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

SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

thefrisc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#41

Post by eru »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #38
eru wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's another reason why land value taxation is a good idea: a regulation like designating a building as historic, will immediately lower the tax take in line with the severity of restrictions it imposes. Thus there's a nice and direct feedback loop. (Now, you just need to arrange things so that the level of government that gets to decide which building to mark as 'historic' is also the level of government that feel…

The ideal solution for this is the LVT is split between each level of government and it's parent. Each level receives tax revenue based on the market value after it's own zoning and all other restrictions apply. But each level must pay it's parent government based on the land value without any of local zoning or restrictions imposed. For example, Aspen Colorado can certainly just ban all new construction outright and…

> The ideal solution for this is the LVT is split between each level of government and it's parent. Each level receives tax revenue based on the market value after it's own zoning and all other restrictions apply. But each level must pay it's parent government based on the land value without any of local zoning or restrictions imposed.

Sounds interesting, but I wonder how you would get at those values?

Also, you would probably also want to extend what you say to include both locally enforced restrictions but also locally provided amenities.

But how do you decide who gets to benefit from eg having the Google campus next door? Or having a famous artist live in your community?

> For example, Aspen Colorado can certainly just ban all new construction outright and collect taxes accordingly. But it would owe the state Colorado tax revenue based on the theoretical land value of Aspen's total land.

> This preserves local control as much as possible but forces communities to fairly compensate the rest of the country should they choose to purposely under utilize their land. E.g if SF doesn't build more housing then Austin now has to build more, etc.

That seems much more convoluted and prone to abuses than just letting Aspen collect its land value tax and keeping the whole thing, but also having that level of government pay for most things by itself.

Have a look at Switzerland: their system minimises vertical transfers, ie every level of government mostly only spends what it earns (in taxes).

(They do have some horizontal transfers between richer and poorer regions of the country, or richer and poorer people. But not much between eg Cantons and the federal level.)

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#42

Post by hackernews1134 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…

There is also a whole country of places to live in for those who don’t want to embrace change when their neighborhoods feel a societal pressure to do so. They can live in whatever style of neighborhood they want to live in (or create) anywhere in the country. Change is a constant (whether it be good or bad; obviously subjective adjectives).

These folks who have uprooted themselves from their existing homes to make a better life have as much right to live wherever they want to (considering a country and or society with freedom of movement; e.g. USA) as those who currently occupy the space.

I’m not saying your position is incorrect. I’m saying your argument is flawed.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#43

Post by hackernews1134 »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #6
pieix wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This forced top down push for density You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.

I think the more accurate representation is that it's coming from people who _want_ to live in SF but currently don't (due to lack of housing or unaffordable housing). Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?

> Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?

Yes. Because this country has the first amendment. It is a matter of law that you can and may (within the law).

If you (and I am not saying you do) not agree with people being able to push for such changes (via speech as it is defined and interpreted by our court via the first amendment), then please state your reasons for disagreeing rather than posing a loaded question.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#44

Post by hackernews1134 »

lazide wrote: post #20
kelnos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Just because other people got lucky and managed to move in when prices were better, why should they be privileged? (Full disclosure: I'm a homeowner in SF, and want us to build build build build.)

Should Russians be allowed to vote in US elections?

No, because it is illegal.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#45

Post by BenFranklin100 »

hackernews1134 wrote: post #42
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…

There is also a whole country of places to live in for those who don’t want to embrace change when their neighborhoods feel a societal pressure to do so. They can live in whatever style of neighborhood they want to live in (or create) anywhere in the country. Change is a constant (whether it be good or bad; obviously subjective adjectives). These folks who have uprooted themselves from their existing homes to make a…

The argument is not so much flawed as it is morally reprehensible. The phrase ‘Maintaining the character of the neighborhood” is historically a racist dog whistle used by Whites wanting to keep out Blacks. For background of the historical intent of zoning practices, see “The Color of Law”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_of_Law

You can also read more the 1920’s SCOTUS case ‘Euclid vs Ambler’ where the justices agreed that apartment dwellers were essentially a public nuisance and thus apartments could be regulated.

Nowadays it’s not so much skin color, but rather social class or the ‘wrong’ sort of minority that people want to keep out. Whatever the reason, the type of restrictive zoning the OP is advocating for has major repercussions for equality by restricting access to well paying jobs and other amenities like hospitals and schools.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#46

Post by cam_l »

kelnos wrote: post #16

I am generally highly skeptical of "historic" designations on buildings or other public features. Ultimately they're just used to ossify things and act as an excuse to refuse change. History is certainly valuable, and I do think we should try to preserve truly outstanding examples of history, but this sort of determination too subjective, and often the balance swings too far into a realm of preserving things of dubio…

>we should try to preserve truly outstanding examples of history,

OTH the examples of history already most likely to be preserved are they outstanding ones. This creates an expectation that historical examples of building are better than the present.

Perhaps we should try out preserving the median average building, not the worst or best. That might solve the issue of rose coloured geriatric glasses.

Or if you are intent on keeping a record of the built environment, we could mandate saving every building, but just encourage adaptive reuse and revision. There is more value in reworking than deleting. And more community buy in. I mean, who wants to do a clean rewrite every 20 years..

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#48

Post by com2kid »

eru wrote: post #40
com2kid wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now my question is: why does it look like all cities in the area are colluding against this? What keeps even one city from breaking ranks and allowing massive amounts of building? The problem is that until all unmet demand at the upper end of the market has been satisfied, builders won't start building at the more affordable ends of the market. If one small city allows more construction, the overall impact on the m…

> The problem is that until all unmet demand at the upper end of the market has been satisfied, builders won't start building at the more affordable ends of the market. As outlined in my original comment, I don't see how that is a problem? The whole point is that you can either you can let your real estate developers run wild and make lots of profit (and thus pay lots of taxes) building houses upon houses upon houses…

> The whole point is that you can either you can let your real estate developers run wild and make lots of profit (and thus pay lots of taxes) building houses upon houses upon houses without any price drops from over-supply.

I think we are in agreement that if enough houses are built, price drops will follow.

One issue we encountered here in Seattle (or at least we believe we encountered!) is that people move, so when housing got too expensive in California, people moved from California to Seattle where housing was cheaper.

Now obviously if California reformed its housing policies, I think they could easily absorb pent up local demand along with some growth. However if a smaller locale like Seattle fixes its housing problems, I worry that Seattle couldn't absorb pent up demand for housing from California.

> Being able to add lots of supply to an over-priced market without that dropping prices, is every suppliers' dream.

Getting filthy rich is supplier's dream. Most builders (and arguably businesses) are short sighted, but if government policy makes them tons of $ they will still try to claim it was all part of their brilliant long term plan.

If every major west coast city replaced its stupid zoning laws with, say, Japan's zoning system (see https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001050453.pdf), then prices would come crashing down and everyone would make crap-fuck-tons of money.

As a trivial example, on a 10k sqft lot right now in Seattle suburbs, builders are constructing single family homes and selling them for 2 million.

With not-idiotic zoning, that could be 6 flats selling at 600k each.

Never mind the rules that discourage constructing flats and instead push builders towards making 4 story townhomes.... (Perfect for able-bodied couples without kids who are under the age of 40! And no one else...)

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#49

Post by eru »

com2kid wrote: post #48
eru wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that until all unmet demand at the upper end of the market has been satisfied, builders won't start building at the more affordable ends of the market. As outlined in my original comment, I don't see how that is a problem? The whole point is that you can either you can let your real estate developers run wild and make lots of profit (and thus pay lots of taxes) building houses upon houses upon houses…

> The whole point is that you can either you can let your real estate developers run wild and make lots of profit (and thus pay lots of taxes) building houses upon houses upon houses without any price drops from over-supply. I think we are in agreement that if enough houses are built, price drops will follow. One issue we encountered here in Seattle (or at least we believe we encountered!) is that people move, so whe…

> Now obviously if California reformed its housing policies, I think they could easily absorb pent up local demand along with some growth. However if a smaller locale like Seattle fixes its housing problems, I worry that Seattle couldn't absorb pent up demand for housing from California.

Are you saying that (A) Californian's won't come, and that's why Seattle won't absorb pent up demand from there?

Or are you saying that (B) Californians will enthusiastically come, thereby preventing any price drop?

Case (A) means Seattle can solve its own housing affordability problem by allowing more building. Case (B) means Seattle's real estate developers can have an endless boom.

> If every major west coast city replaced its stupid zoning laws with, say, Japan's zoning system (see https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001050453.pdf), then prices would come crashing down and everyone would make crap-fuck-tons of money.

Yes. But my argument is that if just a single town adopted sensible measures, developers could make obscene amounts of money in that city. Especially if the rest of the area persists in their stupidity.

So multiple cities finding sanity at the same time might be required to do anything about broader housing affordability in the Bay Area, but for a construction bonanza with insane profits it's actually better for the city that breaks ranks not to have competition from other cities finding sanity.

So my question is: why does no single city seem to break ranks?

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#50

Post by com2kid »

eru wrote: post #49
com2kid wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that you can either you can let your real estate developers run wild and make lots of profit (and thus pay lots of taxes) building houses upon houses upon houses without any price drops from over-supply. I think we are in agreement that if enough houses are built, price drops will follow. One issue we encountered here in Seattle (or at least we believe we encountered!) is that people move, so whe…

> Now obviously if California reformed its housing policies, I think they could easily absorb pent up local demand along with some growth. However if a smaller locale like Seattle fixes its housing problems, I worry that Seattle couldn't absorb pent up demand for housing from California. Are you saying that (A) Californian's won't come, and that's why Seattle won't absorb pent up demand from there? Or are you saying…

> So my question is: why does no single city seem to break ranks?

Because city councils don't follow the laws of economics, at all!

City council members only side benefit from economic growth. Heck during the early 2000s housing boom, Seattle City Council members got negative press for "being too friendly to building developers".

As an example of this inanity, cities should be eager to have well funded efficient permitting departments, after all the faster buildings get built, the faster property taxes go up! But no, permitting departments are famously slow and awful to deal with. Simple tasks can take months, and a large complex can take years to get approved.

Every city should increase permitting costs for large projects until the building department is a profit center, and then put into place aggressive service level guarantees on response times to requests.

But that isn't what happens, my 100% ignorant guess would be entrenched power structures in permitting departments, but I honestly have no idea why.

Post reply on HN