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

Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#241

Post by MiroF »

nostrademons wrote: post #91
hnaccy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're already over the carrying capacity if the world wants first world lifestyle.

Only if they want a first-world lifestyle, though. Cut out meat, suburban lawns, and the cars that go with them, and the earth could support 10B people right now, at the living standards of a typical Millenial in a cosmopolitan metropolis. Unfortunately, there's pretty good indications that most people on earth want those meats, suburban lawns, and cars, so I think it's more likely we'll get war instead. But it's tot…

> meats, suburban lawns, and cars

Can I opt out of the coming war if I don't want these things?

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#242

Post by MiroF »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #3

It's being overdone. A solid wall of railroad flats (cheezy "luxury" condos) is going up for miles along the Caltrain tracks. Those wooden multistory buildings are the slums of tomorrow. It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001?

> It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001? Yeah, and every office park that felt empty in the fallout of 2008 is now bursting with businesses and people. Why are you so worried about the threat of a recession and unoccupied land that you don't want to add housing in a region with record homelessness numbers? This feels extremely conser…

I am also pro- adding housing to the Bay, but

> add housing in a region with record homelessness numbers

is disingenuous as it suggests that one cause of the homelessness problem is actually the only cause of it

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#243

Post by MiroF »

cylinder wrote: post #214
Animats wrote: post #3

It's being overdone. A solid wall of railroad flats (cheezy "luxury" condos) is going up for miles along the Caltrain tracks. Those wooden multistory buildings are the slums of tomorrow. It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001?

Isn't that where you'd want flats? Nobody wants a SFH next to tracks. Certain types of people (I won't generalise) always seem to want to call apartment buildings "future slums." This almost never materialises. Is it a racial thing for you?

> is it a racial thing

I mean I've encountered this enough that I know the answer now: obviously.

You won't ever get them to admit it though

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#244

Post by mktmkr »

DrScump wrote: post #224
mktmkr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone agrees that if it were practical to amend the California tax system then we would just do that.

Either the Legislature or an initiative petition drive could put whatever property tax changes you like onto the ballot. Then, you just need a simple majority vote. That's what Proposition 13 was in the first place. For example, you could exclude commercial property from Prop 13 protections altogether.

Yes, there is already a "split roll" initiative on the 2020 ballot. But I guess my point is tautological: those things which are not impossible are being attempted; most of the things are considered impossible.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#245

Post by pcwalton »

maxsilver wrote: post #188
nostrademons wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a substitution effect. If zoning restrictions are relaxed and developer turns an acre into a 50 unit condo complex, that developer reaps a huge windfall. But everyone else who owns an Eichler on a 1/4 acre has fewer buyers competing for their property. It's sorta like when labor unions go away. The company that hires non-unionized labor at half the price and double the productivity reaps an enormous windfall.…

> If zoning restrictions are relaxed and developer turns an acre into a 50 unit condo complex, that developer reaps a huge windfall. But everyone else who owns an Eichler on a 1/4 acre has fewer buyers competing for their property. That's not completely accurate. Yes, demand might fall, but even so price and value will still rise regardless. If you build a 50 unit complex next door, as long as some of those 50 units…

Thought experiment: If 500,000 new homes were suddenly available in San Francisco tomorrow, would prices decrease?

Land value in the US obviously has to do with buyers and demand.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#246

Post by bobthepanda »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #170
bobthepanda wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this to even be remotely viable you also probably want to touch the third rail of Prop 13.

One day, Prop 13 will not be third rail of politics mostly because home ownership has plummeted among young people, and the older generation is dying off. Younger people are more likely to be renters and get 0 benefit from Prop 13.

We are two whole generations of people into Prop 13. And guess what? Support for it largely stays the same because people still age into their homes, or people pass their homes down to their children who also benefit. Young people are less likely to vote and more able to move to states with better CoL as well.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#247

Post by NonEUCitizen »

btilly wrote: post #51

I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again. The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where they work rather than where they live. Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of NIMBYism. But when everyon…

How about putting this ("let workers vote") to the ballot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#248

Post by cwp »

MiroF wrote: post #240
cwp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see the repeal of Prop 13: • more municipal revenue means better schools and infrastructure • better schools and infrastructure would support more development • higher property taxes would remove the incentive to hang on to property forever making it easier to buy and develop property • removing the disincentive to sell property also reduces the NIMBY imperative, since home owner can move to another area i…

Or just pass SB 50...

Hell yeah. But also get rid of Prop 13.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#249

Post by nostrademons »

MiroF wrote: post #241
nostrademons wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they want a first-world lifestyle, though. Cut out meat, suburban lawns, and the cars that go with them, and the earth could support 10B people right now, at the living standards of a typical Millenial in a cosmopolitan metropolis. Unfortunately, there's pretty good indications that most people on earth want those meats, suburban lawns, and cars, so I think it's more likely we'll get war instead. But it's tot…

> meats, suburban lawns, and cars Can I opt out of the coming war if I don't want these things?

If you can get enough of your like-minded friends to settle an area that doesn't have many of the desirable resources that'll be fought over (water, fertile land, nice climate) and doesn't have many people who do want those things, probably. Just be Switzerland.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#250

Post by JamesBarney »

ProblemFactory wrote: post #71
i_am_proteus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There I was, thinking I was the only one. It's insane. When I first got here from the east coast, I thought maybe there was some reason involving earthquake codes. And then I learned. I used to live in NYC, a city that's had its own difficulties adding new housing, corruption in the permitting process, considering too many areas "historic." But the Bay Area is something completely different. It seems that everyone wh…

> If zoning restrictions were relaxed, could house prices collapse? I don't see how that could be the case. The property value of a plot of land on which a 50, or even 5 story building can be built is much higher than the property value of a single-family home.

Do we care much about the price of land or do we care how much it costs for someone to live there? I believe it's the latter.

So yes the price of land would go up, but the price of livable space would fall. And the cost of livable space is what we care about with regards to affordable housing.

Post reply on HN