In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#331

Post by whyenot » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #211

freyr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

> There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone.

If they are impairing their neighbors' views, it seem pretty obvious they are actually hurting someone. San Franacisco has already experienced the extreme: Charles Crocker's spite fence on Nob Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spite_fence#San_Francisco

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#332

Post by nihonde » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

alphonsegaston wrote: post #297

nihonde wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules he…

That does sound great. Where in Japan?

Nagoya

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#333

Post by simoncion » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:23 AM UTC

bhickey wrote: post #321

simoncion wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential. AIUI, (and I might not understand correctly) that's not quite right. If you make significant improvements [0] to a piece of land the value of just those improvements are assessed and added to the assessed value of that land. So -IIRC- if the owner of a two-story multi-family dwelling demolishes the building and builds…

What you've said is true, but misses the point. Office buildings don't require schools in the same way houses do. Look at the development in Palo Alto over the last ten years. It's largely commercial and this isn't an accident.

I'm afraid you've missed the point. :)

Prop 13 caps the rate of property tax increase... only if there is either no new development on a property, or if the property changes hands in one of the ways that triggers the property valuation reassessment.

A city should be strongly encouraging the periodic demolition and/or radical improvement of existing structures... whether they be commercial or residential. New construction and new improvements get taxed at their "market rate" valuation. Given how insane prices are in the area (and how very, very little teachers make), I find it hard to believe that tax revenues from new construction wouldn't cover the costs required to support new families.

> Look at the development in Palo Alto over the last ten years. It's largely commercial and this isn't an accident.

coughredliningcough :)

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#334

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:33 AM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #318

brbsix wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative. It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it. Down and down we go into opposite land.

> Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned Well yeah. The very concept of ownership is inherently selfish. It means you want there to be a particular set of resources you get to use, and no one else. It's pretty much the definition of selfishness. Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lo…

How is it not equally selfish for someone to claim they are entitled to other peoples' money?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#335

Post by cderwin » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:36 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #262

cderwin wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why people are proposing to dramatically increase the fees on new residential building permits above: precisely so that the homeowner bears the cost of those infrastructure investments. (Don't confuse that the developer pays the permit fee in the first place from who actually pays it. Obviously, the new homeowner will be the one ultimately paying for that permit fee.) I'm not saying I agree with it (I see prob…

yep, my comment was directly responding to the notion (in the above comment) that this fee being passed on to the homeowner was somehow unfair because the developer is the one using the local infrastructure, which is obviously incorrect on so many different levels.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#336

Post by shiftpgdn » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:39 AM UTC

rsync wrote: post #311

hodwik wrote: post #2

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…

"Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely." It's called Houston. You should go there and experience it. My personal favorite was the convenience store-cum-liquor mart being run out of a residential front porch. I'm not judging. I am merely pointing out that what you describe has been done in the United States and that you sh…

You are misinformed. The city of Houston has very harsh setback and parking requirements that encourage an unending suburban style sprawl. Off the cuff it's 7 parking spots per 1000 sq ft of business and buildings in the non central business district area (about a 30x30 square block space) must be 10-20ft from the city easement.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#337

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:46 AM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #318

brbsix wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative. It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it. Down and down we go into opposite land.

> Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned Well yeah. The very concept of ownership is inherently selfish. It means you want there to be a particular set of resources you get to use, and no one else. It's pretty much the definition of selfishness. Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lo…

> Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lose hard.

I think you missed the other half of the sentence:

> and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to [the money someone else earned]

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#338

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:51 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #235

rayiner wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, San Francisco is already ugly. It's not like you'd be razing historically important beaux arts buildings to build more.

Beautiful and ugly architecture can be pretty subjective. But, yeah, SFists have an above average tendency towards preservation. Not even sure why when in most other senses SFists believe in change.

Environmentalism is a movement devoted to stasis for its own sake; I bet it would poll pretty well in SF.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#339

Post by freyr » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:56 AM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #273

freyr wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's somewhat a matter of perspective. Although I'd point out that it's not just rich people who appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic.

Have you met poor people who care about vertical zoning laws in San Francisco or are you just assuming they exist and speaking for them?

I appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic, and I'm not rich. Many of my friends appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic, and they're not rich. Many tourists come to San Francisco every day to admire the city's aesthetic. I don't think you read my statement very well.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#340

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:57 AM UTC

nihonde wrote: post #320

ekianjo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im in japan too and there are very clear zoning rules per area. There are very clear bedtowns with no industries or commerces but its probably not near where you live. There is very little freedom to build new things that is why you get extremely expensive apartments and rents. This prevents people to live on their own unless they are married and get enough income for that. And its the first time i hear someone say t…

Yes, I can understand your views. I guess it's possible to disagree about this. I've seen how bad things are in America in terms of affordable housing, so the options in Japan seem quite nice by comparison. As for bedroom communities without commerce, I would attribute that to: (1) an excellent public transportation infrastructure, and (2) an overall migration of livelihoods to Tokyo/Osaka-scale urban centers. My exp…

> I will never understand why Americans pour money into old houses. Even 伊勢神宮 is rebuilt every twenty years, and it's more than two thousand years old!

A lot of Americans are under the illusion that when they buy a house, most of the value is the house. It's actually the land (bought as a package deal), but the perception that the house is valuable drives the behavior that's confusing you.