWC Palo Alto - SV San Jose + Santa Clara and assorted surrounded munis like los gatos. Honestly you could probably include the Palo Alto-SV area with this one if you wanted. No idea how…

> I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities

There are 9 Bay Area counties, so we agree?

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#143

Post by Terr_ »

btilly wrote: post #51

I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again. The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where they work rather than where they live. Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of NIMBYism. But when everyon…

Hrm, but then how does someone vote about stuff that directly impacts where they live?

Maybe if people would get one vote in each area, or a double-vote if both were the same place...

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#144

Post by opportune »

Redoubts wrote: post #142
opportune wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities or even boroughs: San Rafael-Sausalito SF + Daly City + Colma + Brisbane + South SF San Bruno - RWC Palo Alto - SV San Jose + Santa Clara and assorted surrounded munis like los gatos. Honestly you could probably include the Palo Alto-SV area with this one if you wanted. No idea how…

> I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities There are 9 Bay Area counties, so we agree?

Note I said core area, I didn't mean to include most of the east bay. The areas I was thinking were only in 5 (SF, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda) of the 9 counties

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#145

Post by mktmkr »

almost_usual wrote: post #111
option wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California does not have low property taxes. Tax = rate * assessed_value. assessed_value is huge if you purchased during last 7 years and goes up 2% every year

Purchased in the last 7 years is pretty recent. Most home owners bought 15+ years ago. If you're buying within the last decade you're probably paying a transplant premium.

From 1985 to 2008 the median tenure of a family in a home was 6 years. This figure only started going up in recent years, due to housing crisis. Americans have traditionally expected to move house 8-9 times in their adult life. It is certainly not true that "most" people have tenure of 15 years or more. That is the 90th percentile tenure.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#146

Post by [deleted] »

kuang_eleven wrote: post #139
markdown wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue Solved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

Land value tax does not solve this issue. The vast, vast majority of property value in the impacted areas of California is land value, nothing would change.

[deleted]

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#147

Post by entee »

CPLX wrote: post #27
opportune wrote: post #13

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

Speaking of the painted ladies, a clear example of how completely dysfunctional the market is, there's been a vacant lot ON Alamo Square, less than a block for the painted ladies for years.

https://goo.gl/maps/7iW3oiqN3FcPhVXq6

Who owns it? Why is this still not housing or at least something? Who knows! There's a vacant boarded up mansion/victorian multiunit building on Grove as well that has been that way forever as well.

Also years ago there was a natural grocery store that closed on Divisadero. There was some controversy but the council decided to let it become a Core Power Yoga. That was almost a year ago. Zero progress has been made on building that studio, still an empty shop front.

http://www.sfweekly.com/news/with-corepower-divisadero-loses...

I don't have a strong opinion on that fight, but it's insane that these things take so long. I don't understand it, I've been meaning to go to a neighborhood meeting to ask, but I've been busy the rare nights they happen.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#148

Post by zippergz »

CPLX wrote: post #27
opportune wrote: post #13

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

I agree with almost all of this, but in a city as crime-riddled as San Francisco, there is a huge difference between parking on the street and in a garage. I get that the way the garages are built and arranged is beyond suboptimal, but lets not act as if having those same cars parked on the street would be equally as good.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#149

Post by tarr11 »

Would a “technology” answer be to make telepresence technology better and invest in higher bandwidth infrastructure?

If we could have high resolution video, audio and even VR for business, would people be required to be colocated as often?

That way people could live wherever they want.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#150

Post by markdown »

kuang_eleven wrote: post #139
markdown wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue Solved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

Land value tax does not solve this issue. The vast, vast majority of property value in the impacted areas of California is land value, nothing would change.

Are you sure you understand land value taxes?

If land is taxed based on value, many homeowners would be forced to sell or replace their houses with apartment blocks that can earn enough revenue to pay the land value taxes.

Post reply on HN