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

California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#81

Post by clairity »

baggy_trough wrote: post #76

It was an awful bill. It removed density limits in any jobs-rich area (so basically all of the Bay Area). It forced any single family zoned area to allow fourplexes. This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.

what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#82

Post by conanbatt »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

> California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote. A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.

Large fraction of renters are foreigners. Around 27% CA population, twice the national average.

If they could vote, they would change this.

2 things that would wreck california here are:

1) restricting immigration (they lose suckers)

2) liberalizing immigration (suckers get bargaining power)

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#83

Post by conanbatt »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #39
dangjc wrote: post #16

The bay area will lose more experienced older workers if the only way to exist here is to share an apartment with other young single people. Companies should care about this.

Aren’t they already biased against older workers, though? Older workers and startups don’t fit together well.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#84

Post by 01100011 »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners.

With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#85

Post by conanbatt »

01100011 wrote: post #84
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners. With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.

I can tell you what the turnout of CA foreigners that vote: 0%.

And CA is 27% foreign born population.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#86

Post by baggy_trough »

clairity wrote: post #81
baggy_trough wrote: post #76

It was an awful bill. It removed density limits in any jobs-rich area (so basically all of the Bay Area). It forced any single family zoned area to allow fourplexes. This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.

what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.

That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you.

I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#87

Post by [deleted] »

baggy_trough wrote: post #76

It was an awful bill. It removed density limits in any jobs-rich area (so basically all of the Bay Area). It forced any single family zoned area to allow fourplexes. This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.

[deleted]

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#88

Post by seanmcdirmid »

glitchc wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property crashes do happen from time to time. Even in HK, Mumbai, London, etc...

Other than minor blips, long-term trend is positive. Check out the ten year trend at [1] [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/housing-index It may be an unpopular notion or maybe folks in SF are hoping to time the market, but the general trend across the globe is increasing price in desirable locales, barring natural disasters. So, yes, if a major earthquake hit SF, there would be a price correction :)

SF area was pretty down for more than a few years in the 90s (almost a lost decade from a gain perspective). Yes, it is temporary but even a small blip is enough to take out most leveraged speculators.

HK is an especially speculated and manipulated market, only experts should play there.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#89

Post by dannyr »

01100011 wrote: post #84
mullingitover wrote: post #3

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners. With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.

Homeowners vote often and also are more engaged. They show up to hearings more than renters.

This is the problem with renters. When they don't like how things are going, maybe they feel helpless, they just move to a different city.

Re: California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

#90

Post by newsoul2019 »

esoterica wrote: post #12
i_am_nomad wrote: post #10

This bill would have created enormous resentment on behalf of homeowners, the ones who would have watched ugly four-story boxes go up in their neighborhoods. They would have wondered why the problems of the big cities were being dumped onto them, and the answer is found no farther then Weiner's list of campaign contributors. https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...

The McMansions are uglier anyway. Is your right to not look at ugly boxes more important than other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?

>> other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?

No one has such a right. If you want to buy a home for under $2 million, there are plenty of these in the East Bay and East San Jose. No shortage at all.

Post reply on HN