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

Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

goldenstatswarrior.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#31

Post by supernova87a »

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together.

1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural.

Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with:

2) The people who have not yet moved here (or become voters, or homeowners in particular), don't get to have a say in the policies that govern a place, yet at some point are the ones who have to live within policies that others decide.

So, a lot of the policies around here favor those who "got theirs" already, and there's very little incentive to fix this. Because the people who it benefits aren't here yet!

I think the question is, what do you do about this conflict, and what do you want a region's population/demographic renewal policy to be? How do you turn over property, wealth, a city/region to the next generation in a way that's sustainable, especially if you want it to grow?

Because right now, it's a "here's what I want for me right now" policy landscape. And that favors old people who own houses in the Bay Area to the detriment of young/poor/up and coming people who want to find a place in the area. The only thing to do is wait for the few % of people to die or move out from frustration, and face high housing prices that preserve everyone else's interests.

It gets masked in terms like "neighborhood preservation" or "local control" (or even using some minorities as a headline grabber, when in the end it actually favors mostly the rich property owners).

It's a big problem.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#32

Post by [deleted] »

joe_the_user wrote: post #14

I'd classify myself as a progressive and I don't see why every Bay Area city has to make some "contribution" to increased housing. An acceptable approach would seem to be to have the "center" becoming more dense over time while the outer rings stay less dense. The problem is that current geography has resulted in natural centers being the ones that refuse to build and that is problematic. Palo Alto and the rest are h…

[deleted]

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#33

Post by treeman79 »

hilbertseries wrote: post #28
g9yuayon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember there was a huge discussion about Prop 13 on HN. IIRC, people passed Prop 13 because 1. California government double taxed; 2. Inflation was crazy and people believed that it was cruel that retirees had to leave the home they had been living in for many years just because they couldn't afford the property tax. What beats me is why Prop 13 applies to commercial properties and investment homes.

Even more surprising we tried to repeal prop 13 for just commercial real estate last election and it failed.

Perhaps taxes are too high?

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#34

Post by dave5104 »

onethought wrote: post #25
d1zzy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at the same time, these cities, like Palo Alto, are building office space left and right and welcoming businesses into town. Because said cities cannot get enough tax money from property tax (blame Prop 13) so they need to get it from businesses. But then those businesses attract people in the area and then those people need a place to live in but they can't get a place because nobody has the incentive to sell…

As someone not familiar with Californian/SF local legal matters. What do they need the tax $ for if there aren't many residence?

I'll go with Palo Alto, since that's what I'm most familiar with. It's still a city with >65,000 residents. You need tax revenue to support a city that large, along with all the services and maintenance that comes from supporting a 3-4x larger daytime (pre-COVID) population of people coming in to the city to work.

Prop 13 limits the % you can raise property tax each year, unless they sell the property (at which point the property tax resets to the sale value). That leads to a lot of people not moving and holding onto their old, low tax property.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#35

Post by ndiscussion »

supernova87a wrote: post #31

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together. 1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural. Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with: 2) The peopl…

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly.

I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules.

It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boomer-land.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#36

Post by km3r »

joe_the_user wrote: post #14

I'd classify myself as a progressive and I don't see why every Bay Area city has to make some "contribution" to increased housing. An acceptable approach would seem to be to have the "center" becoming more dense over time while the outer rings stay less dense. The problem is that current geography has resulted in natural centers being the ones that refuse to build and that is problematic. Palo Alto and the rest are h…

The center is getting denser too though, its just not enough. You can only fit so much housing in SF. The suburb cities dont need to be filled will 20 story apartments, but every city should be building similar percent increases. SF/ oakland/ SJ are all building up and building lots of new units.

Why does only the center have to take on the burden of becoming 10% more dense? Why can't every city increase its housing supply by 10%?

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#37

Post by onethought »

You don't really need an article to point out the Bay Area is failing people.

The crazy amount of "sleeping rough" homeless mixed with people typing on phones inside their auto driving Teslas going by without lifting an eyebrow. If you are not from the US and have learnt to think that is "normal" it's pretty confronting.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#38

Post by jseliger »

ralph84 wrote: post #7

> Rich communities should want to welcome more residents, particularly those less fortunate than them. Sadly, in the Bay Area, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Is that the case anywhere in the world? Why single out the Bay Area.

Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16704501

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#39

Post by davidw »

ndiscussion wrote: post #35
supernova87a wrote: post #31

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together. 1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural. Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with: 2) The peopl…

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly. I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules. It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boo…

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.

There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.

In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#40

Post by tcoff91 »

hilbertseries wrote: post #28
g9yuayon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember there was a huge discussion about Prop 13 on HN. IIRC, people passed Prop 13 because 1. California government double taxed; 2. Inflation was crazy and people believed that it was cruel that retirees had to leave the home they had been living in for many years just because they couldn't afford the property tax. What beats me is why Prop 13 applies to commercial properties and investment homes.

Even more surprising we tried to repeal prop 13 for just commercial real estate last election and it failed.

It failed at least in part because of the timing. A global pandemic that was destroying small businesses was a pretty unpopular time for something that is perceived as damaging to small businesses. Maybe when things are booming and prosperous we could pass that.
Post reply on HN