Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#251

Post by bobthepanda » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #151

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…

Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. The evidence seems quite overwhelming. Which isn't to say funding doesn't matter. Just that it's clear that "investing in our children" through school funding was a dead-end, sort of like expecting increased traffic light expenditures to improve school performance. The primary determinants are economic and sociologic factors in the home. We need decent schoo…

More importantly, more revenues could mean more school places, period. If you want all those young freshly minted grads to stay in the area in their new upzoned apartments and condos, eventually they will want to raise kids.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#252

Post by mikeg8 » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 8:45 PM UTC

Atheros wrote: post #230

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course in this situation Alice doesn't own the view. But she is made worse off by Bob's developments. I really hope we can agree that Alice's situation is being made worse in a real way here. Further, pre-Bob, the city is mostly full of Alices, so if you want them to not vote against Bob's development, like in OP's article, you might want to align Alice's and Bob's incentives. It's pragmatic. It also happens…

What about in the opposite direction? What if I build something that makes the neighborhood nicer (like buying a burned out building and replacing it with one that is beautiful and matches its neighbors). It seems like the neighbors should pay me their increased home value, right? If Nancy plants flowers, you have to pay her. It's only fair. It's also ludicrous. Your idea is unimplementable. It would be simpler if ev…

> They not investments; they're depreciating assets.

How is a house a depreciating asset when home values continually rise over the long term, especially in CA?

You may want them to be a depreciating asset but they are not. Real-estate ownership has arguably been one of the most secure forms investment.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#253

Post by asr » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #210

asr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this seems like a critical part of the story. I take it the actual vote was 2-1 in favor of the permit, but you need at least 3 votes to pass something in San Bruno, no matter what? If so, the city council's rules don't deal appropriately with recusal and those should be changed ASAP. At the same time, whether or not this project succeeded or failed, the larger story about how hard it is to build housing remains…

Every city council has quorum rules for votes. What exactly are you proposing to change?

Quorum rules are to make sure you're not holding a sneaky midnight vote with two councilors asleep. Councilors who are present but recused should count toward a quorum.

You might still have a rule that at least two votes are required to pass something (to prevent a 1-0 vote with four recusals). But requiring at least thee votes on a five-member council is requiring an outright majority, which means a recusal is the same as a no vote. That seems unfair.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#254

Post by epistasis » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #208

refurb wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most cities develop a budget, then set property tax rates to generate revenue. This is why cities with $200k homes have similar per capita budgets as cities with $800k homes. So if you repealed prop 13, the result would likely be a more equitable approach to property taxes, with those protected by prop 13 paying more and everyone else paying less.

The problem we had in California before Proposition 13 is that city budgets were increasing without bound due to demands by public employee unions. The only way I would support a repeal of Proposition 13 is if some other mechanism is put in place to give voters more direct control over city budget growth.

Was that really the problem? We're grannies really losing their homes to property tax?

There's been so much mythology built up around a common anti-tax movement that I'm not sure what to believe. There is plenty of economic reason to vote for capped taxes even without excessive spending.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#255

Post by epistasis » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #222

r00fus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in CA - Prop13 + corporate shell board of director transfers means the tax rate never increases, and after 40+ years, that means a lot of properties essentially pay a fraction of the taxes they should. Prop13 has had a LOT of unintended consequences.

the tax rate never increases But assessed values do. My property tax bill is 50% greater now than 17 years ago.

In the past 17 years, inflation is about 42%, because we've had ridiculously low inflation.

2% isusually going to be sub-inflationary.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#256

Post by rjmunro » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 10:48 AM UTC

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…

The "City Of London" (a small part of central London) has something like this. They have a resident population of For historical reasons ("The City" is much older than the UK itself), things are much more complicated than simply "People who work there get to vote", so I'm not sure it's a very comparable situation. The best explanation I've found is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc