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

Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

goldenstatswarrior.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#61

Post by d1zzy »

ndiscussion wrote: post #35
supernova87a wrote: post #31

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together. 1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural. Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with: 2) The peopl…

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly. I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules. It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boo…

An interesting proposal I've seen that attempts to still save the retirees from being forced to move out for not paying their taxes vs houses locked at a certain rate for too long would be to recover the FMV rate owned taxes upon selling.

Currently, not only does the existing homeowner have to pay less taxes (if prices increase over 2% YoY), but later when they sell their house they can cash in the entire difference. That doesn't seem fair if the entire point of Prop 13 was to protect retirees from being kicked out of their house. So instead, make it so that when the house is sold they have to pay in backtaxes all the difference between the FMV based tax and what they actually payed from any profit they are making on the house. Also stop all means of being able to pass the house between generations without re-assessment (that is currently possible in many states in CA).

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#62

Post by ndiscussion »

davidw wrote: post #59
ndiscussion wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on. Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull…

If you want your children to live there, perhaps allowing newcomers isn't the best idea? Our housing prices go up up up as does our population, and the only approved solution seems to be to lower our quality of life.

Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase?

Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.

Personally I don't really get it, but I don't live in San Francisco.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#63

Post by ndiscussion »

onethought wrote: post #55
ndiscussion wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods? As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you So democracy?

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.

edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#64

Post by jariel »

km3r wrote: post #44
ndiscussion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly. I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules. It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boo…

These selfish NIMBY assholes have been borrowing from their cities future as they both condemn newcomers, tax them extra (prop 13), refuse to build new housing for them, and then profit off the induced housing demand.

The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem.

There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose.

If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If they want to live in high rises, they can go to where there are high rises, or where there are those who want to build them.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#65

Post by d1zzy »

To give someone an idea of how bad the difference between neighbours living in the same type of house (same lot size, same floor plan) can be because of Prop 13 in CA, check out this site: https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/

Feel free to zoom in in any residential neighborhood in San Jose or Palo Alto. You can see 10-20x difference in yearly property taxes payed.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#66

Post by davidw »

ndiscussion wrote: post #62
davidw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on. Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull…

If you want your children to live there, perhaps allowing newcomers isn't the best idea? Our housing prices go up up up as does our population, and the only approved solution seems to be to lower our quality of life. Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase? Our children will probably not have children if force…

> Our housing prices go up up up as does our population

That's not true, though.

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

> Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.

Maybe check out some other parts of the world where this is the norm, and people have plenty of kids, once the pandemic is over.

And it's not a given that that happens in any case. People might not choose to live quite so densely, but if they want to, the option is there.

Look at the 'Montreal' option in that article for instance. That'd add a lot of people without having Big Towers.

And I actually lived in Italy, in a flat, with no yard for a while. It was great - we'd go to the park with my kids where they'd almost always see friends. Way better than our big yard here in the US where "there's nothing to do".

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#67

Post by onethought »

ndiscussion wrote: post #63
onethought wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you So democracy?

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few. edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

Bad faith response. But I'll clarify to be clear:

I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.

What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#68

Post by ndiscussion »

onethought wrote: post #67
ndiscussion wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few. edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

Bad faith response. But I'll clarify to be clear: I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing. What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.

Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon.

The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here.

And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#69

Post by onethought »

ndiscussion wrote: post #68
onethought wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad faith response. But I'll clarify to be clear: I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing. What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.

Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon. The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here. And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.

That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US).

I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems like a dishonest argument to me.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#70

Post by satya71 »

ndiscussion wrote: post #57
satya71 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who have not yet moved here (or become voters, or homeowners in particular), don't get to have a say in the policies that govern a place, yet at some point are the ones who have to live within policies that others decide. Same story for global warming. The current developed nations got rich (and still getting richer) by burning fossil fuels. But the ones that are trying to grow now are stuck. Four option…

It's a hot take but you seem truly interested and educated in this matter, have you ever read this? http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf Very depressing take on things, but ultimately I believe it proves that #1 is the only possibility. When it was written perhaps #2 was possible.

Is this the same Unabomber guy? If so, please don't spread.
Post reply on HN