California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build • Hacker News Board

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#401

Post by tmh79 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

x0054 wrote: post #392

rb808 wrote: post #380

Not luxury apartments. Projects. In the 50s and 60s NYC built loads of massive housing projects for the poorest people on welfare. This is something that is needed in California. Most of the homeless can't afford fancy new builds, the state should be building big cheap buildings to house the people who can't afford anything. Say there are 20k units required in the Bay Area, each building can have 20 floors, 25 aprts…

Have you seen what happens in those projects? I lived in Chicago and those were not a good place to live because of incredible levels of crime. What we need is to stop clustering so much around SF and LA. There are lots of places in CA that are basically empty. What we need is more ways for people to make money remotely so they can live in lower density areas and still make good living. High density is not the answer…

The reason we have a housing crises is because people want high density living. Our market crises is a literal refutation of your proposed solution.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#402

Post by jelliclesfarm » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

istjohn wrote: post #383

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #369

Let me the ask the YIMBY crowd this...what is stopping 2 dozen do you to pool funds together to build a community where land is affordable and have tailored amenities. And you can literally have your own transport to anywhere. Co-Own your shared vacation paradises. Private schools. Incorporated communities. Invest in farms and automation. You can grow your own food and use economics instead of govt bureaucracy to mak…

Because the great value of cities lies in the network effects that arise when hundreds of thousands of people live and work in the same neighborhoods. Ideas cross-polinate, spawn, and mutate creating wealth. And the value produced by a city increases super-linearly, perhaps exponentially, as population density increases. Policies that place artificial limits on city densities choke off that engine of wealth. It may b…

It’s not easy clearly if it means that someone else has to pay the price of it without any benefit.

If you want older people/property owning seniors on fixed incomes to move out, pay them. It’s as simple as that.

The truth is that most cannot pay. The value of the dollar they earn is imaginary. The whole system from Wall Street to wages to taxes is a Ponzi scheme.

Land has value. Water or access to water has value. Inherent value. Everything else is value-added. So you have to pay more for a resource that is fixed or shrinking while population increases.

It’s very simple. Buy it off people. OR. It’s far cheaper to add value upon affordable land and water. To not build on something available and abundant and to not ADD value to it is a poverty of creativity and intelligence. To want to evict older citizens or punitively tax them to displace them to take their land and water is not only lazy but also immoral.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#403

Post by istjohn » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

riantogo wrote: post #183

Fauntleroy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we know why. Maybe a basic necessity like housing shouldn't be treated like the damn stock market.

That is correct. So people who got into the "stock market" are being protective about their investment. Unless there is a path to offer them relief they will always vote against diluting their hard earned money. Most of the people who didn't get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, make it good for me", and then act surprised as to why they don't get the votes. But it seems like you understand the iss…

And the people who did get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, I got mine." So we have two groups who have countervailing interests. But of course the property owners have more money--and also time, education, social capital, and so on--so they are the ones who usually win this fight.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#404

Post by tmh79 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #290

hannasanarion wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely correct that the root cause of the housing crisis is capitalism and the commodification of housing. However, a socialist restructuring of the entire housing market is not likely to happen any time soon. While we wait for the revolution, we might as well encourage the for-profit developers to build in the least destructive ways, so that less people suffer in the short term from the choked supply and…

> You are absolutely correct that the root cause of the housing crisis is capitalism and the commodification of housing. Every other commodity in my life, food for instance, is dirt cheap and getting cheaper all the time. Housing is expensive because it is not a commodity. You have to beg the government to allow it to exist.

You're speaking past each other. In marxist economics literature "commodification" means something is able to be bought and sold, not that it is a commodity in the broader ecconomic sense (an undifferentiated good with broadly elastic demand). "Honor" isn't commodified, "dignity" isn't commodified, "food" is commodified, and "rare collectible art" is commodified.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#405

Post by zacksinclair » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #390

zacksinclair wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More housing is not a panacea for homelessness - but supply and demand are real. Increasing supply will decrease equilibrium price; this increase in affordability is one measure (of the many necessary) to help homelessness.

>Increasing supply will decrease equilibrium price Hmm but this is not a given is it? I think many would move to SF if housing was only slightly cheaper.

It is a given and is basic economics. Supply and demand curves certainly apply to housing.

Increasing housing shifts the supply line to the right - which satisfies greater demand at a lower price, all else equal. That is what "many would move to SF if housing was only slightly cheaper" means in economic terms.

Shifting the demand curve to the right is not driven by quantity of housing, but instead by things like quality of life, supply of jobs, etc. Its the difference between the slope of the line and its position.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#406

Post by tmh79 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #39

There is a study that came out this year that I have been obsessed with: If zoning laws in San Francisco and New York City (just two places!) were frozen in place in 1964, the average American income today would be on average $3700 higher. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388?fbc...

To clarify, the issue is that in the 60's, both cities had much looser zoning and allowed dense housing development. Policy changes in the late 60s and early 70s tightened the zoning/reduced a cities ability to create dense housing.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#407

Post by lopmotr » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #327

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put. Hmm, here I am thinking I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. It's none of my business. But, I try and not judge people on immutable characteristics like color and age.

GP could likely have replaced "mostly old white people" with "mostly the same demographic", but it doesn't convey the same information, even if you don't assume implied racism as you did. The important thing being conveyed is lack of diversity, not whiteness. In the United States, saying something is "mostly white people" conveys that other ethnic groups are not present for some reason (whether it be them self-select…

To value diversity of ethnicity or race, you must believe there are intrinsic differences between people which are determined by their ethnicity. That's one of the definitions of racism. A non-racist wouldn't be bothered what race their neighbors were just as most people aren't bothered by the color of their carpets.

In the candy example, you would believe the color is an important determinant of some quality of the candy. If it wasn't, you wouldn't care what color they were.

I should add that it's not the end of the world to be a racist. Most people probably are. It's perfectly legal and normal! Admitting it is hard though.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#408

Post by mayneack » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

badfrog wrote: post #336

davidw wrote: post #107

Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts: * It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out. * It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things. * It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might…

Any tips on how to find such a group? Google is turning up nothing for my city.

If you know of initiatives you care about (like SB 50 for example), look for groups pushing that.

If you're on twitter, the twitter networks usually bridge cities. I follow a lot of LA area YIMBY groups, but get some cross pollination from other cities too.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#409

Post by Kalium » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #158

notJim wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

You're absolutely right. People are rarely self-consciously irrationally opposed to any given proposal to build housing. In theory, it should be possible to address any given rational concern!

Too tall? Make it shorter. Not enough public space? Make the area in front of it a parklet! Not enough subsidized housing? More BMR units and a donation to a neighborhood group will solve that one. Doesn't fit with the style or is otherwise ugly? Pay attention and design a building that fits, it's not that hard.

Although there might be tricky ones, like maybe the neighbors have been treating the lot as a park and would like to keep it that way or someone is afraid of losing the all-day sun on their backyard garden. Still, all of these should be solvable in principle, right?

Again, as you wisely point to, all of these possible concerns are individually eminently reasonable and addressable. Certainly insulting the people who are just trying to keep their homes and communities they way they like it isn't going to win them over!

With all that said, might there be problems in aggregate? When people are empowered to throw up essentially arbitrary roadblocks, no matter how reasonable their complaints, the result can be near-infinite stonewalling. This has happened enough that some people have lost trust in the process that enabled good, kind, compassionate people to get their perfectly reasonable concerns addressed.

So perhaps there's some room for subtlety here. How do you think YIMBYs should frame things, to avoid the issues you rightly point to?

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#410

Post by jelliclesfarm » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #395

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #339

I have been asking someone..anyone..to give me an example of how building more housing leads to affordable housing. Like in real life.. Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining infrastructure that the government can’t seem to replace or upgrade. We have pestilence, rodent infestations, higher crime, big government…

> Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining infrastructure that the government can’t seem to replace or upgrade. That's not true. Houston and Dallas are big cities without affordability problems. Sunnyvale, CA (quite dense, and becoming more so, but suffering from these NIMBY problems) is one of the safest cities i…

1. [..]In Sunnyvale, CA you have a 1 in 611 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery and assault. With regards to property crime, you have a 1 in 62 chance of becoming a victim. Property crimes include burglary, theft and vehicle theft.[..]

2. Dallas and Houston are not in the same category as Bay Area. Texas is not California.

3. Crime in California stats are unreliable due to passing of Prop 47. Crimes are not reported or recorded or booked due to not wanting to incarcerate people. This has actually increased petty crimes all over Bay Area(I don’t know about other cities in CA..I do know about my backyard however)..you only have to subscribe to NIXLE to see that even those reported is increasing.

The cops won’t even come to an ongoing crime scene unless someone’s life is in immediate danger.

Wrt San Francisco..just type ‘Chesa Boudin’ in google news to see what’s happening in San Francisco. This is our lives and our backyards and built upon our tax dollars and work. It’s being auctioned away by those who have no stake and have never contributed to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_...