California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate • Hacker News Board

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#211

Post by refurb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:58 AM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #93

refurb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I feel really sorry for the retired person sitting on millions of dollars of equity. Real sob story. Why not just give the option to defer increases in property taxes? It makes zero sense to give tax breaks to people who won the housing lottery.

Well, I don't have the feelings of "envy" that you do. The fact is, there's little he can do with his "millions of dollars of equity" unless he moves far away from family, friends, and social network. It's cruel to force people to move. I'm not envious or cruel, so I support Prop 13.

It’s not envy. Happy that he made a ton of money.

But, yes, there is plenty he can do. Stay in the house and keep paying low property taxes.

Once he dies or sells, then all those accrued property tax increases get paid, with interest.

You know, the same way a lot of governments in Canada and the US do it.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#212

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:59 AM UTC

jibe wrote: post #195

p1necone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's unique to environmentalists, turns out a big subset of everyone is selfish like that.

Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.

[deleted]

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#213

Post by cf » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:00 AM UTC

Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is building more housing.

I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing seriously. The existing provisions added to SB50 already got the bill much closer. Why not add some provisions from AB1279? Maybe repeal article 34 in the constitution? Maybe repeal Costa-Hawkins? There are NIMBYs that are pretty clearly hiding behind affordable housing that we know are insincere. We know their cities and counties aren't doing enough to help poor folks. But the evidence suggests there are enough people that want to upzone and build housing to get this done.

Does this strike others here are a reasonable path forward?

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#214

Post by harryh » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:02 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #210

harryh wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 is a huge distortion to tax and revenue generally, but it doesn't promote anti-development NIMBYism. When the carrying costs of a piece of property are artificially low there isn't nearly as much incentive to put that piece of property to its best and highest use, so you end up with people being just fine with single family houses instead of multi story apartment buildings.

Two things. The low tax rate drives up the price of existing real estate. Which makes it more expensive to buy and redevelop. And then redeveloping resets the tax basis. Both of these appear to favor holding onto older substandard property.

Yes, those things too.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#215

Post by jacobolus » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:03 AM UTC

thedance wrote: post #154

avocado4 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election turnout in SF is abysmally low. Those who do turn out are mostly homeowners who really want to keep the prices growing.

Nobody has ever lost a re-election race for SF district supervisor. It’s effectively a lifetime appointment.

> lifetime appointment

There is a 2-term (8-year) term limit (each member can run for re-election 1 single time before being termed out), so this summary is false on its face.

In recent elections several incumbents have won re-election by only 2 or 3 percent. It is entirely plausible for an unpopular member to be unseated by a well organized challenge.

Before 20 years ago, the elections were at-large, so what you’re going on with this complaint is a pretty short time frame (maybe a couple dozen individual elections involving an incumbent).

The SF board of supervisors (and its elections) doesn’t seem materially different than other American political offices.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#216

Post by chrismcb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

A lot of tech companies might there be that is where the talent is. Talent moves there because that is where the companies are. A company did want to move to Timbuktu because there is very little talent. And if they did, talent didn't want to follow for dear of being locked in to one company. Remote work helps but isn't the answer

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#217

Post by deepakhj » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #197

sjg007 wrote: post #14

Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things.

Prop 13 was created because it was forcing people out of their houses because of inflation property values on paper. That is detrimental. You shouldn't scrap it completely; you should limit it to primary residences (spend more than half the year there). That would get rid of some of the worse issues. It shocks me every time I hear fellow left-of-center people talk about scrapping Prop 13, but then also rail against g…

Limit it to primary residence. Tally the tax deferred and take it out when the property is sold or transferred. Remove it from commercial properties.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#218

Post by icelancer » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #133

potatoz2 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.

It's me. Turn my neighborhood into Shibuya. That'd be amazing.

The fact that cultured Americans love Paris without taking any of the lessons of Paris (insanely dense city) never ceases to amuse me in the Bay Area.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#219

Post by SllX » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

No policy, not one, out of Sacramento is going to solve affordable housing in a stagnant property market in which people are incentivized not to sell, rent or lease their properties. Sacramento could centralize zoning and effectively upzone the entire State tomorrow and it would be one State constitutional amendment away from being overturned, which is not nearly as high a bar as it should be.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#220

Post by refurb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:11 AM UTC

diego wrote: post #45

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

What makes you think that people aren’t moving? Population isn’t decreasing if that’s what you mean, but the Bay Area is a revolving door. I own a condo in San Francisco, and I’ve had five different tenants in eight years.

Yup. Of the 12 people from my graduating class who moved to SF, me and one other person is left after 8 years.

Of course plenty more from later years offset that.