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

California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 175 posts

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#41

Post by anon1m0us »

xvedejas wrote: post #33
anon1m0us wrote: post #26

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive. It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds. People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

I don't think multiple-home-ownership is the driver of the housing crisis. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, most homes are either owner-occupied or being rented out by the owner that owns one other house. So are you suggesting that the problem is solved in my neighborhood?

Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#42

Post by rflrob »

chrischen wrote: post #35

Who blocked this? I am a California voter and I do not recall having any say over this blockage.

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

I believe the conventional wisdom is that legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters, and either of those are stronger signals to them than emails.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#43

Post by cgy1 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #31
esoterica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.

That’s exactly what people did ~60 years ago. Bought some farmland way outside San Francisco, built houses and a community. No because a few billionaire execs want to keep their companies close to their houses, we are going to tear it all down? By all means, densify downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. But I don’t understand the perverse desire to add density to far suburbs.

One big reason to densify the suburbs (speaking of the bay area in particular) is that they're in Silicon Valley and that's where most of the tech jobs are (e.g., Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.). These cities are willing to let companies come in and collect that sweet tax revenue but are not willing to allow sufficient housing to be built to house all of those workers.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#44

Post by yholio »

xvedejas wrote: post #28
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Upzoning helps the homeowners who are upzoned, though I don't know how many of them realize it. Land can be sold at much higher values to developers if it's upzoned, and so its market rate is generally higher. It's those homeowners whose property isn't upzoned which are left out of the economic benefits.

Upzoning increases the value of the land, but decreases the value of pre-existing built square footage, since it's no longer an exclusivist area. If you have a brand new mansion built to the highest standards on the premise that it will be located in a tranquil neighborhood you might be on the net losing side if an apartment building is approved next door.

In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in order to realize any gains, which few people are willing to do.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#45

Post by nomnomnom01 »

cgy1 wrote: post #22
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.

First of all, plumbers make good money. Second, expensive new developments that are unaffordable won't work. Ever seen the prices on them? Here in Los Angeles which isnt nearly as expensive, its about $3000+ but usually even more for new developments because they are high end. Please do some basic research beforehand.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#47

Post by brianpgordon »

dgzl wrote: post #34
anon1m0us wrote: post #26

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive. It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds. People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize.

When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#48

Post by nomnomnom01 »

anon1m0us wrote: post #26

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive. It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds. People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

Not just limiting but banning people that don't live in the country more than 70% of the time from living here. We n2eed to ban foreign investment.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#50

Post by anon1m0us »

BlackRing wrote: post #40
dgzl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.

I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right.

If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?

No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.

We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.

How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).

Isn't that a better world?

Post reply on HN