91–100 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm addressing performance standards specifically so I can't speak for other fees. But regards performance targets these exist such that suitable quality housing is built - there are numerous market problems here, so leaving it to the market will not end with a high quality building stock. Performance regulations are too lax by a long way, not too strict.
>> Environmental Impact Review Does that fit under performance standards of the quality of the build?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course a disincentive to sell will be created by your proposal! Any lien that comes close to offsetting or canceling out the owner's gain will do that. The lien doesn't have to exceed the gain to create a disincentive. Why would anyone sell for little to no gain? Any time the potential gain is decreased, a disincentive to sell is created. Furthermore, not only does this create a disincentive to sell, it also creat…
Actually the people who would feel the disincentive most strongly are speculators. Those are the people we want to discourage. The whole point is to slow the growth of prices, by giving cities an incentive to increase supply. Higher prices are the biggest disincentive to purchasers.
[1] Who would have expected Florida to be the same one on anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. disincentivizes cities from adding low-density housing Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. But for multi-family high rises different cities have a number of additional requirements. Minimum parking spaces, minimum number of feet from the sidewalk, minimum footage of "green zones" consisting of lawns or trees -…
> Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. Combine with earthquake regulations essentially limiting buildings to a small number of stories and ScottBurson's comment is pretty spot-on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?
Not at all. Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. "Correct" is just short-hand for getting what we as a society want out of our water distribution system. Like, we don't want to use so much water that a river runs dry and kills all the fish in it, even if it means selling a few million dollars more worth of water.
Some context [1] on what "profit maximization" we're offering to say Nestle... "the permit that Nestle uses to operate its water pipeline in the San Bernardino national forest costs just $524 (£357) a year.". Sounds like a racket to me...
The more prohibitively expensive California (and the Bay Area in particular) becomes, the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere, and I expect this trend to continue, perhaps even accelerate, in the future. There are advantages to having a single, super-dense concentration of business, marketing, and engineering talent but there are also (in my opin…
I agree with you, that it can help to have things spread apart. But, the competition for talent isn't nearly as high as people say it is. I still see companies trying to set up shop in SF and palo alto. VCs still prefer having companies in SV, even if it means double the labor cost. There's a slow migration of a few companies setting up satelite shops outside of the bay area, but it's not a mass migration. So even wi…
I don't know yet of any places that have the necessary combination of both favorable policies for tech and sufficient differences from SF/SV in order for another focal point to form.
P.S. I really do hope the idea of a YC city ends up being executed on in the near future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sale price of the house doesn't matter; it could sell for $100k or $900k, the builder is still out the $50k or more they paid out in fees. Which was most likely passed on to the buyer and I bet the mortgage companies have no complaint.
So what, its probably less than 10%, which is less than the sales taxes on most other things being purchased. We could just as well complain about the profit the builder is making, which is likely a lot more given how much most sub contractors are making. Its sounds like a big number until you consider the final cost, aka everything is relative, it would be a much bigger deal if the houses were selling for $100k beca…
If $50k is 10%, that means it's a half million dollar house. That may not be much by comparison to housing stock in California, but there are very few places where that's considered "entry level."
> you’re in the hole by at least $50,000 before you even put a shovel in the ground So, the equivalent of people's downpayment in the rest of the country is lost to regulation. That's insane.
The national average is $21k, so really it's $29k you're out over what the rest of the country charges. Which is not ideal, but on a $600k+ ($29k is 5% or less) home, let alone a $1m home, that simply isn't the primary cost driver. ======== The whole article seems like it's poorly written or actively attempting to mislead. It's not until 1/2 way through that you learn: Prop 13 stymies local tax increases, which means…
Because the authors hope you never read that far.
I was 15 when Prop 13 passed. My feeling back then was that despite the spouted wisdom of the adults around me that Prop 13
1. Wouldn't 'force the government to cut wasteful spending' Which is to say the government doesn't spend money on anything that doesn't have a powerful interest group behind it. Wave your arms as much as you want but those people aren't going to go away.
2. The government would make up for lost tax revenue by imposing nickel and dime fees on everything.
3. Also raise fines for just about any small infraction.
4. #2 & #3 being less efficient ways to raise revenue would lead in increases in government spending.
5. Wouldn't make housing more affordable, but instead would create a two classes winners and losers.
#5 is because of my belief that housing prices reflect how much people have to spend minus costs like maintenance and taxes, divided by the interest rate. Reduce taxes and the price just goes up. Bonus, local tax revenue tends to stay in the local economy creating local demand. Interest on debt is paid to the bond holders few of which are local.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we go from waiting to doing?
There's not a great answer that isn't "Convince the government to spend tons of money on it" I feel like. Desalination is FAR more expensive than doing what we're currently doing (that is, getting it fresh to start). Until that balance tips it's unlikely we'd invest into desalination heavily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually the people who would feel the disincentive most strongly are speculators. Those are the people we want to discourage. The whole point is to slow the growth of prices, by giving cities an incentive to increase supply. Higher prices are the biggest disincentive to purchasers.
I have brought this up in multiple Prop 13 discussions, including I think the one you are referring to where you pitched your proposal. My opinion is that the proper fix for Prop 13 is to modify it to match Florida's much saner[1] practice of only providing the appreciation cap to owner-occupied primary residences. That speculators, investors, and landlords get to benefit from taxable value caps is bullshit, IMNSHO.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. disincentivizes cities from adding low-density housing Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. But for multi-family high rises different cities have a number of additional requirements. Minimum parking spaces, minimum number of feet from the sidewalk, minimum footage of "green zones" consisting of lawns or trees -…
> Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. Combine with earthquake regulations essentially limiting buildings to a small number of stories and ScottBurson's comment is pretty spot-on.