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

A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#91

Post by jrm415 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #13
matchbok wrote: post #9

Seems like it could work. Nonsense local policies to encourage "affordable" housing like inclusionary zoning have been huge failures. In big cities, we just need way more housing. Yet NIMBYs fight it at every step, esp in SF.

Local policies actually make a lot of sense in most places, as most places have unique concerns. In Madison Wisconsin there were, for a long time, policies that tended to discourage building on the main east-side thoroughfare. Over time, no one really remembered why those policies, some of which one might construe as "inclusionary zoning", were in place. So we jumped on the urban development bandwagon. We were "All I…

Yes, it's good to be mindful of Chesterson's Fence [0]. We should understand the reasons for policies before changing them. In many cases, we understand the reasons for exclusionary zoning; they're repulsive, and they should be changed.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#92

Post by afpx »

One thing to note is that it’s the land itself that appreciates. The housing built on top of it generally doesn’t. That is, structures generally depreciate unless labor and material costs rise significantly.

So, why not cap the profits that can be gained from squatting on land? Or increase taxes on under-utilized land? Then, wouldn’t land owners have incentive to build more housing?

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#93

Post by notJim »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #45

As with most things, engineering a blunt policy solution will lead to unintended consequences. If this proposal goes into effect, by clobbering local zoning codes, anything with sufficient money behind it is going to get built. This typically means projects that optimize for the developer's ability to extract rent from residents: 3 or 4-story apartments with small unit sizes, basic finishes made to aesthetically look…

This is right, and this is the problem with solely YIMBY/market urbanist approaches to housing. Developers will all chase tech workers who can pay significantly more money for housing, and the housing market is segmented enough that it doesn't really free up housing at the low end. See this article for more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-expensive...

We do need to build housing, but it can't all be "luxury" housing.

This should be familiar to people because it's happening in the commercial space, too. It's the same thing as when storefronts would rather sit empty and waiting for a Chase Bank to come along than accept the lower rents from some other shop. The Chase Bank will pay far more in rent.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#94

Post by rustcharm »

matchbok wrote: post #9

Seems like it could work. Nonsense local policies to encourage "affordable" housing like inclusionary zoning have been huge failures. In big cities, we just need way more housing. Yet NIMBYs fight it at every step, esp in SF.

In Palo Alto, California, the people there would consider themselves "progressive." Yet they only will accept below market-rate housing if they can hand-pick the "right" people. This, IMHO, is disgusting, blatant, racism.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/04/17/supervisors-s...

(And it's another way to pay people off-the-books and under-the table in the form of discounted housing. In theory, the discount is taxable income when it's provided because of employment, but good luck getting _these_ people to pay up.)

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#95

Post by chrisco255 »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #79
ende wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal). States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.

Won't happen. The Nimbys have all of the money and can influence the votes in extraordinary ways. Look at Seattle, they won't budge and we have an enormous amount of single family housing. Our mayor is also nearly entirely useless as well, and seemingly only cares about sports teams. The amount of propaganda that would be pushed out to crush any changes to zoning would be on historic levels.

Depends on the state. Some states are pro-growth, some are not.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#96

Post by grandmczeb »

joecot wrote: post #70
grandmczeb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HUD grants are a major source of funding for things like fighting homelessness. The city could decline them, but they would have to make up the difference.

Would they though? Are cities required to make up the difference? Problem: cities are artificially keeping housing prices up, pushing lower income people out in favor of the upper class. The housing market is forcing lower income people out of cities. Solution: tell cities they have to stop artificially keeping housing prices up, or the federal government will stop subsidizing low income housing and subsidized loans.…

There’s a pretty clear political mandate in SF to provide things like healthcare and housing for the homeless, part of which is paid for by HUD. If a large chunk of that budget went away, I doubt voters would want to cut services, so the city would have to make it up themselves.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#97

Post by flomo »

s0rce wrote: post #18
ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t just add in “moar housing” in a vacuum and declare mission accomplished. Let’s say SF doubled its housing. Where are all these new residents going to park? So, now it’s housing and parking that needs to be fixed. Assume none of these new residents have cars? Ok now it’s housing and public transit that needs to be fixed. Where are their kids going to go to school? So we need more school capacity, too. How mu…

Chicken-egg problem though. If you say transit doesn't go places or doesn't run often people claim the density is too low and we need more people to use it. Can't have the same excuses just used to block everything. Just start building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes, multi-level parking garages, better utilities.

Problem is it takes forever for the egg to hatch.

SF Central Stubway took 20 years to construct and will take another 20 years to reach the wharf. Caltrain DTX has been in planning for 20 years, construction probably won't start until 2030s. Geary BART has been talked about since the 1960s with no motion. Second transbay tube is needed, no specific plans yet. Muni Metro is at capacity with no plans to fix.

So you can build a lot of housing and tell people to deal, but they may be retired or dead before it gets fixed.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#98

Post by rpedela »

afpx wrote: post #92

One thing to note is that it’s the land itself that appreciates. The housing built on top of it generally doesn’t. That is, structures generally depreciate unless labor and material costs rise significantly. So, why not cap the profits that can be gained from squatting on land? Or increase taxes on under-utilized land? Then, wouldn’t land owners have incentive to build more housing?

Maybe that would help in less developed areas, but I doubt it would work in a place like Boulder, CO. Boulder rent just keeps getting more and more expensive. There are several reasons for this but most of the land is being used already. Changing zoning laws to have more mixed residential, office, and retail would probably help.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#99

Post by oliwarner »

xvedejas wrote: post #3

In Japan, zoning is handled federally; and the result is much more affordable cities. "Why Tokyo is the land of rising home construction but not prices" https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3... An overview of zoning practices there: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

Housing in Japan is culturally unique. The average house depreciates completely after just 22 years. People just don't buy used houses.

It's folly to compare zoning rules when the spirit of the law is so different.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#100

Post by darksaints »

afpx wrote: post #92

One thing to note is that it’s the land itself that appreciates. The housing built on top of it generally doesn’t. That is, structures generally depreciate unless labor and material costs rise significantly. So, why not cap the profits that can be gained from squatting on land? Or increase taxes on under-utilized land? Then, wouldn’t land owners have incentive to build more housing?

Density-restrictive zoning increases our demand for land.

I, for example, only need about 1000sf of living space. In city where the minimum lot size is 3000sf and maximum FAR is 30%, my demand for land is 3000sf. However, in a city where 12 story buildings are abundant, my demand for land is only about 100sf, including proportionally allocated common area space.

By not allowing dense housing, city zoning codes are making affordability illegal by statute.

Post reply on HN