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

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#221

Post by steveBK123 »

seryoiupfurds wrote: post #194
KennyBlanken wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a big problem in a lot of places Where is your evidence of this "big problem"? No state allows what you describe. This being some sort of widespread problem is a myth that's been running around for decades after Pacific Heights which was part of Hollywood cashing in on white fright in the late 80's early 90's. For example, in super-liberal Massachusetts: if you are one day late with your rent, the landlord…

> Do people abuse the process? Sure, some do. They get away with it at most once, because...there's a record of it all in housing court and eviction proceedings are pretty much a deathblow with any landlord doing their homework. The problem is that for large corporate landlords this is a statistical risk that can be priced in and accounted for across hundreds of units. For small mom-and-pop landlords renting out thei…

It's an interesting problem I'm not sure what the solution is.

Being a small-time landlord is unreasonably risky due to tenant friendly laws and backed up courts.

Similarly, I've found renting from small-time landlords to be a worse experience. They tend to do things that a large corporation would eventually face lawsuits over - discrimination, demanding more money up front, keeping deposits, poor upkeep of units, etc.

So I'm not even sure I want to encourage small time landlording anyway.

Some things maybe really are better managed by big, lawsuit-averse, emotionless companies.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#222

Post by Ericson2314 »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #61
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as perceived by voters) Wrong!! Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in. They own the land and the land will appreciate in value (unless your house as a shit location, but then you area poor-ass republican anyways, statistically spea…

> Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in. This is often the reality. Massive wealth inequality won't be fixed by making everyone billionaires, it'll be fixed by getting rid of billionaires

Even if it is the reality in other ways, it is not the reality on housing in high-demand urban areas.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#223

Post by dmitrygr »

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

> There's a general fear of being a landlord

Yes. And this is fixable, if there is political will. There is a long list of locales where I'd never want to be a landlord due to how little recourse you have in cases of tenant misbehavior/nonpayment. CA is near the top. Portland is too.

Until this is fixed, however, those locales will tend to lose independent landlords, as they cannot afford the rent losses as they are not diversified enough. Big faceless companies like Avalon will grow cause they can.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#224

Post by Ericson2314 »

alwa wrote: post #196
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as perceived by voters) Wrong!! Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in. They own the land and the land will appreciate in value (unless your house as a shit location, but then you area poor-ass republican anyways, statistically spea…

Does this preserve the land values of currently-economical exurban plots? It seems like some of this kind of policymaking, explicitly or not, involves the metro region as a whole, no? Would these putative land value increases accrue to individual property owners or to the developers that have the capital to build MFDs and rent them out? I’m not sure how helpful a mental model of “shit location [of] poor-ass republica…

> Does this preserve the land values of currently-economical exurban plots?

Probably not, but those people are not powerful enough on their own to stop it.

The dense suburbs are vastly more powerful. Once they realize densifying makes them richer, it's game-over.

> For that matter casually condescending attitudes like the one you display here seem to have a lot to do with those constituencies’ political potency, and their reflexive opposition to YIMBY sorts of ideas…

A lot of people say shit like this, but how can you look at the last 15 years and think that pandering and fake-magnanimity wins elections? I'll be honest in my condescension that exurbs are bad, thank you.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#225

Post by poulsbohemian »

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

My small city in Washington is the template for the state's ADU law and multi-family density law. When the ADU law passed, we saw a lot of people convert garages into ADUs and anymore any custom builds almost always add an ADU. But to your point - it isn't clear how many have become rentals. What I observe is that many people saw it as good resale value, as multi-generational living, or simply a place to put guests when they came to visit. It was about the same time we put a moratorium on VRBOs, which had been another reason people saw these as beneficial without becoming a full-time landlord. Personally I have one and it has been beneficial income while also giving my tenants a good transition point (college students, people escaping bad marriages, people who need a place to land while they look for a place to buy, etc)

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#226

Post by s1artibartfast »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #146
legitster wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invest tens of millions of public dollars every year into new public housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy An SRO costs 25% as much to build as a studio apartment. The real obvious solution is to take all of the money we are pumping into "long-term" affordable housing options into basically just dormitories. If it's good enough for college students, it should be good enough for anyone looking…

Yeah, I think form factors like this should be part of the answer. But part of it has to be getting costs down for regular apartments too. It's not uncommon to see that even non-profit orgs take 400k or 500k per 1br apartment in a building in major cities, which is just crazy.

Oakland was looking at 800k for half size shipping containers retrofitted into single room studios with windows.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#227

Post by eddythompson80 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #136
PaulHoule wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd trouble was that ordinary people saw the Harris campaign as being preoccupied with the issues of a lunatic fringe online plus what conservatives said Harris was preoccupied with. Harris would have had to kick the lunatic fringe to the curb but didn’t have the will to do so.

The lunatic fringe is generally randos on social media, not people of authority in the Democratic party. Kamala wasn't in a position to kick them to the curb.

That doesn't seem to be the attitude when the lunatic fringe on the Republican side occupy social media. I understand why politicians (both democrats and republicans) don't want to denounce any such fringe groups that are cheering for them. Seems to work better for republicans than democrats though

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#228

Post by rayiner »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #210
rayiner wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why? It’s not a “misconception.” Democrats choose to spend their political capital changing the status quo on social issues. For example, Americans overwhelmingly oppose affirmative action: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans... Affirmative action was banned in California in 1996. Which party tried to repeal the ban in 2020?…

Did you read your own link? It says that affirmative action enjoys at least plurality if not majority support: > Americans who had heard the phrase affirmative action in the Center’s December survey were asked whether they saw it as a good or a bad thing. Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren’t sure. > By comparison, Gallup h…

Keep reading!

> Public attitudes about affirmative action can also vary depending on the specific context in which it is being discussed, such as in higher education or the workplace.

> A larger share of Americans disapprove than approve of higher education institutions taking race and ethnicity into account when admitting students, according to several recent Center surveys.

> In that survey, 74% of U.S. adults said that, when making decisions about hiring and promotions, companies and organizations should take only a person’s qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. Around a quarter (24%) said companies and organizations should take a person’s race and ethnicity into account – in addition to qualifications – to increase diversity.

The unpopular approach of considering race is what Democrats have pushed recently. E.g. Prop 16:

> A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#229

Post by [deleted] »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #174
e40 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights, and the risk of inviting someone onto your property who could start squatting or doing drugs and not being able to evict them is beyond the pale for most families.* This is a big problem in a lot of places. It's really hard for cities to strike a good balance between renters and owners, and I think few do it well. Especially for the ed…

> This is a big problem in a lot of places Where is your evidence of this "big problem"? No state allows what you describe. This being some sort of widespread problem is a myth that's been running around for decades after Pacific Heights which was part of Hollywood cashing in on white fright in the late 80's early 90's. For example, in super-liberal Massachusetts: if you are one day late with your rent, the landlord…

[deleted]

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#230

Post by rayiner »

leptons wrote: post #186
rayiner wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> "Harris graduated from Howard University and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law." So dumb.. she has a degree in law and was a very successful prosecutor. > "Harris was elected attorney general of California in 2010, becoming the first woman, African American, and South Asian American to hold the office in the state's history.[56] She took office on January 3, 2011, and was reelected in 2014.[…

Dan Quayle also had a law degree, but he was also dumb. And he passed the bar the first try, unlike Harris.
Post reply on HN