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

41–49 of 49 posts

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

#41

Post by space_fountain »

SCAQTony wrote: post #31

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 t…

Do you think the cost of living in those areas are not too high. If not how do you propose lowering housing costs without building more?

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

#43

Post by briandear »

tfmatt wrote: post #21
holoduke wrote: post #18

Why don't they start a basic income project in California? If there is one place where you have money and lots of inequality it is California. Is there really noone there from the bigger corps willing to initiate something like this?

What? Why would anyone choose to give free money to landlords that are already well to do? A basic income project to do what exactly?

Why do we assume landlords are “well to do?” After paying the note, management, maintenance, taxes, etc., many properties net just a few hundred dollars per month, per unit, if that. Certainly there is capital appreciation, but there is also risk as well. Rental property ownership is a business like other businesses and subject to price pressures just like any other. We could argue that giving money to the poor simply makes well-to-do grocery store owners richer as well. Except grocery stores aren’t required to sell their products at discounts to poor people as a condition of doing business. Why do we expect housing owners to discount their product for a certain percentage of the population or else they aren’t allowed to operate? The difference is that there aren’t widespread restrictions on food production, so grocery stores are able to serve the market demand without having set-asides for specific groups. Want lower housing prices? Make it easier to supply houses. It really is that simple. The reason housing in Houston is affordable is because there is plenty of it and it’s relatively easy to build more. There isn’t a need for artificially “affordable” housing in Houston because the government there has a less hostile attitude towards building housing. In California, if you want to build something, you might get your plan denied if there is even a chance that some endangered worm is within a 50 mile radius or if some Palo Alto matron is afraid of “undesirables” living too close, or if there’s a chance someone’s view might be impeded. Building housing in the Bay Area is a total mess. I am not sure why Tokyo or Seoul style high-roses aren’t a thing in California — but that could be a solution if there was the political will to allow it.

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

#44

Post by chrisdhoover »

briandear wrote: post #43
tfmatt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why would anyone choose to give free money to landlords that are already well to do? A basic income project to do what exactly?

Why do we assume landlords are “well to do?” After paying the note, management, maintenance, taxes, etc., many properties net just a few hundred dollars per month, per unit, if that. Certainly there is capital appreciation, but there is also risk as well. Rental property ownership is a business like other businesses and subject to price pressures just like any other. We could argue that giving money to the poor simpl…

Every landlord I ever had was middle class who had a second property to bring in a little income.

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

#45

Post by rcpt »

ridgeguy wrote: post #34
rcpt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-spec…

Reform for only commercial property is what we're voting on in 2020. It'd be great for public services if that passed but housing will remain as fucked as ever. Empty lots will stay empty, entrenched wealthy homeowners will continue to organize against new housing, long time landlords will keep thier fat profit margins.

I understand that your neighbor is old and that we should provide a social safety net for her. But that can be done in many different ways that don't involve massive handouts to real estate investors.

http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/ is a good read if you like prop 13 anecdotes

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

#46

Post by linkregister »

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…

> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there.

Do you have any kind of reference for this? It is a contrarian opinion compared to Case Schiller and other well-known housing research organizations.

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

#47

Post by masonic »

purplezooey wrote: post #40

Another messed up thing with CA -- it takes a 2/3 vote, very difficult, raise any kind of tax. Yet, only 50 percent to change the constitution . Wtf.

Initiative constitutional amendments require a much higher threshold of signatures to get on the ballot.

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

#48

Post by wwweston »

doggydogs94 wrote: post #38
r00fus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Atlantic might be fairly described as technocratic or liberal... but because liberal and left are distinct things, "left-leaning" isn't a good description for it.

"Left" and "right" tend to be about specific political positions and values, but an entity that's "liberal" tends to orient less around specific positions and more around meta-values that are about approach (and have a lot in common with western academic and especially post-enlightenment thinking), but will accommodate a variety of other values into discourse, just refereed by the meta-values. So, depending on what you define as "left leaning", you might find examinations and even cases for it (alongside conservative leaning points) in the pages a liberal publication, but they'll be grounded in liberal approach and will likely not be alone.

And that's why you'll see things like "Why can't people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying" in the pages of the Atlantic, even though Peterson seems frequently hostile to the left and vice versa, or discussions like "The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'" that aren't value judgments about people like Milo Yiannopoulos.

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

#49

Post by SCAQTony »

space_fountain wrote: post #41
SCAQTony wrote: post #31

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 t…

Do you think the cost of living in those areas are not too high. If not how do you propose lowering housing costs without building more?

A city will only grow as big as it takes a citizen to travel from one end of the city to the other in about an hour or so. If forced to make a suggestion, I would say create a superb transportation service so people could traverse the city quickly and thereby could afford houses and apartments in outlying areas.
Post reply on HN