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

California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#81

Post by lotsofpulp »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #25
mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

I think you are incorrectly missing that many larger units (both 3+ bedroom apartments and houses) are currently filled with singles or couples with roommates who would rather live alone in 1 or 2 bedrooms, but can't due to inadequate supply. Building 1/2 bedrooms would help those people move out, freeing up larger units for families. > I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class The property manag…

I wonder if this is true. There is significant risk in price changes for renting (or even HOA fees for condominiums), such that many middle class people might feel more secure living in their home with a near zero interest rate mortgage, if not a paid off mortgage.

On top of that, most jurisdictions (in the US) subsidize property tax rates for senior citizens, so there is a lot less price volatility for simply remaining in one’s home (or even moving to a different, but smaller detached single family home).

Unless a person specifically wants an urban lifestyle in a shared building, I don’t see much impetus to move out. Worst case, they get to stay in their home they have gotten used to and have space for visitors, best case they save a bunch of money and sleep easy knowing their costs are more controlled.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#82

Post by lotsofpulp »

eclipticplane wrote: post #19
mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

> but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments That's still a massive win. To replace 10 single family homes supporting 2-3 people each with a 9 story building supporting many multiples of that is a win for society. If the people chasing 3 and 4 bedroom apartments accepted smaller rooms, they could still be economical vs studio/1/2 BR apartments and condos.

I am curious what percentage of people would (or do) forego having kids if they do not think they can afford to buy (or eventually buy) a detached single family home.

I can’t say I would have been keen on having kids if I had to live in the quality of pretty much all the apartment buildings I have been in.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#83

Post by aurareturn »

y-curious wrote: post #66

I don't see anyone talking about it in the comments: Marin, the wealthy exurb north of SF, has always had a laughably aggressive hate towards public transit. I wonder if this was something they saw coming, as they are completely unaffected by this bill.

[flagged]

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#84

Post by energy123 »

yahway wrote: post #61

The problem with ant zoning laws is that they pick winners and losers. They need abolished state-wide to ever have a true affect. Otherwise, these limited pockets get bought up by investors and again, are limited to tiny areas. Abolish it state wide and people will over build and then true affordability will return.

Correct, given that housing in one location is significantly fungible with housing in another location, barring some economic frictions. The total stock (both state-wide and nation-wide) is the metric that needs to be increased.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#85

Post by energy123 »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

Anything larger gets smeared as a "luxury apartment". There is no winning. Build, build, build, build. Public housing AND private housing. Just build. That's it.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#86

Post by lalaland1125 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #81
lalaland1125 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are incorrectly missing that many larger units (both 3+ bedroom apartments and houses) are currently filled with singles or couples with roommates who would rather live alone in 1 or 2 bedrooms, but can't due to inadequate supply. Building 1/2 bedrooms would help those people move out, freeing up larger units for families. > I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class The property manag…

I wonder if this is true. There is significant risk in price changes for renting (or even HOA fees for condominiums), such that many middle class people might feel more secure living in their home with a near zero interest rate mortgage, if not a paid off mortgage. On top of that, most jurisdictions (in the US) subsidize property tax rates for senior citizens, so there is a lot less price volatility for simply remain…

I was talking about renters moving out of larger apartments or shared homes into 1/2 bedroom apartments.

Middle class homeownership is basically dead in California due to the absurd price of housing. Almost everyone young who didn't inherit wealth or earn 90th percentile income is renting

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#87

Post by inferiorhuman »

flomo wrote: post #78
inferiorhuman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those folks that he is up-zoning out in the avenues, they are driving. Different culture out there. Downvote reality to the left. To be clear I was out in the avenues.

Just curious exactly what neighborhood and how long did you live there? (duboce triangle, a long time) I know a bunch of people who live/d out there, they take muni downtown but mostly have a car. Perhaps you could regal in tales of your car-free lifestyle in the Sunset, but i'm not seeing it. Weiner wants condos out there and he does not give a shit about your bus ride.

  he does not give a shit about your bus ride.
As I pointed out earlier streetcar, not a bus ride.

  but i'm not seeing it
Look harder.

Pre-pandemic the L and N were the two busiest rail routes (and the busiest lines systemwide) even considering they share most of the underground portion with four other lines. Somewhere around 75,000 daily trips.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#88

Post by theluketaylor »

mschuster91 wrote: post #62
flomo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ug. I'm a 'yimby' and a Weiner voter. But his take on San Francisco transit is just like really bad. Pokey streetcars and buses, doomed to fail. You build out there in those blue areas, and they are mostly all driving. My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit. Make sure the utilities are in place. Developers will then flock to the place. This whole thing is using inside-out logic. Have a…

> My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit. Make sure the utilities are in place. The problem is, that costs money that, for a few years at the very least, will not be recouped. Not many politicians have the ability to push such efforts through regardless of profitability, especially not when the topic in question will be abused by the opposition in their usual culture war bullshit.

It costs a lot less to build transit infrastructure before or at the same time as everything else compared with adding it later, even if the line is underused as density is added.

The best alternative is a well-planned phased line with carefully protected right-of-way and a dedicated source of long term funding. Bonus points for it being a combination of value capture taxes and the transit agency being a property developer in their own right around stations. The early phase can be inside the boundary of current development so there are people to ride right away. Developers can build and market using the upcoming line, and prospective residents can be confident it will happen with funding secured.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#89

Post by username135 »

Hilift wrote: post #75

"Bring dense housing" misses the plot. It prevents 50% of all development projects (in recent years) from being thwarted for no reason under the veil of environment laws. Some municipalities also had requirements to "get your neighbors approval", which resulted in bizarre interactions where residents would actually ask developers for things that cost millions of dollars. "Can you build a ground floor office for my de…

Not many transit stops in either of those areas.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#90

Post by username135 »

aurareturn wrote: post #83
y-curious wrote: post #66

I don't see anyone talking about it in the comments: Marin, the wealthy exurb north of SF, has always had a laughably aggressive hate towards public transit. I wonder if this was something they saw coming, as they are completely unaffected by this bill.

[flagged]

Unless those poor people are needed to clean and maintain their homes.
Post reply on HN