Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo • Hacker News Board

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#451

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

Gareth321 wrote: post #391

watwut wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans use "being anti woke" as a comfortable excuse to be anti women in general and anti minorities in general. They complain about diversity hires in institutions that have no such policy - just seeing a woman on good position makes them assume it was DEI. There could theoretically be anti-DEI political party that is pro-equality, republicans are not that.

As someone on the outside of this fight (I am not American), there was only one side fighting to maintain racism and sexism in hiring, promotion, government assistance, and university entrance: the Democrats. The Republicans were and remain clearly resolute in creating a merit based society. It seems clear that the democrats were and continue to seek to expand racism and sexism under the banner of "DEI." Adherents li…

> As someone on the outside of this fight (I am not American)

I’m.not sure why owlnly having any understanding of the issues through the propaganda of your chosen media diet makes you a better commentator in your mind, but let me assure you that it is only in your mind.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#452

Post by marcellus23 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:04 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #297

CivBase wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what she ran on? My perception was that she ran on "more of the same but also different... nevermind, look at all these celebrities telling you to vote for me!" and something vague about protecting women's rights. It's almost like you need more than a couple months to run a serious presidential campaign. Despite being the VP for 4 years, most people didn't know what to expect from her. Almost nobody was enthu…

Did you look up her platform at all? Or do you insist this because it wasn't spoon fed to you? There was a platform document pretty early on in her campaign. Meanwhile Trump in 2020 did not have a platform at all and yet the voters didn't give a shit.

Platform documents don't win elections.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#453

Post by horsawlarway » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:08 PM UTC

ty6853 wrote: post #280

Analemma_ wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and I think it has a terribly romanticized and unrealistic rose-colored view of the past. Multi-generational housing suuuuucks , and it’s a near-universal feature of human societies that as soon as people become wealthy enough to vote with their feet and get out of it, they immediately do so, because “multi-generational housing” means constantly having nosy relatives butting into your business,…

It's code for free childcare. Although in the old days the deal was the elderly took care of the kids and in turn the sandwich generation takes care of the elderly. Now the elderly taxes the shit out the sandwich generation, wields housing regulation to enrich themselves, and renegs on giving anything in return because they have you by the balls already paying taxes to them whether any SS is left for you or not.

I want to emphasize - amortized child care and free elder care - it's labor but not capital, and most families have lots of labor to spare that ends up going to leisure/free time right now in ways that probably aren't socially sustainable.

I watched all but one of my grandparents go absolutely bankrupt from elder care costs (dementia on one side, alzheimer's on the other), then I watched my parents shell out on the order of 10k/month in long term care costs for years, and that was just their portion of costs, after splitting among siblings (7 total siblings across both sides).

The only one who didn't go bankrupt had long term care insurance that you literally cannot buy anymore, at basically any price.

So I'll add that expectation to my future payments. Combined with the 4500/m I pay now for child care for 3 children. Not to mention the possibility of 100k/year private education costs as we dissolve federal funding for education in public schools, and see declining school quality in general.

All told... I firmly expect to end up housing my elderly parents anyways (and in-laws) because they simply didn't have as many children, and were the first generation to be completely pension-less, combined with what appears to be a truly incompetent admin in the US gutting the last shreds of our social nets and drastically increasing living costs.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#454

Post by jprokay13 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

mapt wrote: post #441

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

There are often a lot of redundant parts of the legal & zoning code intended to limit development. You can legalize ADUs de jure, but you probably still have setbacks that de facto prohibit ADUs, you still have parking or curb or utility requirements that de facto prohibit ADUs, you still have HOAs that de facto prohibit ADUs, you still have "impact fees" and utility billing issues and all sorts of recently-added bui…

We recently completed an ADU project in California and figuring out the financing was particularly difficult. Add on additional requirements like mandatory solar, fees on top of fees ($5000 school impact fee was just one of many), a local building department with one person reviewing everything… It’s not an easy undertaking at all!

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#455

Post by grandempire » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

Another factor for me is there is risk to hiring contractors. If i could just pay money and have confidence things on my house would be fixed I would do it in a heartbeat. But you have to become a lawyer and project manager to make sure they do it.

> There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights

Yes, these laws also increase the cost of housing.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#456

Post by MostlyStable » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:17 PM UTC

silverlake wrote: post #401

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boston was a mess before the big dig. Enough ink has been spilled over how long it took, but just about everybody agrees the city is better for it.

There’s a great podcast that delves into the Big Dig. It was an exceedingly difficult giant construction project. The original cost estimate was a made up number for political expediency. They lied knowing once they dug a big hole the sunk-cost fallacy would pull them over the finish line.

>lied knowing once they dug a big hold the sunk-cost fallacy would pull them over the finish line.

That's essentially what the CA high speed rail folks did. It remains to be seen if it ends up working out for them.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#457

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:19 PM UTC

JuniperMesos wrote: post #366

jon-wood wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If I'm renting a place it doesn't matter whether my landlord is a big corporation or some guy and his wife, I still need to know that the rent isn't going to triple next week, I still need to know I won't be evicted without notice, and I still need the heating the work. If mom-and-pop can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord they should sell up to someone who can, not expect to be let off the hoo…

That's exactly what the thread OP is complaining about - mom-and-pop homeowners choosing not to increase the housing supply by adding an ADU that they would rent out to someone, even though this is now legal to do, because they can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord. Also, if a property did have an ADU in it, and someone was renting it out, a prospective buyer who didn't want the responsibility of b…

That's a big one, I'm sure. Homes are already illiquid assets. Why on earth would a homeowner choose to add something that would make it even less liquid/valuable?

If I were looking to buy a home, then a home with a tenant-occupied ADU is less desirable than an otherwise identical home without the ADU. The hassle and risk outweighs the rental cash flow.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#458

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:22 PM UTC

hylaride wrote: post #423

simoncion wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I can think of a couple who were absolute nightmares. I can think of a couple others who were an absolute dream. The worst small-time landlord was WAY worse than the worst big property management firm, but the best small-time landlord was far better than the best big property management f…

I believe in strong tenants rights - IF you pay your rent on time and are not damaging property or otherwise misbehaving. If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. There should be mechanisms where through a process tenants can legally withhold rent if basic repairs or maintenance aren't being done. If a landlord can't or won't do it, they shouldn't be a landlord. Ev…

> I have mixed feelings around rent controls, though. In a healthy, competitive market they should be unnecessary over the long term, but if cities are going to restrict housing construction...

They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid over a combination of too many people and not enough construction.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#459

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:22 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

>They don't need the money

Yeah. At a certain affluence, I'd rather have extra space and privacy than extra money. I can't think of a reasonable amount of money that would incentivize me to rent out an ADU in my backyard. $10k a month? idk my kids play in that yard...

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#460

Post by alabastervlog » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 3:25 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #88

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

As someone who owns a second house on a farm that has two rental units in it, I’m skeptical of attempts to expand ‘tenant rights’ in New York. I had a tenant who decided that he did not have to pay the rent, it took months of trying to reason with him, we hired a lawyer and went through the process which took several months, in the end the tenant stayed on a few months past what would have been the eviction date but…

Most people I know (including my parents) who've tried to do the whole "middle-class route to riches!" thing by becoming small-scale landlords have advised me to never, ever, ever try, for exactly the reasons you state: sooner or later you'll get fucked over so hard by a tenant that it wipes out years of income, and you've done it all for nothing.

Exception: one guy, well aware of these issues, had a hack for it—he only owned houses near medical or nursing schools. Nursing and medical students pay their rent and don't trash the place.