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

To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 361 posts

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#191

Post by rmk »

TomVDB wrote: post #129
lazyjones wrote: post #108

It's the same all over the world. Politicians seem to have too close ties with developers and real estate investors and they put unhealthy zoning laws in effect to drive prices into absurd regions and boost tax income as well. People should contact their representatives and ask them to change this. It worked in Span (admittedly, they overdid it), it would work anywhere. Unfortunately, there's no easy workaround for t…

Are you sure that the zoning laws are driven by developers and real estate investors? In most Bay Area cities, they are the wishes of the residents who do not want more development. My neighborhood in Sunnyvale was recently rezoned to be single story only and that process is entirely driven by the residents, not the politicians. It was the 25th neighborhood in Sunnyvale to do so, and it cost around $200 per resident…

Palo Alto has a 50-ft building height limit. The height of greed, that is!

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#192

Post by ScottBurson »

briandear wrote: post #71
api wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-s…

A total repeal of Prop 13.

A complete repeal is politically impossible, but there are two changes that should be made. One, as mentioned above, is to restrict it to owner-occupied residences only. The other is to change the 2% annual increase limit from a limit on the amount of tax assessed to a limit on the amount due in a given year. If the assessed tax exceeds that limit, the locality would receive a lien for the difference, this lien becoming due only when the property is sold.

This accomplishes the original goal of the initiative — to keep fixed-income seniors in their homes — without starving localities of property tax money and disincentivizing them from allowing new housing to be built.

Politically, passing these changes would still be hellishly difficult, particularly the second one, which is not so easy to understand. One way of putting the problem is that Prop. 13 represents a massive transfer of wealth from future California residents to present ones. Of course, the future ones can't vote against it since they don't live here yet.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#193

Post by s73v3r_ »

acover wrote: post #102

Are there studies that explain the cause of high house prices and what can be done?

Lots of people want to be there, and not enough housing is being built for them all.

It doesn't help that a lot of the people moving there, are doing so because of high tech job salaries, meaning they're more able to absorb the high rent costs.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#195

Post by s73v3r_ »

redthrowaway wrote: post #65

What is far more likely is that people will simply leave the Bay Area, and demand will fall. It's far easier to create tech clusters in other cities than it is to convince a bunch of NIMBY boomers that other people need places to live, too.

"It's far easier to create tech clusters in other cities"

Wouldn't it have been done by now if that were the case? Yet SF is still the Mecca for the tech and startup scenes.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#196

Post by sxates »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #110
briandear wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A total repeal of Prop 13.

This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that hav…

Maybe grandfather in existing property owners, but expire it when it sells. At some point the narrative has to flip to the Granny in her 1.5m home paying $1200/yr in taxes vs. the young family next door struggling with kids, student loans, and a $16k/yr property tax bill. Where's the fairness in that?

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#197

Post by s73v3r_ »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #75

Someone who recognizes the opportunity to develop tech centers between the coasts is going to cash in big. Zappos and Tesla seem to have had their fingers on that pulse by settling in the Reno/Sparks area.

For the past 20 years or so, every state has tried doing just that. Very few have been anywhere near successful, and those that have end up with housing problems similar to (maybe not as severe as) SV.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#198

Post by s73v3r_ »

wklauss wrote: post #7
coding123 wrote: post #3

And the freeways can support this how?

Several ways, including congestion taxes and more public transportation options, like it's been pointed out. But, also, a 50% increase in housing supply means higher density of population, with higher buildings instead of single family homes and therefore more comercial space in large populated areas, meaning more jobs will be at walking/biking/short-bus-ride distance.

Congestion taxes are a terrible idea, as they usually hit those who are least likely to be able to change the time they have to commute at, and are usually the ones least likely to afford it.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#199

Post by davidw »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #177
TomVDB wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…

I don't think that's any more selfish than someone wanting to move into the Bay Area from somewhere else.

Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#200

Post by chrischen »

chrischen wrote: post #128
chroem- wrote: post #119

The housing crisis is fundamentally a transportation problem. The bay area has intentionally made it impractical to own a car, so everyone is forced seek housing within walking distance of a limited number of public transit lines. The "war on sprawl" and lack of affordable housing are two sides of the same coin.

Forcing people to live near transit is a good thing. The problem is thebat are doesn’t allow building dense hosuing near transit lines (common sense!) and so very few people can actually let people live near transit.

*the Bay Area not "thebat"
Post reply on HN