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

241–250 of 645 posts

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

#241

Post by _arvin »

jsharf wrote: post #201
logfromblammo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Location, location, location.

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

#242

Post by brobinson »

davidw wrote: post #231
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put. Hmm, here I am thinking I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. It's none of my business. But, I try and not judge people on immutable characteristics like color and age.

> I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. That's a nice sentiment, but if you dig a bit, there are probably reasons why his neighborhood is full of "older white people", and there's a good chance that it wasn't a natural process of sorting. Recommended reading: https://amzn.to/2St6rOM

^ undisclosed affiliate link

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

#243

Post by _hardwaregeek »

greedo wrote: post #176
_hardwaregeek wrote: post #104

Having been born and raised in a major city, I'm certainly biased, but I truly believe that suburbs should go away. Every part of a suburb seems so insular, so wasteful, so outmoded. A one family house requires maintenance, heating and wiring that would be so much more efficient with even the smallest apartment complex. Lawns are ridiculous, especially in the parts of the country where grass is not indigenous. Why th…

I have a coworker who mentioned that he doesn't think my town needs libraries. "I never use them, so why should my taxes go to supporting them?" Trying to have a productive dialogue with someone who doesn't understand the idea of community can be a challenge.

Oh I don't think communities should go away. Cities can have communities if you build them in the right way. I just think these communities need to evolve from the particular format of a single family house with a lawn, car and garage.

Plus I'm a little perplexed at the library analogy. I'm not saying we need to lower funding or anything. If anything we should be pumping more money into suburbs so that they can build and create more healthy, flourishing communities. These communities should just be built in a way that's space and energy efficient.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

danans wrote: post #186
quotemstr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shif…

There is an upcoming ballot initiative to repeal the commercial side of prop 13: https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-t...

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by bluGill »

dv_dt wrote: post #167
bluGill wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is only in your backyard it is better for your property value in the long run: eventually someone will offer you a ton of money to replace your house with a large apartment complex. If it is everywhere that can build, than the builders can take whatever property comes up - and because they have to compete with other developers for renters they are likely to build smaller so on both counts property values don't…

That's what I don't understand, increasing density usually means price / sqft for all real estate in the area goes up. I often wonder if the analysis on why people shoot down zoning changes is incorrectly attributed to price or property tax, and is mostly people resisting any change.

If price goes up or down is complex. In an area that has a small amount of demand stopping building ensures that those who want to live there have to keep bidding higher. If those who want to live there have a lot of money only a few people who want to live there but don't can push prices up greatly. It may well be that the area only needs to build a small number of units to fill demand, and additional units will need to lower prices to get a buyer. Supply is limited of course, but so is demand - I wouldn't take a free house in the Bay Area as my job is several time zones away and so the free house is still a net cost to me (if only to replace the roof ever 30 years)

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

#246

Post by bcrosby95 »

danans wrote: post #186
quotemstr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shif…

There is an upcoming ballot initiative to repeal the commercial side of prop 13: https://edsource.org/2019/school-groups-explore-15-billion-t...

Yeah, but I feel like any removal or reduction of prop 13 should be used to help reduce California income taxes, which is abnormally high due to prop 13, not spend more money on stuff.

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

#247

Post by nradov »

marcell wrote: post #181
i_am_nomad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the school bus is a public good. Are you saying that we should reframe housing as a public good as well and provide it as such?

It’s pretty simple. If I own property, I should be allowed to build a home for myself on it, subject to relevant zoning. You, and adjacent property owner, should not be able to deny my private property use. Yet this is not the case in California.

That is the case in California. If you own property zoned residential and apply for a fully compliant building permit then it will almost always be approved (although fees may be high). Developers and property owners generally only run into long delays and battles with neighbors when they request variances or zoning changes.

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

#248

Post by api »

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…

How much do you think rents would have gone up without more housing supply.

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

#249

Post by joefkelley »

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…

The tough thing is of course you are right. It's obviously in your best interest to vote against new housing if you own a house. But it's not in society's best interest.

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

#250

Post by bluGill »

stale2002 wrote: post #226
bluGill wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long term you are correct, but in the near term the current water system needs to be upgraded to pipes large enough to get water to the new apartment before the apartment can go in.

How do you even think this stuff gets upgraded in the first place? What happens, in every city, is that more housing gets built, then the infrastructure system starts to get closer to capacity, and then the infrastructure gets upgaded. Saying that they should upgrade all the infrastructure first, before there is any demand, is the same exact thing as saying that it should never be upgraded. Because the infrastructure…

Or the city an decide that the cost of upgrading are more than the future values of the additional units and not upgrade. Some upgrades in capacity have significantly higher costs than others. If the current system is the largest that can physically fit on the land the city owns they need to buy more land first. If they won't get a lot of new development it is better to stay just below capacity.

The above doesn't apply to the cities in CA we are talking about: there is plenty of demand. It does apply to some semi-rural small towns.

Post reply on HN