California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate • Hacker News Board

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#351

Post by harryh » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #343

neilparikh wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provide services to owners of land, which requires money. The government has no such obligation to owners of equity.

Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....

I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....

Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#352

Post by njarboe » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #300

ogre_codes wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental…

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you have to pay off the realtors, but once you move, you just get on with your life. With prop 13 your property tax could double or triple, say going from $1000 a month to $3000 a month. This $2000 a month, every month, is going to make you mad and hurt you financially constantly for the rest of your life. No wonder people fight so hard to keep things like it was when they moved in.

People with rent control are under the same incentives. Have a $2000 rent controlled apartment that would rent for $4000? If something changes in your neighborhood the makes you want to move, you don't really have that option. So you fight really hard against changes.

The longer Prop 13 is around the worse it gets and California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#353

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #351

scarface74 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....

I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted..... Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.

How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#354

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #350

scarface74 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say you have equity in a non public company, would you be okay if the government taxed your equity forcing you to take out a loan against it?

I don't understand why that is a relevant question.

Because people are always willing to tax other people's wealth.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#355

Post by Pfhreak » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #333

Pfhreak wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.

> Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back. Increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. What do you mean "no guarantee that tenants can move back"? A new apartment building creates units that new residents can move into instead of out-bidding residents on the existing supply of housing. An apartment that doesn't get built is an existing…

People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find somewhere else to live while it is being built. To build a new apartment, you need to tear down some existing housing.

And they probably lose their rent control in the process. So, some percentage of current residents will be forced to leave permanently.

This is fixable with some regulation, but it's a really common oversight in these discussions. It's not just beginning and end state we have to think about, we have to consider the way the housing is built and what happens to the people during that time.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#356

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #352

BurningFrog wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you h…

> California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.

They did just change the situation. They made it worse!

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#357

Post by harryh » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #354

harryh wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why that is a relevant question.

Because people are always willing to tax other people's wealth.

Property taxes aren't wealth taxes, they're consumption taxes.

This is obvious when you consider the fact that a person who owns a piece of property outright pays the same property tax as someone who owns a similar piece of property but carries a mortgage.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#358

Post by supercow12 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76

yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

The article says that SB 50 was supported by environmentalist groups.

>The bill also garnered support from environmental organizations, including Natural Resources Defense Council and California PIRG, because of its potential to reduce the carbon pollution that comes from long driving commutes.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#359

Post by technofiend » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

neilparikh wrote: post #280

technofiend wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When you buy a property, you still pay taxes on whatever your purchase price is. And again every year after that, including whatever increase your taxing authority may legally apply, usually the maximum allowed by law unless you actively fight it. Texas has no state income tax and property taxes are (so they tell me) quite high as a result. My property tax is $7k+ each year. Not onerous because I have a full time jo…

> a house like mine was torn down and 5-7 condos or townhomes took their place I fail to see the downside here. Isn't that a good thing, and exactly what you want in California (SFH being replaced with more units)?

>I fail to see the downside here. Isn't that a good thing, and exactly what you want in California (SFH being replaced with more units)?

Depends on whether you're a preservationist or not. There are also other answers to high density than a few condos per each 5,000 sqft lot. Combine a few of those lots and you can build a 10-20 story tower which will hold many more people.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#360

Post by puszczyk » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

yonran wrote: post #267

baddox wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "re-election" generally refers specifically to an incumbent winning an election, rather than just any time someone wins more than one election.

Avalos is running for the same office that he held 12 to 4 years ago. In San Francisco, BoS members are termed out after 8 consecutive years but can come back after waiting a term.

Heh, like the president of Russia