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

California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#31

Post by SCAQTony »

I don't buy the article 34 argument. It's simply "bait and switch" on the part of the politicians so as to make the city even denser. The end result, more political power, and federal money. I suspect the next attack will be on zoning regulations so neighborhoods can be razed to make highrise apartment buildings.

The traffic in L.A. is the worst in the country. San Francisco, San Diego, and the OC too. That's where they want more "affordable housing." In areas that are already too crowded.

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#32

Post by jarjoura »

I actually don't think this is as nefarious as the article makes it out to be. Section 8 housing in SF is basically little pockets of shitty, poorly constructed, slum lord managed ugly buildings. Would I rather have this than tent cities? Perhaps, but I also want to call out that when you think affordable housing, you think teachers, and dish washers, jobs that simply do not pay enough to afford market rate housing. These units are not that.

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#33

Post by wwweston »

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #13
crooked-v wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

Ha! Read Hanna Rosin on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/america... Hannah Rosin studied this for The Atlantic (which is a progressive, left-leaning publication) and concluded that this simply spreads crime around making overall crime rates even higher.

The article does describe the phenomenon you're taking away, but Rosin's take is much more nuanced than "this simply spreads crime around." For example:

"Physically redistributing the poor was probably necessary; generations of them were floundering in the high-rises. But instead of coaching them and then carefully spreading them out among many more-affluent neighborhoods, most cities gave them vouchers and told them to move in a rush, with no support."

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#34

Post by ridgeguy »

rcpt wrote: post #11
crooked-v wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. I've become a firm supporter of the idea of gradually increasing non-occupancy taxes, with some scaling factor based off local overall vacancy rates.

The vacancy rates in CA cities are typically low. Vacant apartments aren't the problem - non-existent ones are. If you want to fix this with taxes it's easy: repeal prop 13. We don't need golf courses in city centers or untaxed empty lots in prime locations.

There's some movement towards modification of Prop 13 [1]. As I understand it, the proposal would lift Prop 13 on commercial properties only. Residential properties would continue as now. It's claimed this would bring in an additional $11B+ in tax revenue.

On a brief search, I didn't find an estimate for revenue increase if Prop 13 were abolished. I'd guess it would be at least as much as the proposed commercial-specific mod.

My Prop 13 anecdote: a neighbor who bought a 3BR house on 0.8 acre in the 1950s pays less in annual property taxes than I do on one month's utility bills. I'm fine with that, she's pushing 100 and probably wouldn't be able to stay home without Prop 13.

Meantime, a 1940s 3BR house on a 0.35 acre lot right across the street from her sold for $2.9 million last December. Anecdotal, but suggests the potential magnitude of tax revenue change if Prop 13 were entirely removed.

[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/california-to-vote-on...

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#35

Post by [deleted] »

wbl wrote: post #22
Pharmakon wrote: post #2

Talk about burying the lede. Today, as the state grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing shortage, Article 34 has limited effects on the construction of low-income developments. But it remains an obstacle: Los Angeles officials believe that without a public vote in the coming years, the city will no longer be able to finance such projects — even though it has the money to do so. I realize that screaming at…

Remember that those well paid techies are what lets CA balance the budget.

[deleted]

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#36

Post by r00fus »

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #13
crooked-v wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

Ha! Read Hanna Rosin on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/america... Hannah Rosin studied this for The Atlantic (which is a progressive, left-leaning publication) and concluded that this simply spreads crime around making overall crime rates even higher.

The Atlantic is hardly a “left leaning” publication (perhaps they seem left if they challenge Trump?).

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#37

Post by joshe »

This is a nice change to consider, and would help. But it won't be a massive improvement. Public housing isn't much of the housing stock and this won't change that. If we even built another 20K units in SF or Oakland in the next 10 years I'd be shocked.

The real ones to watch (and support) are things which require local governments to approve housing. Like SB 50, which defaults to approval for buildings up to 35-45 feet near transit. That's Paris / North Beach / Haight style density approved quickly enough to keep costs low. Then you can look at every existing 1 story retail building along bart and imagine 3 stories of apartments on top of them.

http://www.oaklandpost.org/2018/12/20/wiener-revamps-bill-de...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/7/18125644/s...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#38

Post by doggydogs94 »

r00fus wrote: post #36
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! Read Hanna Rosin on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/america... Hannah Rosin studied this for The Atlantic (which is a progressive, left-leaning publication) and concluded that this simply spreads crime around making overall crime rates even higher.

The Atlantic is hardly a “left leaning” publication (perhaps they seem left if they challenge Trump?).

If you believe that The Atlantic is not left leaning, you must be very far left.

Re: California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

#39

Post by Kalium »

crooked-v wrote: post #6
aninteger wrote: post #3

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to walk around at night. Is it really any surprise that people don't want areas of high crime in their neighborhoods?

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

There are really two options here.

You can mix low-income housing into larger complexes, creating mixed income communities. This does a lot to help create role models and show what life options are available and possible. It helps, in some ways, to break the cycle of poverty. This comes with the cost of utterly destroying the concentrated, focused support networks often found in less well off areas - they do not survive the dispersion.

The alternative is to prioritize existing communities. To focus on preserving the social ties and mutual support networks they know and trust. The downside is that while this improves the immediate circumstances, it preserves the concentration of poverty.

There's no ideal solution here. It's just a question of where your policy priorities lie.

Post reply on HN