261–270 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all states have income tax, and why should all existing real property owners subsidize the new developer's impact on the existing shared infrastructure?
Because the impact is not that of the developer; it's not the developer's kids that will be going to the local school, it's not the developer who will be using the local infrastructure to commute to work everyday. It's the homeowner. The cost of the homeowner's burden on the public infrastructure should rest firmly on the homeowner's shoulders, not on the person who happened to build and sell a home to him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well absolutely. And one commenter there (or here) mentioned the negative externalities of someone else's development driving down your property values or making your schools overcrowded or whatever. All of these things are deserving of sympathy and consideration, but.. well, currently they're getting too much of it.
Actually, because of the "rent seeking" of using politics to artificially constrain supply creating artificial scarcity, their property is valued much more than it should be valued without the market inefficiency. So, yes, their property values will fall because they were artificially inflated. The same happened to NYC Taxi Medallion owners where each medallion had a market value of $1.2 million because of the artifi…
Looks more like $500,000 now[1]. Although, I have no idea how accurate or trustworthy that site is, it just came up quick from Google.
I support more building but I can't agree with the above. Straus's statement is the embodiment of the kind of short term thinking that inevitably leads to planning disasters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the reason foreign money is pouring in to SF real estate rather than a zillion alternatives is that it's a good investment. And the reason for that is precisely the very restrictive policies designed to maximize real estate value. So if you legalize housing construction, the foreign money problem will disappear as well.
For a few years, I've been challenging people when this discussion comes up to give examples of situations where increasing housing supply resulted in falling prices. As far as I can tell, without a fundamental demand drop, this rarely if ever happens. And you've hit on one of the reasons: the investors who want in want into a market where real estate commands the prices it does.
Auckland itself is growing quickly, and the price of houses is (like in many other places) outrageous. Apartment rents are still relatively sane, though.
I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
>The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. Sure. Works great in Brazil. https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ
Why is the bay area important? In the software industry, in theory, where you are should be irrelevant as long as you have decent internet. Why not just choose a city that has the requirements your business needs and set up there. One example I can think of is Id deciding to set up Austin.
It happens in every industry, it is nothing new and will happen in tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Prop 13 in place, cities and towns can't adjust taxes to cover their budgets. It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential.
Well, or new residential assessed at new rates. I'm not sure how free cities are to change their tax rates, my understanding is the major problem with Prop 13 is that existing owner's taxes can't go up very fast. But if a new resident displaces an older one, the tax value resets and the tax receipts go up. Same for building new residential, you get a bunch of taxpayers at the 'current' rate. But I'm guessing there ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved." I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right. >"Do you own real property?" Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But…
Zoning isn't a federal issue and won't be one in the next 8 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…
On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values. On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that…
On the contrary, the city should rapidly rebuild to accommodate the current residents that the tech workers would otherwise displace. Building benefits everyone, but lower income residents benefit the most.