California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers • Hacker News Board

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#151

Post by bitcuration » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 2:53 AM UTC

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

Unlike most places in the rest of world, California has plenty land space, there is no reason to think of California like Hong Kong, Tokyo or Mumbai, that'd be ridiculous.

Obviously housing cost is the tips of iceberg, and the result of state policy, resemblance to the development path often seen in middle and south America.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#152

Post by bitcuration » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 3:00 AM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #49

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes. > Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates! You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of [r…

It won't matter, apartments in Manhattan and London are not necessarily cheaper than single house in LA. Zoning is a way to make more property tax and will have nothing to do with low income affordable housing in the expensive area. It's the demand and supply, so long as there are enough wealth pour in the district the price will keep hiking.

Hint: wealth gap is your answer.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#153

Post by sershe » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 4:11 AM UTC

arbor_day wrote: post #137

MoosePirate wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning. Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going…

FWIW, I am happy to pay a premium for the living situation I want. I do that today across high housing costs / taxes / cost of local goods/services. I'd happily support paying for other externalities (e.g. carbon taxes).

The premium would be really large though. The difference is only in degree between current zoning and something like "I have a nice view from my window and therefore my neighbors should not be allowed to build up the 2nd floor or plant trees in a way that would block it, and nobody should be allowed to build tall buildings in downtown between me and the mountains". The current zoning just happens to be status quo. Both unreasonably restrict what others can do with their property, and the only fair way to really "pay the premium" to enforce either is to buy the land (or at least, pay some large fraction of market rent, to offset the loss that owner incurs by not e.g. building and renting out more units). Well that or NIMBYism, which is a nicer name for regulatory capture, i.e. corruption.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#154

Post by arbor_day » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 4:26 AM UTC

itissid wrote: post #96

arbor_day wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities don't vote, people do. I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here. I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that woul…

> my neighborhood is quiet I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) whic…

I think my use of "quiet" and "crowd" was not very clear. For me quiet is the absence of hustle and bustle.

When I down my street, I'll see at most 1-2 people out and about. To me, that's a more relaxing environment than even the best urban environments where I'll see dozens of people.

Unless I live next to a major road/highway, the occasional car noise is less bothersome to me personally than noise from people. To me car noise feels like white background noise, but voices trigger some active part of my brain.

I'm not arguing that's a completely rational way to feel / belief, but it totally how I feel.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#155

Post by ipaddr » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

ceeplusplus wrote: post #148

ipaddr wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc... The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach. The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get…

> The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home. > Here are some current prices What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end…

Density means accepting smaller. If you are expecting New York style tall buildings in a prime earthquake risk area you won't.

Austin and Atlanta have smaller population densities compared to SF. SF is double Austin.

An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented. New condos can have 500sqft and still go for 800k in dense cities.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#156

Post by ceeplusplus » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 6:31 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #155

ceeplusplus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home. > Here are some current prices What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end…

Density means accepting smaller. If you are expecting New York style tall buildings in a prime earthquake risk area you won't. Austin and Atlanta have smaller population densities compared to SF. SF is double Austin. An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented. New condos can have 500sqft and still go for 800k in dense cities.

Downtown SF manages to have tall buildings. And there are a ton of 5+1 or 6+1 units going up, which in itself will 3-4x density from height and from smaller setbacks.

> Density means accepting smaller

Strongly disagree. You can still have 1200+sqft apartments. Most of the 2 and 3bd luxury apartments near me are around 1000-1100 sqft.

> An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented.

Not sure what kind of apartment you're renting... (or maybe you're out of touch with the market?) 500sqft is a studio and you're not fitting much more than a bed and desk in there. You have to remember that square footage includes things like bathroom, closet, washer/dryer if they're in unit, etc. And that realtors exaggerate so in practice an apartment advertised as 500 sqft is more like 350.

Please just take a look at Zillow/Redfin for one moment and tell me where you see 500sqft condos that look like actual condos rather than studios.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#157

Post by wdr1 » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 7:06 AM UTC

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

> I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning.

It has. California has passed SB9. It allows up to four units to be built on a current single unit lot.

https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9

https://www.homestead.is/helping-homeowners-understand-sb9

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#158

Post by incomingpain » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 12:47 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

Homeless being caused by a lack of homes doesn't really will out. The people camping on the side of the road don't have a downpayment and good paying job who could afford a house if only they existed because zoning is bad.

The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed.

Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p...

So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year.

https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/

Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#159

Post by jollybean » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 1:07 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #142

jollybean wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA generally has lower tax burden than other nations, but I don't think taxes on the bottom 90% need to change so much, the issue is in the massive surplus of those earning capital gains. Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that. i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade. ... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.

> Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains Capital gains are income (just income that is federally taxed at a lower rate than “regular” income which, due to payroll taxes, is in turn taxes a lower rate than labor income.) Because investors > people getting money from random sources > workers.

Capital gains are traditionally taxed at a lower rate due to the risk involved.

Businesses can carry over losses and get a tax shield from it, individuals cannot.

One solution to the problem may be to make it so that if individuals want to claim capital gains, they have to do it in a separate account - maybe something that every bank can offer as easily as a chequing account. And allow gains looses to be rolled over or something like that - but while taxing at a higher rate.

It'd be a neat idea to simplify the system and get institutional buy in so that everyone just has simple accounts: current, retirement, cap gains, and transactions on them are recorded in a way that taxes can be filed just with that data alone.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#160

Post by cudgy » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 8:22 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #82

neura wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more. Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that peo…

Zoning usually gets decided on on a very local level. The people who show up to community meetings tend to be older, white home owners who don't want the value of their home to go down. Fear of "undesirables" of course also likely plays a role and when I've heard it in person, even that gets wrapped in fear of that bringing down home values and schools.

Perhaps more white owners show up in majority white neighborhoods, but what evidence is there that white owners disproportionately show up to these meetings? I assume you can provide it based on this comment.