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

To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 361 posts

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#71

Post by briandear »

api wrote: post #68
ajross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by comp…

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-s…

A total repeal of Prop 13.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#72

Post by trustno1 »

TomVDB wrote: post #70
rb808 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…

At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#73

Post by ProfessorLayton »

ajross wrote: post #67
charlesdm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who could have guessed, policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them?

Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by comp…

While there's no denying there's a strong bias towards property owners, it doesn't have to be this way. Renters can and should vote to change policies to favor them. SF is 63% renters!

It is unfortunate that the most disenfranchised demographics are the ones least likely to vote/organize.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#74

Post by [deleted] »

briandear wrote: post #71
api wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-s…

A total repeal of Prop 13.

[deleted]

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#76

Post by austincheney »

If 60,000 people continue to move from there to Texas every year then 20 years from now when the area has lost over a million residents the housing prices might well flatten organically. This madness is causing housing prices to climb in Texas though.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#77

Post by tmh79 »

weeksie wrote: post #38

Just a reminder that the growth rates for SF, SV, Seattle, Portland are all pretty puny compared to the growth rates of, e.g. Detroit at its peak. Hell they're not even that crazy compared to growth rates those cities have handled before. People just aren't interested in any perceived threat to their property values so they're strangling growth based on an entitlement mindset. No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price a…

we are at record low growth rates for "peaking" in the development cycle.

The problem is (1) we haven't built that much since 2008 anywhere, so any change seems like its a flood (2) most growth pre 2008 was greenfield SFH development, most growth happening now is in established communities

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#78

Post by njarboe »

jartelt wrote: post #47
conanbatt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Henry George would shed a tear. I do believe that the thing that would change the housing stock situation for SF is to remove sales taxes and add land value taxes. Just that change alone will make workers and renters richer overnight, and would change the anti-development mindset of owners quite a bit, considering that low-dense units will pay the highest amount.

Wouldn't a decent portion of the land value tax just be passed on to renters in the form of higher rent charged by their landlord?

One way of thinking about why this won't happen is that most landlords charge the highest rent they think they can get. They don't just think, "I'll set the rent at my costs and a little profit. I'm not interested in making even more money." Some smaller owners might have personal relationships with their renters and not charge market rates, but I think more and more these days those landlords are rare. Maybe landlords will be able to up the rents because the reduction of other taxes will give people who pay rents more money, but that would be a small secondary effect I would guess.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#79

Post by m0llusk »

What is often missing from this discussion is financialization of housing markets. As long as housing units are chips for a game among banks and wealthy patrons it is not clear we will be able to build enough homes to satiate artificially inflated demand.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#80

Post by weeksie »

redthrowaway wrote: post #66
weeksie wrote: post #38

Just a reminder that the growth rates for SF, SV, Seattle, Portland are all pretty puny compared to the growth rates of, e.g. Detroit at its peak. Hell they're not even that crazy compared to growth rates those cities have handled before. People just aren't interested in any perceived threat to their property values so they're strangling growth based on an entitlement mindset. No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price a…

>No, sirs and ma'ams, your home's price appreciation isn't a right. No, but they do have a right to vote for policies and politicians that defend their interests.

They can vote.

However, any system that allows people to rent seek by creating building restrictions that protect their property values is not an optimal solution. So sure, they can vote but they should not be able to vote on zoning.

What about nuisances or factories or what have you? Well, that's easy enough to take care of through noise ordinances. Land use zoning is mostly a well intentioned but terrible in practice policy idea.

Post reply on HN