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

Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

timesheraldonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#51

Post by yoz-y »

WaxProlix wrote: post #15
personjerry wrote: post #11

I remember reading article about San Francisco being the "mercenary city": Young professionals come here, live in tiny apartments, get big tech wages for a couple of years, then move somewhere more affordable. With the remote situation, people are getting out of SF faster than ever. Won't this bill drive up the price of a single family home while driving down the price of multifamily homes? But the dream for most Ame…

I wonder how many people will go from "I can afford a single family house in SF" to "I cannot afford a single family house in SF" as a result of this bill.

Aren’t many of the single family houses currently occupied by people flatsharing, which would be better served by other types of housing?

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#52

Post by jeffbee »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #12
0xB31B1B wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole state has a housing crises. Even the little towns in the sierras or way up north.

That isn't a uniform "housing crises" throughout the state. Susanville and Eureka are really different from San Francisco or South Lake Tahoe. The bill also doesn't eliminate single family zoning everywhere, things like no sewers (so have to use septic) still apply to necessarily reduced density.

Eureka is burdened by high housing prices relative to the local economy, same as San Francisco. Yes houses cost less, but prevailing wages are also less. Eureka has basically no economy to speak of and the houses there still cost $400k.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#53

Post by ehutch79 »

remarkEon wrote: post #26

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive now? Because California government says no more future supply. I get the urgency on addressing the housing situation in California, but this feels to me like “we must do something, and this is something, so we will do it”.

You're part of the problem.

They're not banning single family homes. Just zoning for them. THere's a housing shortage, especially in urban areas right around what little public transit there is. Insisting that only a few people live on lots in this area is insane.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#54

Post by nostrademons »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #33

I have to wonder if some of the more affluent neighborhoods/cities won't just find a way to stop this in their area. Does anyone have a sense of how effective this law will really be, particularly in cities with NIMBY attitudes?

I don't really see it affecting say Atherton or Los Altos Hills much - the people who live there are rich enough that splitting a lot and putting up duplexes isn't going to make a measurable economic difference to them, at least not one worth giving up their prime estate. The hillside communities (mid-peninsula, Oakland/Berkeley hills, Saratoga/Portola/Woodside) likely also won't see much adoption, just because the geology & topography doesn't really support the types of construction & road access to build multi-family housing.

I could see it making a huge difference in "affluent suburbia" - places like Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, the SFH parts of Mountain View and San Francisco, etc. The lots there are generally wide enough to support a lot split, and you have a lot of homeowners that just spent $3M because you need to in order to own property, carrying a massive mortgage. The lot split would immediately let them pay back a good chunk of that principal, and a duplex would give you rental income to cover most of the payment. A lot of homeowners would go from being financially stretched on 2 FAANG incomes to being comfortably able to live on one salary, while still maintaining ownership of a duplex.

Many of these neighborhoods are precisely the ones that need it most - they're close to jobs, they're flat, they could support a lot more population, and they already have significant pro-housing contingents. Traffic on 85 is going to suck even more than it already does, though.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#55

Post by kelnos »

kortilla wrote: post #23

> A study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the new law likely would add, at most, fewer than 700,000 housing units across California. A good, a pointless divisive bill that does nothing to fundamentally address the issues. It’s almost as if California politicians have discovered it’s better to have a bill that makes a lot of noise to make it seem like work is being done while simultane…

Regardless of whether or not it "solves" the housing crisis, it's still the right thing to do. If you own a large-enough plot of land, why should you be barred from building an in-law unit, or adding a second floor that functions as a separate housing unit?

This just gives people some of their property rights back.

700k isn't nothing, either. I agree that it's not a ton, and it isn't going to solve the housing crisis, but it's a step in the right direction, and is a bonus for doing the right thing with regard to making zoning less restrictive.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#56

Post by anonuser123456 »

colechristensen wrote: post #17
meowtimemania wrote: post #2

Surprised there aren’t more comments here. This is great news for affordable housing right?

Has there ever been an effort of freeing up high density construction that resulted in lower housing prices? In the places I lived, new construction of big apartment complexes was correlated with prices going up. The new buildings charged more for rent, people paid it, and the surrounding housing followed.

You have the causality wrong.

- Builders build because if high demand.

- Landlords raise rent because of high demand.

- High demand is based on the localities productivity. Places that are in high demand have lots of jobs that pay high wages.

The only way to relieve the pressure is to build faster than existing demand or to lower the productivity of the region.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#57

Post by kelnos »

tcmart14 wrote: post #48
javagram wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing "Banning single family homes" and "Banning single family zoning". Nothing about this law prevents you buying land and building a SFH on it, so your characterization as "no more future supply" is inaccurate. It simply gives you the right to, in certain circumstances, build an additional home on your property.

Wouldn't it also allow developers to build apartments in places that previously they couldn't have because the ritzy neighborhood down the street can't bear the site of 'em?

There are still lot-size restrictions as to how many units you can build.

But if a lot is large enough, and the owner of a SFH wants to sell to a developer that wants to build a 4- or 8- or whatever-is-allowed-unit building, IMO they should be allowed to do so.

And maybe that will reduce property values in some places like that ritzy neighborhood down the street. It may also increase property values in others. That's just life. Buying property shouldn't give you an immutable ticket to guaranteed value improvement. If you're lucky, it might, but as a property owner in CA myself, I would certainly give up value appreciation if it meant homes became affordable again. I get that some people wouldn't make that choice, but... tough luck; that's life. Your "right" to make money off of your primary residence shouldn't trump someone else's right to have a stable place to live.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#58

Post by nostrademons »

kortilla wrote: post #40
dado3212 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6% increase in housing units isn't nothing [1]. That said, I think you're right that more aggressive measures would need to be taken to resolve the shortage. Is there a link to recommendations that would have larger impact? I know CEQA's brought up a lot, but is there some paper that's been written around proposals and estimated housing units? [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-stat...

That’s effectively nothing when everything is so constrained already. A 3bd/2ba house in Sunnyvale runs for a couple of million dollars. Do you think 6% is going to bring it down to 300-500k like other suburbs in the country (e.g. around Indianapolis, Atlanta, Dallas)?

It's not going to bring home prices down - it actually reduces the number of SFHs on the market, and the new units created are duplexes where they'll be a landlord (probably an occupant) and a tenant.

It's likely going to bring rents down, or at least keep them from climbing much higher. But that's already a huge win. A 2BR duplex in Sunnyvale rents for about $3500/month, which is pretty insane. Bring that down to $2K/month and you might have families living in their own unit again (instead of 3 families sharing a 3BR, each getting one room), or young people that can afford to found startups.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#59

Post by seanmcdirmid »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #49
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More supply also increases traffic. This isn't just about everyone worrying about their housing prices (there are a lot of NIMBY reasons beyond that).

I think many of the reasons are rationalizations or invented primarily in support of protecting net worth, even if they have some truth.

That is disingenuous. A lot of SFH owners like driving cars, dislike transit, and therefore are of the mindset that more housing = more traffic. Density of course needs mass transit if it is going to be feasible (you don't build a 30 story apartment building away from transit and expect that to end well).

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#60

Post by remarkEon »

ehutch79 wrote: post #53
remarkEon wrote: post #26

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive now? Because California government says no more future supply. I get the urgency on addressing the housing situation in California, but this feels to me like “we must do something, and this is something, so we will do it”.

You're part of the problem. They're not banning single family homes. Just zoning for them. THere's a housing shortage, especially in urban areas right around what little public transit there is. Insisting that only a few people live on lots in this area is insane.

Respectfully, I think you are.

I asked a question about the potential impact of this change on prices, and speculated about what might happen if single family homes become a rare (or rarer) commodity. I’m sorry that places like SF are managed so terribly, but it might have something to do with how hostile people there get when this issue comes up.

Post reply on HN