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

201–210 of 645 posts

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

#201

Post by jsharf »

logfromblammo wrote: post #175
riazrizvi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good. Wanting your home to appreciate in value forever is like expecting your 20-year-old car to sell for more than its sticker price. It really only works for art installations, created by a collaboration of architect, engineer, and builder, with some living space inside. Framed in these terms, most families do not have any significant assets…

If I'm not mistaken, most of the value of the home in places like the Bay area is not the house itself, but the land it sits on. In that case, it's super reasonable to expect it to appreciate in value, just like any other commodity. Arguably more so.

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

#202

Post by bluGill »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #126
bhawks wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers seem very unlikely. Ignoring that California is a nonrecourse state. If someone ended up owing 1.2 mil on a 500k house, they could walk away and only be out the house and whatever payments they had already made on the loan. The risk of massive correction simply isn't borne by the individual (especially if they've bought the property in the past 5-10 years).

“Only be out the house and whatever payments” isn’t negligible in most cases, why are you hand-waving that away?

Because if you can walk away from a $9000/month payment into a $900/month rent, investing the difference will make you better off in the long run.

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

#203

Post by krtong »

davidw wrote: post #180
XMPPwocky wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actual…

This is an issue that actually doesn't align very well on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Most of the YIMBY folks I've met tend towards the liberal end of things, but there are also "market urbanism" groups out there that are fairly libertarian. I've had great conversations with local politicians of all stripes. There are both liberals and conservatives who are very NIMBY. In other words, it's not a very useful wa…

Thank you. I'm so tired of reddit's influence on this discussion and this tireless effort to frame this discussion as nimby vs yimby, nimby being a pejorative term for local while yimby is a self-aggrandizing term for transplant who wished they had more purchasing power, and is social-media-savvy enough to realize if they want something they better make it sound like an existential crisis.

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

#204

Post by exterrestrial »

davidw wrote: post #107

Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…

>It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might like to move to a more productive place for a better job.

Please cite at lease one example in which this has ever been the case. I do understand the theory behind your argument here, and I assume you are familiar with (leftist) counter-arguments, so this is not an attempt to open a debate. Rather, I want you to be right but until I see some solid evidence I am unconvinced.

>One of my prouder YIMBY moments was turning out 5 people on a weekday morning to speak to our state rep, who ended up voting in favor of HB 2001, which legalizes up to 4-plexes throughout most Oregon cities.

This is a great example of how it seems to me that YIMBYs are anti-NIMBY in the way Democrats are anti-Republican. Time and time again, it appears neither groups are actually doing any thing ‘good for the people “on the margins. Clearly, this policy benefits landlords more than anybody and the implication is that this is besides the fact of lowering rent prices. Fine. But it is not insignificant that all of these efforts primarily promote the perpetuation of rent-seeking.

I watched from the front row as investors bought up Portland. It has been about 6 years since it entered full-swing and rent prices are higher than ever before. This is not good for people “on the margins”. In fact, most of those people were not even on the margins before the investors came in. I am one of them. I should know.

Of course, history is littered with cases of YIMBY theory failing urban housing markets, so please show me an example of where your theories have actually succeeded.

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

#205

Post by stale2002 »

irq11 wrote: post #158
notJim wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

> just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project.

Well of course. It does not surprised me that a wealthy landowner would not want competition, and would not want housing to become more affordable.

Just because someone's self interest is rational, does not me that I cannot criticize it.

Creating more affordable housing, and lowering rents, is obviously something that some people out there would not want, because they make money from rents being high.

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

#206

Post by mertd »

pruneridge wrote: post #192

What happens when more people move into the area from the rest of the country and start driving to work from their newly built housing units? Silicon Valley has, at best, poor coverage of Caltrain and no coverage for BART in South Bay. If let’s say 10,000 more families move to San Jose into new housing units and they all need to commute to Palo Alto for work, how exactly would they do that without choking up the alre…

You might have it backwards. Traffic is increasing because we're adding offices but no housing nearby. Therefore people need to pour in from further out. With higher density, alternate transportation options become viable and attractive.

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

#207

Post by lthornberry »

collias wrote: post #146
xamuel wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy isn't exactly accurate. To make it accurate, the kids sitting in the current seats would have to have paid a significant amount to purchase those seats. Also, throw in some kids who, for neurological reasons, become extremely distressed if they're forced to sit next to very loud kids. Because of this, they (or their parents) made a big sacrifice to secure single seats for them at great expense.

You're right, and I feel like this is something that is frequently either downplayed or willfully ignored. If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? This is a legitimate question, not trying to be a jerk. I'm gen…

Increased development wouldn't necessarily devalue you asset, particularly if it's a single family house or a condo in a relatively low-density development.

Right now, the high cost of housing in the Bay Area is largely due to a couple of factors: 1 - high cost of labor. Rezoning won't change that. 2 - restrictions on right to build. Rezoning will reduce this. 3 - high cost of land. Rezoning will increase this, by making it possible to build more units of housing on a given area of land.

For most current homeowners, it's likely that 3 will outweigh 2. Developers will buy up some portion of single family housing stock (and low-density multifamily stock) to rebuild the lots with denser housing. That process will both increase demand and reduce supply of those types of housing, resulting in price increases.

At the same time, the average unit of housing will cost less, because there will be many more condos/apartments available. Owners of high-density condos would be the most vulnerable to seeing their asset values decrease. However, building big condo buildings is still going to be a complicated endeavor, so price adjustments will happen slowly over time. No one's going to get hosed, although their asset prices might go up more slowly over time than otherwise, or even be eroded by inflation in the long term.

At the same time, many of those condo owners will still come out ahead. They may be able to upgrade to a nicer condo than they otherwise could have afforded. They may also benefit from the second-order effects of lower average housing prices, in the form of reduced costs for non-housing items. If they run a business, it will be easier for them to attract and retain workers. Schools and other public services will also be better able to attract and retain quality staff, at a lower wage bill. Etc.

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

#208

Post by darksaints »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #115

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

Fact: No YIMBY, no matter how powerful, can force you to put something in your back yard. They can allow your neighbor to put something in their back yard. You don't own your neighbor's back yard.

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

#209

Post by davidw »

exterrestrial wrote: post #204
davidw wrote: post #107

Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…

>It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might like to move to a more productive place for a better job. Please cite at lease one example in which this has ever been the case. I do understand the theory behind your argument here, and I assume you are familiar with (leftist) counter-arguments, so this is not an attempt to open a debate. Ra…

I think that if you're going to argue that supply and demand are not real for housing, you'd need to supply some good evidence of your own.

There are a lot of ways to build more supply:

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

I find the 'Montreal' example the most compelling in that it's fairly "human scale", but tastes vary.

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

#210

Post by lthornberry »

riazrizvi wrote: post #140
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.

See my comment above, but the economics of increasing supply are actually much more nuanced, and the majority of current owners would probably not see the value of their assets eroded.
Post reply on HN